It is so very important we teach our children the true nature of American democratic government. Now it is possible to do this in the privacy of your own home. There are many simple exercises that can illustrate to a childs mind the principles upon which our great democracy operates. As I, you may find these useful in the proper rearing of children so I thought I would share. Offer him, say, $10 to mow the lawn. When he has mowed it and asks to be paid, withhold $5 and explain that this is income tax. Give $1 of this to his younger brother, who has done nothing to deserve it and tell him this is "fair" because the younger brother needs money too. Also explain that you need the other $4 yourself to cover the administrative costs of dividing the money and for various other things you need. Make him place his $5 in a savings account over which you have authority. Explain that if he is ever naughty, you will remove the money from the account without asking him. Also explain how you will be taking most of the interest he earns on that money, without his permission. Mention that if he tries to hide the money, this, in itself, will be evidence of wrongdoing and will result in you automatically taking the money from him.

Conduct random searches of his room in the wee hours of the morning. Burst in unannounced. Go through all of his drawers and pockets. If he questions this, tell him you are acting on a tip-off from a friend of his who casually mentioned that the two of them had both earned a bit of spare cash last week. If you find it, confiscate all of that money and also take his stereo and television. Tell him you are selling these and keeping the money to compensate you for having to make the raid. Also lock him in his room for a month as further punishment. When he cries at the injustice of this, tell him he is being "selfish" and "greedy" and only interested in looking after his own happiness. Explain that he should learn to sacrifice his own happiness for other people and that since he cant be relied upon or trusted to do this voluntarily, you will use force to ensure he complies. Later in life he will thank you.

Make as many rules as possible. Leave the reasons for them obscure. Enforce them arbitrarily. Accuse your child of breaking rules you have never told him about and carefully explain that ignorance of your rules is not an excuse for breaking them. Keep him anxious that he may be violating commands you havent issued yet. Instill in him the feeling that rules are utterly irrational. This will prepare him for living under a democratic government.

He is still too young to understand the benefits of democracy, so explain this wonderful system as follows: You, your wife and his brother get together and vote that your son should have all privileges removed, be beaten and confined to his room for a week. If he protests that you are violating his rights, patiently explain his error and tell him that the majority have voted for this punishment and nothing matters except the will of the majority.

When your child has matured sufficiently to understand how the judicial system works, set a bedtime for him of, say, 10 p.m. and then send him to bed at 9 p.m. When he tearfully accuses you of breaking the rules, explain that you made the rules and you can interpret them in any way that seems appropriate to you, according to changing conditions.

Promise often to take him to the zoo, movie or ballgame and then, at the appointed hour, recline in an easy chair with the newspaper and tell him you changed your mind. When he screams, "but you promised!" explain to him that it was a campaign promise and hence meaningless.

Every so often, slap your child without warning. Then explain that this is self-defense. Tell him that he must be vigilant at all times to stop any potential enemy before he gets big enough to hurt you. This, too, your child will appreciate. Perhaps not at this moment but certainly later in life when raising his own children.

Drink a bottle of whiskey and then lecture him on the evils of smoking dope. If he points out your hypocrisy remind him that the majority of people drink and that, as already explained, the needs of the majority are the only moral standard.

Break up any meeting, party or social event between he and more than three of his friends as being an "unlawful gathering".

If he strokes the cat without the cat giving its express permission, slap him viciously for feline harassment.

Mark one designated spot in the yard where he can park his bike. If he leaves it anywhere else, padlock it and demand $50 to release it. If he offends more than three times, confiscate the bike, sell it and keep the money.

Install a hidden video system in your sons bedroom and also record all his telephone conversations. If he protests, accuse him of having something to hide. Explain that only criminals seek privacy and that good, dutiful children relinquish their privacy in exchange for the advantages which protective parenthood offers. Remind him of the boy across town who was caught smoking dope in his bedroom by just such a hidden system and explain that the case justifies putting such systems in all teenagers bedrooms.

Lie to your child constantly. Teach him that words mean nothing, or rather that the meanings of words are continually "evolving" and tomorrow may be the opposite of what they are today.

Have a word with his teachers at school and ask them to share any merit marks your child achieves with the ethnic minority students who did not earn merit marks. If he questions this, explain that long ago we abused the ancestors of these peoples, and so it is only fair that he shares the merits around to compensate their descendants. This is also probably a good time to tell him that his energy, talents and enthusiasm will not secure him a job if the quota of such abused peoples has not yet been filled. Tell him talent stands for nothing, it is fairness and sharing which are important. Remind him that his primary duty is the happiness and welfare of people he does not know and will never meet.

