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

Phage
Refine. Not redefine.

It is still after the fact.

To reiterate: democracy is a broad term. A republic is a type of democracy.
There can be a true democracy which is not a republic. There can't be a true republic which is not a democracy.

No, the broad term is republic because it can include any state system other than monarchy. Democracy is a type of republic.

The entry for republic in wiki states that:

Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.

Another refining of the general terminology. Not sure capitalizing liberal is appropriate though.

Well it is a term from the 18th century so I don't know what you mean by refining of the general terminology.

I have the same beef OQ.
I want to vomit every time I hear Obama or Hillary talking about spreading "Democracy".
It equates with corporate invasion in truth and tyranny of the masses in actual practice.
Neither of which act for the benefit of the people.
Only in a Republic are we guaranteed our rights.

reply to post by onequestion


If you don't have a majority rule, you have a minority rule and that minority will always be the wealthy.

A non-representative direct democracy with an unflinching bill of rights is the only way to avoid a super-wealthy oligarchy.

Phage
reply to post by caterpillage

 

Heinlein's version:
A democracy is based on the notion that a million are smarter than one.


The converse being:
A dictatorship is based on the notion that one is smarter than a million.

A representative democracy is a blend of the two. Millions vote for the handful of people to make all of their decisions for them. It's choose-your-own-dictator, not really democracy in my eyes.

reply to post by daskakik

The entry for republic in wiki states that:

Ok. Montesquieu had his definition of a republic, based on the definition of citizenship. I'd like to see more detail about his ideas, whether he was talking about a representative style government.

As he defines them, Republican political systems vary depending on how broadly they extend citizenship rights—those that extend citizenship relatively broadly are termed democratic republics, while those that restrict citizenship more narrowly are termed aristocratic republics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Well it is a term from the 18th century so I don't know what you mean by refining of the general terminology

Meaning that democracy is a broad term.

Phage
Meaning that democracy is a broad term.

But it doesn't mean that it is a broader term than republic.

reply to post by Cuervo

Somewhat. But that representation gets broken down into smaller and smaller units so it's not "all" the decisions being made by the same handful.

Got a more workable system in mind? A better one?

I did not read all the other pages, and I apologize for that.
Please just skip over this if it is too out of sync with the present direction of discussion.
I also have questioned that excessive use of the term Democracy by us Americans, considering pure Democracy is in opposition with the values and intents of our founding fathers and our current government.

But something that seems very clear to me is that the American agenda to "spread" pure Democracy elsewhere in the world is real-
if you get the masses to destroy and rule, then all you have to do is manipulate them through media and consumerism, and you have taken control of their nation. - All with the people unaware of it, thinking they are "free" and that their movements are chosen by themselves.

I suspect spreading Democracy, so that American capitalism can take control, is exactly the goal....

Phage
A republic, which is a representative democracy, is better. It provides a voice to those in the minority.

edit on

Phage, usually you're bang on, but whenever this topic crops up on ATS there seems to be some major cognitive dissonance about what the terms "democracy" and "republic" actually mean and it would seem you have fallen into the same trap.

A Democracy is merely where the people (whoever that is defined to be) are allowed to vote, either on electing representatives to enact laws on their behalf or in a direct system such as Switzerland.

A Republic is simply a form of Government which does not have a hereditary Monarch. That is it's definition, nothing more, nothing less.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive and in fact describe totally different things.

A Republic doesn't have to be democratic - see North Korea.

Likewise, a Democracy doesn't have to be a Republic - see the UK.

You can have a democratic republic, like the US (or France, or Germany...take your pick). Being a Republic doesn't come with some pre-defined form of Government, again see the examples I mentioned all of which have radically different forms of Government.

It would appear that some on ATS seem to think that the terms are not mutually compatible, but this seems to stem from a misunderstanding about what the words mean. It certainly appears that like most other things in the world, what it means in the US is entirely different than what it means everywhere else in the World.

When strictly talking about the type of Government, not it's behaviour, the US is a Constitutional Federal Republic - it is however also a democracy in that it allows it's citizens to vote. extra DIV