It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The US is a Republic!! Not a Democracy!!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:46 PM
We may certainly have a Democratic system ( but we do NOT have a Democracy. I don't know why people think this.

I wanted to put this in the educational forum since I think it's pathetic that people confuse a Democracy with a Republic. In a Democracy-- the people make all the decisions ( Like in a Direct Democracy, people make the laws. People make the choices.

People somehow think that in our government the people make about everything. That, would not happen in a Republic. A Republic would not put people's rights to a vote. A Republic would protect the rights of the minority. A constitutional crisis like prop 8 would not happen since the Republican form of government would guard against the tyranny of the majority. Gays would have rights. It would be no big deal.

Two Treatises is divided into the First Treatise and the Second Treatise. The original title of the Second Treatise appears to have been simply "Book II," corresponding to the title of the First Treatise, "Book I." Before publication, however, Locke gave it greater prominence by (hastily) inserting a separate title page: "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government." [10] The First Treatise is focused on the refutation of Sir Robert Filmer, in particular his Patriarcha which argued that civil society was founded on a divinely-sanctioned patriarchalism. Locke proceeds through Filmer's arguments, contesting his proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as senseless, until concluding that no government can be justified by an appeal to the divine right of kings.

The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. Locke begins by describing the state of nature, a picture much more stable than Thomas Hobbes' state of "war of every man against every man," and argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God. From this, he goes on to explain the hypothetical rise of property and civilization, in the process explaining that the only legitimate governments are those which have the consent of the people. Thus, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown.

Under this form of government, as it was originally devised the government was only supposed to protect liberty. Nations have obviously gone a little further and expanded beyond this concept... and they've gotten bigger. But. Our nation is not a Democracy. People seem to think that we can just vote for whatever, and, get rid of someone else's rights, or, ban the use of something. A Republic would not take away people's liberties. People have began to think that our government is supposed to be a Democracy... but... a Republican form of government is supposed to safeguard against the evils of Democracy, and, totalitarianism.

Now. I'm not saying that a Republican form of government is necessarily my for of government. I'm not making value judgments here really. I'm just saying what our government is... and what it isn't. So. I hope my topic helps.

Mods, if this is in the wrong place please move it somewhere else. I just felt it would be appropriate here since lots of people are under the impression that the U.S. is a Democracy, when, it is not. I think their perception has been warped by the concept of one person one vote-- which is a principle our country holds dear, but, they think that extends beyond just representative government... and individuals are the ones in control of the government which is not the case.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:02 PM
Great thread and worthy of the sheriff story imagine yourself in the old west a man has just robbed the bank. The people form a posse and 40 men chase after him on horse back they catch him and the decide to take a vote to see what to do 29 say to hang him and the begin to string him up this is a democracy the majority rules. Just then the sheriff comes riding up and says he should get a fair trial and be judged by his peers this is a republic it is ruled by laws what would you rather have?

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Subjective Truth]

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:13 PM
your post is conflicting. you say, that the US is a republic (it is, a democratic republic), but then you say that prop 8 wouldnt happen in a republic...hmmm

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:15 PM
The U.S. is no republic nor is it a democracy. The U.S. is a plutocracy, hegemony and oligarchy all wrapped in one.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by Totalstranger

It's only Democratic in the sense that we have a system of voting. We have a ruling party and a non-ruling party. Both political parties are supposed to carry out the will of their constituents. The people themselves aren't supposed to do the voting on the issues.

Under a Republic form of government the government would grant equal rights to everyone, and, protect the minority from the minority. These laws like proposition 8-- or these discrimination laws, wouldn't happen under a Republic. It seems like people are treating the U.S. as if it were a Democracy, which, it is not.

Originally posted by EMPIRE
The U.S. is no republic nor is it a democracy. The U.S. is a plutocracy, hegemony and oligarchy all wrapped in one.