Ban cutlery from your home and make your son eat with his hands. If he asks why, remind him of the youth who stabbed a cat to death last week with a fork. Explain that if just one cat is saved by the banning of cutlery, then this prohibition will be worthwhile. If he protests, question him closely about why he is intending to kill innocent cats, or why he is a cat hater.

Issue him a pass card which he must show before entering the home. Stand guard at the door. When he comes home, politely but firmly take him into the spare room and question him about his movements. Ask him how much cash he has on his person. If in excess of $50, confiscate the lot as it exceeds the house rule for maximum cash allowed. Then search his pockets and backpack. To keep him guessing, perform the occasional strip search. If he protests, detain him for longer and make the search more intrusive. If he gets really angry at this, lock him in his room and cause him to miss his next party or outing.

Obviously, were you to perform these exercises with your child, they would be removed from your care and you would be placed in prison for abuse. Isnt it about time our government stopped abusing the children of their household?

ANONYMOUS

-- NEEDS TO BE READ (teachyourchildren@well.com), February 12, 2000

Answers

Dear Teach Your Children Well -

Thank you.....AND

this is NOT a Democracy. Democracy is MOB-OCRACY Democracy is: 51% of the people can vote to take away 49% of the others rights.

We do NOT say, "I pledge aliegence, to the democracy, of the..."

we DO say, "I pledge aliegence to THE REPUBLIC of the United States of America."

A REBUBLIC is a form of governmental arrangement where PRINCIPLES OF LAW are *enumerated* in a Constitution, which is SUPREME, i.e. "No man is above the Law".

An Army training manual listed democracy as "one of the most unstable and sure-to-fail arrangements of all governmental structures." They study history too ya know.

If you want to teach your children well, then do YOUR homework well...as well. Set an example for them.

Here is your next homework assignment, and see if I am wrong about all this:

http://www.bashar.com/GSP/sovereign.htm

Now, forgive me for reacting to your one word above, and I'll finish reading your article above. I'm sure it has a lot of good points. But whenever you hear a politician say "our democracy"...you should cringe; then VOTE them out of office....for that is Orwell's double speak, and it is VERY dangerous to not KNOW the difference between the two, and is a CLEAR tip-off that these left over, use car salesmen "politician lawyer CPA's" are absolutely CLUELESS as to what our Constitutional Republic is about.

"Eternal Vigilance"

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?com), February 12, 2000.

Dear Anon and "Poster"

KILLER article. Brilliant.

Well done. (smile)

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?com), February 12, 2000.

A lot of anger here, and it sounds like you feel powerless.

We clearly have room, as a self-governing society, for improvement.

I'm curious--who do you feel has done government better, and to what greener pastures are you planning to go?

Ultimately, it's not "the system"; it's the people. When I look around, I like the average American better'n the average any other citizen. But hey, I'm ImSo.

-- Imso (lame@prepped.com), February 12, 2000.

Gubmint is answer....Vote for: Bush,McCain,Gore,Bradley,Forbes,Keyes,whoever....same guy, same system......sheesh...WAKE UP!!!!!!

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 12, 2000.

You may also want to add, if he doesn't report all of his earnings, you will share information about him with foreign governments. And you'll call this the Privcy Act Notice 609 ( It's for real folks, look it up)

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 12, 2000.

Why would you want to teach Democracy/Socialism/Communism? We're supposed to be a Republic. Teach your children something worthwhile at the following site:

http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

-- GW (links2u@hotmail.com), February 12, 2000.

As soon as our kids reached 18 yrs., I took them to the Voter Registration Office. We feel very strongly that voting is important. It was rewarding to see them sign up and later vote. Their father is a Republican and I'm a Democrat. Politics makes strange bedfellows!

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 12, 2000.

Whoa!!! Hold on there, pardner! If you can lump Alan Keyes in with the rest of that motley crew of politicians, you obviously have not listened to him speak!

Mr. Keyes has the mettle and integrity that I can imagine George Washington and Abe Lincoln had. So if you want to change the system, go to www.keyes2000.org and do some studying. Then send some money to his campaign. But don't just whine 'they're all the same". They ain't!

-- Dan Meyers (duford@aol.com), February 12, 2000.

"I'm curious--who do you feel has done government better, and to what greener pastures are you planning to go? "

Our founding fathers, for one. I would like to live in a society governed the way they envisioned, and by the constitution they put together. A pipe dream, I suppose.

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 12, 2000.

I'm so glad we're not in a society like the one in that essay, yet! I had a couple other thoughts, too.

1. Self-rule requires self-control. The "son" in that article has two choices--grow up and use his parents' wrongdoing as an excuse to do the same himself, or set the example for his parents and children at the same time. The little boy today is the parent tomorrow.

2. In the same way, our government is us. The reason we have some corruption in government is because much of the pool from which government officials are drawn has itself been corrupted. Give someone with minor internal corruption some power, and soon you will see more obvious external corruption. No one thinks his own wrongdoing is serious, but that other guy...boy oh boy!!! And besides, if you can get away with it, why then, it must be okay.

Of course, there are some things that as an American I'm proud of: Bribery is still something to be hidden, showing that we're ashamed of it. And most will not yet openly condone activity such as keeping a mistress when you've promised to be faithful to your wife (and vice versa). We also race to help in foreign national disasters, despite knowing that the favor is unlikely to be returned. And while in this country, non-citizens still have a decent list of rights, legally.

I think we should also keep in mind that we stand on the shoulders of those who put back more than they received from the system, probably mostly people who never made it into the history books. And we should follow their example.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 12, 2000.

Dan I'm with you. I hope all the people in the front eat theirselves alive. I hope Alan stays in and people open their eyes. Let Freedom Ring!

-- ET (bneville@zebra.net), February 12, 2000.

In the same way, our government is us.

Maybe it's you; it certainly isn't me. I have no say in what it does, and do not approve of its actions. If it would just leave me alone, I would happily ignore it. Unfortunately, it won't.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), February 12, 2000.

I disagree with much that our government does, too.

However, to be "left alone" by government is really not an option, is it? When has that ever happened?

Anarchy results in "might makes right," destroying infrastructure and preventing progress. Soon no one is "left alone" except the emergent warlords, who soon take charge in the absence of government. Government is the control and restriction of certain behaviors, and the promotion of other behaviors.

When human beings have power, they tend to abuse it. Even children know that the child who divides the cake shouldn't get to choose which piece they get to eat. Concentrated power gives one the ability to divide the cake and also choose the piece he eats. Sharing that power as children do reduces abuse. In America, we are supposed to participate in our government, so that there will be sharing of power, and thus less opportunity for abuse.

I also consider making the right choices in one's personal life to be a contribution to self-government. I think that everyone who chooses what is wrong is affecting the future choices of those around them, and vice versa. The sum-total of our individual choices creates our culture and sense of what is okay and what is not. That either leads to destruction or to advancement.

What government officials can get away with in office is related to private morality. How can you prosecute leaders for something the general population accepts as normal? Our leaders come from the population at large in the first place. Public support for restrictive laws is also born when individual freedom is abused on a scale beyond what is tolerable to the population-at-large.

We don't have to participate in government officially, but at least we have the option in America. However, if too few among the people involved in government share our view, we will not be likely to prevail. The fact is, though, that no one can take away an individual's free will and ability to choose, only their freedom or life. Thus no one will have any excuse for their choices when they stand before their Maker.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 14, 2000.

Anarchy results in "might makes right," destroying infrastructure and preventing progress.

No, that's what government does.

Soon no one is "left alone" except the emergent warlords, who soon take charge in the absence of government.

Please name ONE occasion on which an armed citizenry was taken over by "emergent warlords".

Here's a clue: governments are not started by a number of people who decide voluntarily to give up their rights to a group called "government". They are started when one group is armed and another isn't; the armed ones take the others as slaves, and then eventually bamboozle them into thinking it's "for their own good". That's the stage we're at now.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 14, 2000.

I should clarify my last post here. I should have said that governments usually are formed by force by violent goons who are armed when others aren't. Sometimes (the American Constitutional Convention being one example) they are initially formed by elites who can fool the public into believing that it is "for their own good". Sorry for any confusion.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 14, 2000.

"Please name ONE occasion on which an armed citizenry was taken over by "emergent warlords"."

Somalia, end of Bush administration: The government was not strong enough to maintain order (that's anarchy). The citizens who had money were armed. Warlords nevertheless took over in the power vacuum.

