Benjamin Disraeli Quote

"If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of the public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of the public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valueable, and your freedom less complete."

by:	Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) Prime Minister of England, British statesman, novelist
Source:	Speech in the House of Commons, March 31, 1850
Rating:
Categories:	Authority, Debt, Democracy, Freedom, Independence, Peace, Property, Reason, War
	Tweet

Disraeli as continued to be one of the most quotable UK Prime Ministers  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Reflects the times we live in.  -- Anonymous      2
Obviously he is kissing his Queen's behind. Kingdoms have all had the same problems Disraeli is stating here. He apparently never heard of King John and his nemesis Robin Hood or of Lady Godiva's ride which had something to do with taxes also.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas      5
-- Logan, Memphis, TN
Great lets get us a dictator. Then we can have the same thing that this quote is worried about with no way to change it. At least we could blame it all on the dictator and not our choices. Wonder if he would have liked Adolph.  -- warren, olathe      2
Waffler, in the de jure States united, each man and woman was to be an individual sovereign king and queen to their secular employees. Disraeli's here quote was extremely kind when explaining what democracy brings about. Warren's statement of passing the buck - blaming others instead of standing up for choosing a democracy - fits in well with those that choose a democracy (cowards hiding behind a herd mentality - incapable of existence without the condition of being a helot, serf or slave). Democracy is what the founders of the USA feared more than any other type of government. Knowledge of dictators, democracies and other forms of administration was one reason why a form of representative republic was chosen. Democracy is mob rule with no recognition of natural law, individual rights or personal sovereignty. The republican form of politic administration chosen originally recognized, and was based on, the laws of nature and of nature's God, individual rights and personal sovereignty (long sense replaced by a tyrannical religion of socialism - a statist theocracy)  -- Mike, Norwalk      5
Mike, you are right in every way here.  -- cal, Lewisville, Tx      3
Mike, trying to educate Waffler is like trying to teach a pig to whistle. It's impossible and only annoys the pig.  -- Jim K, Austin      3
Is Disraeli suggesting a republican form of government? Probably not. England is still a monarchy, and is part of a global kingdom that includes all of the British Commonwealths around the world -- they may call themselves 'independent,' but the Queen is on the currency and the British Crown is the Head of State of each of them. In 'Defense of Constitutions', John Adams does a marvelous job of explaining the balance of power between the monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic. Giving historical examples of various governments of the past, Adams demonstrated that all governments were a combination of the 3 -- should power be concentrated in any one, certain societal ills would soon follow. When the power is concentrated with the monarchical power, you get a king, dictator, or even an elected president that holds sway over the other branches. When the power is concentrated with the aristocracy, you get an oligarchy -- like the Senate in Rome without a Caesar, a communist nation governed by council, or a central bank that regulates the wealth (debt) of a nation. When the democratic power dominates, there is anarchy -- the masses vote away the power and wealth of those that have it, but in an attempt to put it into their own hands, their administrators and military keep it for themselves to dish out as they see fit. Most governments are a combination of the three in some form or another -- and battlefronts abound where these powers are in conflict. The American system of government was an attempt to balance these three powers, each checking the power of the other, with the unique exception that an American was not a subject of another -- no Earthly master has been ordained to lord over him/her. He/She is and must be responsible for oneself first, and by collective agreement we call Constitutions, we have formed administrative bodies to manage some of the collective projects we have agreed to do according to the rules of the Constitutions. But not everything is up to a vote! Some things have to be unanimous or no go! Like the American Revolution, or a jury's guilty verdict. You cannot vote your opposition into submission. Either you have agreement, or you do not -- to violate that is criminal. The American citizen is sovereign over himself and his property like any other king in Europe, with the exception that he/she has no subjects -- and the power of each 'sovereign' is kept in check by all the other fellow sovereigns who have by collective agreement delineated the terms by which collective decisions about the commonwealth can be made. Like a club with a charter, the members voluntarily agree to join -- no one can be voted in against their will. And the club cannot enforce any of their rules upon anyone who has not agreed to them -- therefore their 'jurisdiction' is limited by what has been granted by those that have chartered the club. The President was supposed to represent the monarchical power, the Senate the aristocracy, and the House of Representatives the democracy. Keeping in mind that each State represents a sovereign republic of its own, a similar constitution is followed -- all collective power originates from the sovereign individual's power and responsibility, with all of his 'inalienable,' natural born rights to forage and hunt to survive, to defend himself against predators, and to associate with others freely. Not born in a vacuum obviously, people have families and devote much of their efforts to family needs. In addition to families, they form 'clubs' in which they pool their resources to tackle these challenges together. At the same time, none wish to give up their rights to be responsible for themselves as a price for working with others -- except perhaps those that do not wish the responsibility, merging with the group allows one to take a little more than one puts in without a lot of notice. So far, so good, as long as the group respects the rights of the members and non-members alike, and uses its collective power (which can be substantial) honorably and according to the terms of the club charter. Any violation of the rights of others due to power being exercised outside of the limits set forth by the agreed upon charter can be treated as a criminal offense. Now what is to prevent the group to vote to take someone else's wealth? What protection does the individual have against the passions of a mob? Among 100 million American voters, how many know anything about administering a government, or about law, or about economics, or war? The electoral college is proof that the States themselves were to vote on President, and the electors were picked by State governments in their own fashion. In the House of Representatives, the 'democrat' has his playing field. There bills may be proposed and voted on -- but acts voted upon must still fit within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Congress -- not everything is within their jurisdiction! So, no, Warren, a republican form of government is not a dictatorship nor is it a democracy. And Waffler, well, you have something more to chew on. You can't be blamed for your identification with 'democracy' -- the propagandists have been promoting this 'sound bite' for as long as they have had the ear of the populace, with frequently the 'rich' being the touted as the enemy. See the above for the reason. ;-) Americans have never completely applied these principles yet in their government, and the social conflict and societal ills will continue to reflect that hypocrisy until it is corrected. Democracy is not the answer in and of itself, but assuredly if we align ourselves on the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence, there will be no need for a vote to do the right thing, most will just do it! ;-)  -- E Archer, NYC      4
-- Ronw13, OR
WWG1WGA MAGA and the Restoration move in the right direction.   -- Ronw13, OR
What Whole-Out Democracy Will Destructively Reap!  -- Mary, MI      1

Tweet  Rate this quote! How many stars? 0 1 2 3 4 5	What do YOU think?
Your name:	Your town:     CLICK JUST ONCE!

Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email: