“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” ― Confucius
[The following appears to be the original phraseology used by Confucius which forms the basis of the above-mentioned aphorism.]
“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.
When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.
When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
SOURCE:
https://china.usc.edu/confucius-analects-13
DEFINITION:
Terracracy aka Territocracy is defined as form of a representative republican form of government which derives its just powers from the size of the landmass with the number of representatives in the great halls of federal legislative, executive and judicial branches controlled by the size of the landmass and not by the number of people who live on that land.
A territocratic government also derives its power by the consent of the governed just like a democratic government– BUT the relative value of the consent of the governed depends on where you live on the land mass (“terra”) .
If 83% of a structure is made up of iron and 17% copper and if you have only two choices to call it – iron or copper – and no calling it an alloy of iron and copper or fancy names as “irocop” are not an option - Would you call it iron or copper?
If 83% of a structure is made up of material is called terracracy and 17% is called democracy and if you have only two choices to refer to it– terracracy or democracy – and no calling it an alloy of terracracy and democracy or fancy names as “demoterracracy” are not valid options -
Would you call it terracracy or democracy?
The first step in the analysis of my claim that we live in terracracy or territocracy is to ask ourself the following question.
How much each of three branches derives its powers from democracy and how much of that power comes terracracy?
83.3% of US Federal Government is based terracracy not democracy.
And the argument both at the time of framing of the constitution and now in favor of terracracy over democracy is to “prevent the tyranny of the majority over minority.”
I believe a ratio of 83:17 :: terracracy: democracy is the opposite - “tyranny of the minority over majority.”
Let us look at the three branches and see how they derive their constitutionally granted powers from terracracy and not democracy.
TERROCRACY/TERRITOCRACY
83% = I. 16.7 %. (U.S. Senate) PLUS II. Presidency 33.3%. PLUS III. Federal Judiciary 33.3% (controlled by I & II, [if in doubt ask AG Merrick Garland])
DEMOCRACY: 17% = House of Representatives.
For an average citizen in the general populace, who I would go out on a limb and claim that for 85% of the every voter age male female or otherwise, the word democracy means the person who gets the majority votes wins even if it means by a single vote or by a few hundred or few thousand votes.
People try to parse and nuance the word democracy and claim that there are several variants of democracy like direct democracy and representative democracy. In the sense direct democracy means the populace elects one single person to lead and govern and representative democracy meaning that a representative is elected by the people who along with similarly elected representatives from other geographic constituencies of the country meet in an official capacity in a body such as the House of Representatives and make legislative acts.
No one, no one in this day and age equates direct democracy as all the people in the town meet at the town hall and elect their leader.
The only difference in the minds of the super majority of the citizens between direct democracy and representative democracy is whether they are voting to elect a person to lead the nation as a whole or if they are electing a person to represent their congressional district or state as either their congressman or senator.
That's it, that is where the current understanding of what the words democracy, direct democracy and representative democracy starts and ends for the super majority of the citizenry.
To offer alternative theoretical definitions and parse these words is not necessary to impart a substantial improvement and refinement of the meaning of the words and any such endeavor to do so will not result in superior outcomes for the very concept of democracy.
The first three articles of the Constitution are overwhelmingly anti-majoritarian.
The practical reason offered for such construction and drafting is that was what the framers thought was needed for it to get ratified in 1789 as a compromise that the southern states wont feel outnumbered and outgunned by more populous northern states.
The philosophical reasoning offered is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
Preventing the tyranny of the majority over the minority is a noble goal and the constitution did an unparalleled job towards that goal.
The issue is not whether there should be inherent built in mechanisms such as those in the constitution. There should be. If the three branches of the Federal government are treated as one wholesome 100% structure.., what percentage of such a structure needs be in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Is 33% good enough, or shall we do need 66% to protect the rights of the minority. Turns out that a full 83% of this power structure was put in to place as a shield for the minority against the majority tyranny.
If a minority of the citizenry can control 83% of the federal government, are we still talking about democracy?
We have whizzed past the town of democracy about 230 years ago and have been living in terracracy town since then. We have not realized that we did not stop in democracy town or we were never in democracy town ever.
When the minority has 83% say on what the majority has to do and live with, the tables have reversed and it is now effectively the tyranny of the minority over the majority.
And where does the minority of citizenry gain such disproportionate influence, it by the way of the land they live and walk on., i.e., terra firma., and therefore the name of the form of the government we have is terracracy as terra is the source of the power not people as that would be in democracy.
I am not advocating for wholesale abandonment of our constitution and its two hundred plus years of relative success in sustaining this experiment. I call it relative success because the answer may not be that it was a resounding great success if you ask the Five Great Tribes that were removed to Oklahoma in a trail of tears or the majority of the African Americans.
But that is an issue which merits its own debate and not in terracracy v. democracy debate.
But the time has come to stop deluding ourselves that we live in a democracy or some form very closely analogous to it.
if 39 million US citizens have two senators if they happen to live in California and another group of 39 million US citizens who do not live in California have 24 senators to represent them; is it still democracy.
call it what it is, i.e., “terracracy.”
And some may argue that House of Representatives have equal representation no matter where one lives. The power of a Senator to affect the outcomes of legislative efforts, judicial appointments, appointment of ambassadors, appointment to the offices in the executive branch is no where close to a member of the house. A single senator can stand up and speak till the world ends or until cloture and can block a legislative piece forever.
Something has to change to end the terracracy which I hate to associate and call it so but with some hesitation want to call it “the regime of terrorcracy by the terracracy”
And for the critics of true democracy who take the route of “democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner” I contented that it is a fallacious and dangerous oversimplification of a complex issue.