Roman Empire: Corruption caused a weakening of Roman government so that a power vacuum developed. Citizens were either armed (Roman soldiers) or could have purchased weapons. Barbarians swept into the various areas successfully because they were better organized than the individual Roman citizens and had warlords providing "government". When an existing government becomes too weak, law and order break down, and thus organization breaks down. Warlords become the source of security, attracting most people who do have weapons (the others are isolated, so they're easily killed by the larger and more organized group), like when students side with the school bully both to avoid being his target and to get some of the lunch-money loot he filches. The "bully" can either rise from within the local population, or he can immigrate from the country next door. The bait is the power vacuum.

Check out an inner city for more current examples--anyplace where law enforcement officers don't go (because it's too dangerous and no one cares about those people anyway). They have warlords right now whose word is law in that area till another warlord takes him down.

Anyway, if you think handguns and rifles will stop our government if the military allows itself to be used against US citizens on a large scale, I would like to know how that is possible. I can't imagine it, and I was in the military for 4 years, 7 months. It seems to me that private citizens presently cannot compete with the support system our military has, and without that support system even a captured tank or airplane would soon be useless metal. The supply line is crucial, as is maintenance, for any of the really good stuff.

I think that the one thing an armed citizenry does, besides protect against the common criminal or terrorist, is hold hostage economic productivity in case of a coup (unless the population supports the coup, of course). If I were a potentially oppressive government official, I would think "Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?" Chechnya lost its independence once Russia really wanted it back, but it's not so pretty anymore.

Don't you think that an incipient despot in our government would take the easier path of convincing the people that they really want the new order of things?

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 15, 2000.

Somalia, end of Bush administration: The government was not strong enough to maintain order (that's anarchy). The citizens who had money were armed. Warlords nevertheless took over in the power vacuum.

That's not the information I've seen, which indicated that a "warlord" was someone with weapons. Maybe it was the quality of the weapons (machine gun vs. handgun/rifle), or maybe the training?

Roman Empire: Corruption caused a weakening of Roman government so that a power vacuum developed. Citizens were either armed (Roman soldiers) or could have purchased weapons.

Ah, but those weapons required a great deal of training and practice, as well as substantial muscular strength. Firearms, of course, require some training and practice, but much less. That's why they were referred to as "equalizers" in the Old West.

Check out an inner city for more current examples--anyplace where law enforcement officers don't go (because it's too dangerous and no one cares about those people anyway). They have warlords right now whose word is law in that area till another warlord takes him down.

But what do those inner cities have in common? Restrictive "victim disarmament" laws that prevent HONEST citizens from carrying defensive weapons, while criminals of course don't care about the laws. Get rid of those laws, and criminals will be put at a substantial disadvantage.

Anyway, if you think handguns and rifles will stop our government if the military allows itself to be used against US citizens on a large scale, I would like to know how that is possible. I can't imagine it, and I was in the military for 4 years, 7 months.

Thanks for pointing out why citizens need to be able to own ANY weapon that can be used for defensive purposes (as the 2nd amendment indicates).

However, even in the current unconstitutional environment with restrictions on citizens being able to defend themselves, the military would face a tremendous fight if they tried to take over the country completely. They might also revolt if asked to kill their fellow citizens, especially if it were personally dangerous to do so. That's why those in power want to make sure that the citizenry is completely disarmed before they launch their final takeover.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 15, 2000.

Don't you think that an incipient despot in our government would take the easier path of convincing the people that they really want the new order of things?

Of course. But you need to change "would take" to "has been taking"; it's not hypothetical.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 15, 2000.

Don't you think that an incipient despot in our government would take the easier path of convincing the people that they really want the new order of things?

"Of course. But you need to change "would take" to "has been taking"; it's not hypothetical. "

I realize they have been doing this. I just don't think anyone has got enough "Brave New World"-type thought control that they can presently take over. And with the innovation occuring in education, it seems to me that they may even be losing ground here and there.

Furthermore, I don't think the military would yet put up with widespread use in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act without some drastic change that made it seem okay--like a meteor strike ala "Deep Impact" and the concomitant death of large percentages of the population, or if large percentages of the citizenry start slaughtering their neighbors ala Columbine.

The battle over the country's direction is in full swing, and not just in the political arena, but also in the arena of personal choices being made, especially by teenagers and young adults--one side hasn't won by any means.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 15, 2000.

S. Kohl:

I don't disagree with your points, except that I think the brainwashing has been more effective than you do. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 16, 2000.

I have read that it was about 5% of the population that threw off the yolk of English rule. What is so sad, in my opinion, is that we now have probably only 5% of 5% of the population that would be willing to pledge their lives, liberty, and posterity to secure freedom.

