We Are Not a Democracy! We Do NOT Want to Spread Democracy!

benrl
reply to post by onequestion

 

There is a reason for the ignorance people have behind government.

Its starts in the schools and ends in the media.

If people knew what their government was supposed to do and be they might have a problem with the current reality.

Its the money. :/ While confusing (because its more like a general rant) I get the ops point. When the Spaniards came here they came here for gold and enslaved. Sound familiar? Had it not been for a select few; people wouldn't understand freedom or liberty. Thats the purpose or one of the premises behind getting an education. Protecting both.

To clarify Op, my point is that we use democracy even in republic states. When you said we are not yadda yadda, yes we are is what I mean. Otherwise we'd have something ugly. I agree that corporate and rich should have no more nor any less say than you and that your rights are to be preserved.

reply to post by Nephalim


Our elected officials are suppose to be enforcing the constitution and protecting us from tyranny not amending it and creating new laws.

They are running our government exactly how its not suppose to be run.

This is one of my pet peeves, but always gives me a laugh with this little memory.

Dear daughter, in 4th grade, took a test about the founding of the United States. The night before we had watched a tv program on the different types of government. For the question "The United States was founded as a _____ (type of government)", she wrote "I'm writing democracy because it's in the book, but we're really a Constitutional Republic". She later asked the teacher why schools teach we're a democracy rather than a republic. I love our school district - she was not reprimanded, simply told "I don't know why" and given some additional reading that she found interesting.

reply to post by Mountainmeg


That makes me sick to my stomac.

Can you provide pictures of the material and start a thread so i can freely bash our school system?

If i had kids id be raising hell.

Phage
Well, a direct democracy is bad...for those in the minority on any issue.
A republic, which is a representative democracy, is better. It provides a voice to those in the minority.

edit on 2/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

It sounds quite beneficial. So for example if a minority wanted to have a place of worship built, much like most churches only they would be dedicated to the goddess Eris. This would be allowed yes.

AfterInfinity
For the record, I have a difficult time understanding the difference myself.

There is no difference. Democracies are republican forms of government.

You'll notice that the argument usually starts off using the term "democracy" but then it is changed for "direct democracy" or "pure democracy" and "republic" becomes "constitutional republic".

The link to the definition of constitutional republic posted by the OP states:

The purpose of a Constitutional Republic is to place limits on the tyranny of the majority. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

If, on the other hand, a legislative power could be so constituted as to represent the majority without necessarily being the slave of its passions, an executive so as to retain a proper share of authority, and a judiciary so as to remain independent of the other two powers, a government would be formed which would still be democratic while incurring scarcely any risk of tyranny.

The "republican" part of the US government is the "democratic" election of representatives. That is indirect democracy but democracy none the less. Another category that the US government falls under is that of "Liberal democracy".

A liberal democracy is a political system where a democratic process (such as a majoritarian election) determines who will occupy political offices, but at the same time some fundamental rights of all citizens, such as free speech and the freedom of the press, are protected from encroachment from the government or the majority.

So, both "Constitutional Republic" and "Liberal democracy" are the same and I think some people just have a preference for one or the other because the words used are associated with certain political camps.

reply to post by daskakik


The point is to protect civil liberty and the minority from majority rule.

Everything else is bull# and semantic.

onequestion
The point is to protect civil liberty and the minority from majority rule.

Everything else is bull# and semantic.

Exactly my point. Liberal democracies protect civil liberty and the minority from majority rule. They are synonymous to Constitutional Republics so, why are you hung up on the semantics?

reply to post by onequestion


I don't have access anymore. That was 4th, she's in 8th grade now and just as much fun for her teachers. (Seriously, her teachers love her and her way of thinking.) But, hey, even Washington's inaugural address reminds us that the United State was deliberately set up as a republic.

"Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

reply to post by Tindalos2013

So for example if a minority wanted to have a place of worship built, much like most churches only they would be dedicated to the goddess Eris. This would be allowed yes.

Yes.

I was under the impression that a democracy and a republic were the same thing, but different wording. I might be wrong. Somebody stole my comment, because I was drawn into an hour long conversation with my neighbor. *it's not fair*

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio

In broad terms...sort of.
A republic is a form of democracy. A democracy is not necessarily a republic.

democracy
two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner
if it hasn't been said all ready
hence the republic

reply to post by Phage

I think you have that backwards. Democracies are always republics but not all republics are democracies.

reply to post by daskakik

A direct democracy is an example of a not republic. In its "purest" form, a democracy is not a republic.

And while there may be republics in name which are not in any stretch of the imagination democracies, a true republic is a form of democracy.

reply to post by Phage


I just looked it up on Wikipedia, I don't see any real difference (at least to the untrained eye). I vote we say they're the same thing.

Phage
A direct democracy is an example of a not republic. In its "purest" form, a democracy is not a republic.

No, a direct democracy is still a republic. A government by the people.

And while there may be republics in name which are not in any stretch of the imagination democracies, a true republic is a form of democracy.

I didn't mean according to a country's name I meant the systems in place. The modern definition of a republic is any form of government that is not a monarchy. A system where affairs of state are a public matter (res publica).

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio

I just called my senator. She said you're wrong.

reply to post by daskakik

No, a direct democracy is still a republic. A government by the people.

dictionary.reference.com...


But here's an interesting interpretation. Not sure how it works in the real world though.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

www.1215.org...
The link carries a few other definitions. But it gets down to rule by direct vote or rule by representation.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Ben Franklin

East Germany was a democracy - (GDR) German Democratic Republic with the Stasi & all the fun that came with that.