Right, but it is supposed to be a Republic form of government. That was my point in this thread.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Frankidealist35]

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by EMPIRE

I would agree this is what we have now but the founding fathers wanted a republic of this there can be no doubt study their own words and find the truth for yourself. And I agree what we have right now is an oligarchy

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:22 PM
in my american history class we learned about the differences between a republic and a democracy. When i told my teacher our gov. sounds more like a republic she got all defensive. knew i was right

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:25 PM
There are already like a dozen threads with practically the same retarded title.

It's both.

Deal with it.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:29 PM
Do we really need one of these silly discussions every couple of weeks over a couple of words people don't understand?

There is this thread: discussing the EXACT same pointless nonsense. It's clear alot of people don't know what the words mean.

I won't ramble all over again, as you can see in the other thread my exact thoughts, but the US is a Republic with democratic principles. If it wasn't demoractic, it would be authoritarian.

If you don't understand what the words mean, it really is pointless having a discussion. Being a Republic has nothing to do with the form of Government and being Democratic doesn't preclude being a republic. The two words are not mutually exclusive.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by stumason

As others have said, our founding fathers intended the US to be a Republican form of government. They did not want mob rule. You should read some history. If you looked at the words of our founding fathers you would know that. Yes, it has a Democratic system but that does not make it a Democracy. Politicians are supposed to carry out the will of the people. The people themselves aren't supposed to vote on the issues.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Frankidealist35]

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by Frankidealist35

Oh man, I am going to be sucked in....

Republic means one thing: Does not have a Monarch or other hereditary ruler. It has nothing to do with whether a state is Democratic or not, or even the style of Government.

A democracy means a political government either carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). It has nothing to do with whether the state is a Republic or not.

You do not undertsand the terms. They are not mutually exclusive and do not even refer to the same thing.

Anyway, this thread should be closed. How many do we need about exactly the same thing?

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by stumason

Our government system is more of a Republic than a Democracy.

The United States government is not an absolute or pure democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a representative democratic republic.

What's the difference? According to my Merriam-Webster:

# Democracy — Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (Ablsolute, or pure), or indirectly (representative).

# Republic — A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them.

Articles I and II of the Constitution are very explicit: We choose representatives and they make the rules that we live by until its time to choose again. Thank God we don't have to run down to the townhall, the statehouse, or the nation's capitol to decide every question.

So. Yes, we have a Democratic Republic, but my point was that it's not a pure Democracy, which some people seem to think it is.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Frankidealist35]

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:17 PM
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...."

Sorry, but it's been obvious to me we're a republic since 1974, when I entered kindergarten. And even at most of the lowest levels of government, such is true: we elect people to represent us. Now, when those people do not act as the plurarality of their constituents desire, it's even difficult to consider it a republic.

It's sad that in this time of the Internet and its immediate nature that our representatives endeavor to remain out of touch with the people, and people continue to elect them.

and that's all I have to say about that.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:20 PM
people for some reason...forget the morning pledge...

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which is stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

...also like to add, that even though republic and the party name "republicans" sound similar doesn't mean they have more credit by any means. A very faulty connection.

Another interesting tidbit...
...(wikipedia) the first president of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation.

Boy did he get that one right.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by mishmallow8]

[edit on 14-1-2010 by mishmallow8]

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by abecedarian

Damn you beat me to it! Im so glad im not the only one that actually remembered the pledge. LOL

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by mishmallow8
I'm sure you're not the only one to remember, obviously, since I remembered too...

And remember that the Democrat party is not "Democratic" either, and it pains me to hear their members say that since they OBVIOUSLY do not represent the people.

[edit on 1/14/2010 by abecedarian]

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:12 PM
It doesn't matter what our "founding fathers" intended. What is the case now? What do you live under now?

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:29 PM
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which is stands

The United States of America "stands for" the Republic.
The Republic which is the united States of America.

The United of States of America was foundet in 1871 (what a "Lucky Strike" that was ...) and is the company that does the business for that what was once the great Republic ... the united States of America.

It is not of my personal concern as I am german but ... let's just assume I was american ... I would pledge my allegiance to the Republic and not a company. A Republic under Common Law.



new topics

top topics


log in