In response to those who think that our armed forces would be invincible in a civil war, consider that there are only a couple of million of them and multiple millions of us. Their high-tech goodies are not enough to make up the difference. Consider the US in Viet Nam and the Russians in Afganistan. A determined populace on its own home ground can often overcome agressors, regardless of the apparent imbalance in capabilities.

And, of course, there is the "Unintended Consequences" solution to bad government.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), February 16, 2000.

What "innovations" in education are you talking about? I have 3 teenagers here in Idaho and its the same ole "best rote count memorizers and teachers butt kissers get the best grades" system.

They squelch out (and even punish) any who express an honest opinion that isnt within the status quo. Original thought is frowned upon.

stay within the lines and make no suggestions that we havent programmed into you. I have seen kids suspended for a writing assignment that expressed a viewpoint that disturbed a teacher, no discussion or honest discourse was involved they just kick em out for a few days and let em think about it.

There is a cop at every jr. and sr. high every day! And this is a rural area. If that is innovative, I grossly misunderstand the meaning of the word.

The view from here,

Laurie

-- Laurie (laurelayn@yahoo.net), February 16, 2000.

George wrote: "In response to those who think that our armed forces would be invincible in a civil war, consider that there are only a couple of million of them and multiple millions of us. Their high-tech goodies are not enough to make up the difference."

It's not just a numbers thing. A lot of hostages can be held by only a few people. A few can win against many if they have better strategy/tactics, a more appropriate mindset, better weapons, or the intervention of God. Oppressive governments are usually outnumbered by the population, aren't they? How did Stalin stay in power? A special forces unit can take out a larger group. And our whole military concept is based upon "force multipliers," not on outnumbering the enemy.

Does the private citizen have what is required to accomplish victory against our military, if they became a domestic tool for oppression? I am very skeptical.

George wrote: "Consider the US in Viet Nam and the Russians in Afganistan. A determined populace on its own home ground can often overcome agressors, regardless of the apparent imbalance in capabilities."

First of all, we never committed to victory in Vietnam. We were half-hearted--how much of our military did we use there? We didn't have a goal there worth losing our lives for (nowadays, as in the Vietnam-like Kosovo situation, we just bomb from the safety of the skies). And speaking of goals, what exactly was our goal in Vietnam? Hmmm...maybe that was our problem?

Anyway, we're not talking about an invasion at all, as occurred in Vietnam or Afganistan. The military/government here would also be on its home ground, not just the citizenry. That's what a civil war is about. Civil war is horrible.

Another thought: Hardship makes you tougher, an easy life makes you softer. Mental toughness is neccesary to keep from giving up under duress. Civilian Americans have an easy life. So it could be that they're not currently mentally tough. I myself am much different, mentally, from what I was like in the military--that's what being a civilian is about and why it makes a difference. There is also the matter of discipline and control, which civilians don't accept because they're used to having all their rights--soldiers suspend some of their rights to better achieve the military's goals. The military is not a Republic and is very structured.

Besides that, I wonder if Americans at-large are determined and willing to die for freedom? We won't know until the time comes (if it does, and for whatever reason) what is inside our population.

I think that a few militia against the government/military will lose, currently, because the government has the population's support. If the government retains the support of the people during a coup, the people will turn in the militia themselves. Are you going to shoot up the population as traitors to YOUR ideals, in that case? Because then you'd become the despot.

If Americans as a group decide to exchange freedom for slavery, isn't that their right? That is the path chosen anyway if the population decides NOT to rule itself, but to pursue hedonistic self-gratification instead, merely trying to get away with whatever they can whether it's illegal or not, whether it's right or not, just because they can. And there are some wrong things that are currently legal, too, just like slavery was, so thinking and good judgement is required to choose what is to be done, which is not easy.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 17, 2000.

Laurie wrote: "What "innovations" in education are you talking about?"

Well, the innovations include private schools, charter schools, vouchers allowing parents to choose between local public schools (open enrollment?), and homeschooling, to name a few.

My favorite is homeschooling, though that does take quite a commitment, and obviously is not for everyone in every circumstance. Actually, all of the innovations currently going on in education require noticeable sacrifice in some way on the part of someone, whether it is the parent, or whether it is someone else, putting in their energy/money to explore and develop the options for not only their own kids, but for others' kids (scholarships given to children from inner-city schools by wealthy people, etc.).

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 17, 2000.