It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   

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.

edit on 23-2-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Phage
Meaning that democracy is a broad term.

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



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
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?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   
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....



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   

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



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Phage
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?


Again, it's a sliding scale. A better system would be several nodes of decentralized governments like what was intended to begin with. The states started out resembling something much more like the EU than what we have now.

As long as you have a bill of rights and some sort of constitution that were both unchangeable (barring any unanimous votes among the participating governments), you could break down autonomy easily to a state, county, or even city level.

Currently, if you want to live in an area that has legal prostitution, drugs, and gay marriage (just a crazy example), you would have to move out of the nation. But, if non-constitution-breaching laws were left up to a decentralized direct vote, you would only have to move to a different state (or city, depending on the level it was broken down to).

Direct democracy works great in geographically-small areas. The reason we rely so heavily on representatives and a concentrated location of operations is because we are so damned big. It will never last this way. No nation this large has ever been sustainable with power being funneled through one location. Look at all the failed conquests through history or even the more recent example of the USSR. They didn't fail because of communism; it was because they were so freakin' huge.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


A direct democracy is a majority rule system rather then a system based on protecting individual rights.

We want power in the individual and civil liberty NOT the majority rule.


I still don't get it. My understanding is that a republic gives power to its citizens and representatives, and a democracy gives power to its citizens through representatives. The difference is lost on me.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   
hey stu
that's another star


lest we forget
stalin - "it isn't who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes"
and his boss " give me control of the issuence of currency..."
and then there is hurst and yellow journalism

so the way it really is is we live in an oligarchic technocracy




edit on 23-2-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
I still don't get it. My understanding is that a republic gives power to its citizens and representatives, and a democracy gives power to its citizens through representatives. The difference is lost on me.


You're quite right and there is no difference because it is like comparing apples and snails.

As alluded to above, a republic in the strictest definition is simply a nation without a monarch. A democracy is one which empowers it's citizens either directly or through elected representatives. The two terms are not exclusive.

However, I think the confusion arises because some prominent American theorist from the latter part of the 19th/early 20th went on to describe "republican" Government as something else entirely: Linky

It would appear that our esteemed American colleagues are confused over a republic and republicanism.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Cheers


On the subject of a Technocracy, they're not that bad in practice although in reality they tend to only be used as an emergency Government when the politicians have fudged up.

A good form of Government would be an Executive made up of Technocrats (so they know their portfolio's as they are experts) selected by a Legislature which is democratically elected. It's got to be better than what we have at the moment where heads of departments are just career politicians without any expertise in the fields they are supposed to be in charge of.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


i agree
we need the best and brightest and the most moral at the top



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 

Who cares? The system we live in hardly resembles either.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 

Stu, you and I have been over this before. You're trying to convince Americans, their founding fathers had no understanding of the meanings and implications behind the two words. It is from those men much of our understanding of our form of governance comes from. Maybe you should have been there to correct them, since they had much to say about democracies and republics.

Looking these two words up in the dictionary won't help you understand them. It seems to me the dictionary itself has the cognitive dissonance, since even Webster blurs the definitions. Solon would be a good place to start for a true definition of the word Republic.
"when the people obey the rulers and the rulers obey the laws." Solon

This^^^ is the foundation of the Republic Americans live under. The "democratic" part was put in place to give the people voice through representatives. We are therefore, a representative republic. Though one could use the term democratic republic just as easily.

ETA: My point is, it is the founders, and the constitution that defines these two words for us. So yes, it is different than you see it. We have a document that defines the law of the land we live in. The law is the determining factor in America, not the majority. So for us, pure democracy is nothing but mob rule. A pure republic is nothing but elitist rule. Our constitution tried to strike a balance between the two, giving the people the edge.
edit on 2/23/2014 by Klassified because: eta



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join