posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by pstrron
Yes, the term Democracy was used in that sense, but only served as a conceptual tool, or derogative, for which early political theorists could derive
new principles of governance, much like the use of the term "state of nature", which although refuted by anthropological evidence, has remained the
peremptory of social contract theory for much of modern political philosophy, and again regardless of its inaccuracy.
Democracy is being practiced regardless of what you believe, even in a Republic, but one would be more accurate to refer to it "isonomia", or
equality under the law. You practice democracy, but it is practiced under terms of constrained rationality, or perhaps an induced alignment of
morality onto law. That's why you have all the talk of God and providence in the Constitution. Republicanism then, enforces value-oriented
equilibria, which if it not otherwise present might turn the so-called freedom and justice of pure Democracy into a social dilemma, as we have seen
with Plato's tyrants in ancient Greece.
So you don't really accomplish much by pointing out what you think others don't understand. There really is no issue. I'm sure the existence of the
written word is the only impediment to our mutual understanding of the non-existence of this contention of basic concepts regarding forms of
government... Sorry, it just always irks me when people pull the "It's a Republic, not a Democracy line." What are you implying? If I'm not
mistaken, it seems that you're portraying Republicanism as a form of dictatorship? Republicanism is a vision, and democracy through representation is
how you practice it. I'm positive people are educated enough to discern between the two.
[edit on 11-3-2009 by cognoscente]