Originally posted by cloud
we are not a democracy, just a federal republic. my us history teacher explained this to my old class in detail, not the mention the supposed dream
where the o.g. g.w. had a dream with an angel that called him the 'son of the republic.' do research into democracy. it'll never work.
I would agree with your teacher in part, but not entirely. It is true that the US is a federal republic, but it is also a democratic one.
On first glance, “democracy” and “liberty” appear to opposites, and seem hostile to each other. Democracy can become a “mob rules” scenario, and
absolute democracy is not good idea; our forefathers called it the “tyranny of the majority”.
On the other hand, absolute liberty is anarchy, with no regard for one’s responsibility to society and community.
Modern western republics generally derive their political science from one of two philosophers: John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The US is based
on the Locke model. Locke said democracy was important in electing leaders, but that individual liberty is more important than the common will.
According to Locke, government must be limited in order to prevent it from encroaching upon our personal rights. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration
of Independence, he directly quoted from Locke, including Locke’s famous line about each having the natural right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness”.
Rousseau believed the opposite. He believed democracy and the common will held authority over the individual will, and that the individual must submit
to the will of the majority. Thus, the ideas of Locke were behind the American Revolution, and the ideas of Rousseau were behind the French
Revolution. Locke influenced US democracy; Rousseau influenced Soviet democracy.
A good example using current events is the controversy over homosexual marriages. According to Rousseau’s line of thought, gays should not be allowed
to married because the majority oppose gay marriage. But according to Locke’s line, it doesn’t matter what the majority wants in this circumstance; if
homosexuals have liberty, they can marry if they want to, without having to get the mob’s permission.
The fallacy here is that a lot of people want “liberty” for themselves, but “democracy” for those they disagree with. Using the gay marriage example,
the religious right claims that it is wrong, and since most Americans oppose it, it should be banned. But when the majority oppose
them in
their constant attacks on the separation of church and state, they invoke “liberty”. I will be charitable and assume that such people are only
ignorant and misled, instead of being wilfull hypocrites.
Fiat Lvx.
.
)
