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

reply to post by Klassified


Yep and I chose to end it there as we were getting into the realms of political theory which is where the whole thing gets blurred and honestly, this is only an issue in the US. Everywhere else, people understand what a Republic is and what Democracy means.

As I have said above, the problem seems to stem from the fact you have Republicanism as a political theory, which itself seems to drive a wedge between a the term Republic and that of a Democracy as if they are mutually exclusive forms of Government when they don't actually even describe the same thing.

You've said it yourself, you can (and people do) call the US a democratic Republic. Everyone has the right to vote and elect their representatives, which is the Democracy bit and you have no Monarch, hence you are a Republic. Anything more than that is simply fluff and muddying the water over what is actually an exceptionally easy thing to understand.

Likewise, being a Democracy does not in any way mean "Mob rule". The UK, for example is a Democracy, we're not a Republic yet we don't have Mob Rule....

reply to post by stumason

I understand what you're saying. But as with so many words, these two words seem to have a historical meaning, and a modern meaning. For us, the historical references are important, because they define the very reason our constitution is written the way it is. Our founders had very strong opinions about these two forms of government.

I'll leave it there. You're right, this could be a day long debate. I'm fairly well read on this, but I'm no expert by any means.

A Constitutional Republic is democracy. Is electing officials suddenly a bad idea? How will officials be chosen if we aren't practicing democracy?

Are people just mad over the words republican and democrat? I get the weird sense that some keyboard jockeys are sitting at their desks feeling like democracy is bad because democrats are bad and republics are bad because republicans are bad.

reply to post by Kali74

No. A constitutional republic is a constitutional republic.

reply to post by Klassified


Don't get me wrong, I understand the position taken by yourself and others, but personally I think there is some confusion of Republicanism (as in a political theory)and a Republic (which is simply a Government without a Monarch)

This is demonstrated by your definition:

So for us, pure democracy is nothing but mob rule. A pure republic is nothing but elitist rule.

This seems to have come about by "overcooking" what the two words mean, as a result of Political debate by your Founding Fathers and subsequent political commentators in the 19th century. In it's simplest terms (and why would you want to overcomplicate things?), the term democracy is simply the method by which the Government is chosen and the term Republic is simply the form in which the Government takes.

reply to post by Klassified


But it does practice democracy. Holding elections is democratic.

Klassified
reply to post by Kali74

 

No. A constitutional republic is a constitutional republic.

But is can be Democratic, or it can be authoritarian, or it can be anywhere in between. Soviet Russia was a constitutional republic, but was hardly Democratic. North Korea is a "constitutional republic", in theory at least.

Again, there seems to be some confusion over the manner in which the Government is chosen and the form in which the Government takes.

Kali74
reply to post by Klassified

 

But it does practice democracy. Holding elections is democratic.

Exactly.... This is where there is the "cognitive dissonance".

If the US is not "democratic", how exactly are the representatives chosen?

Oh yeah, by a democratic process, ie; Voting by every eligible citizen, ergo, the US is Democratic. That has no bearing on what shape the Government takes, which is where the term Republic comes in.

reply to post by stumason

I think the debate comes down to the morphing of meaning over many generations. For those in Solon's time. A republic did not exclude Monarchs. It was inclusive of them. A republic was a form of governance which put the monarchs, as well as any other rulers under a set of laws they had to abide by. Hence my quote by him in my first post.

Today, it seems to have morphed into a word that means nothing to anyone. Just as democracy has also morphed into a shadow of its former self. Athens, sometime BCE I think. I don't fault you, or anyone else for taking the common definitions of today. They are what they are. But these two forms of governance had vastly different meanings and implications historically.

reply to post by stumason


It is a nasty, nasty habit in which language is destroyed. We seem to define words by how a person or persons that through their actions distorted a word rather than being able to say this person uses this word incorrectly.

Democracy is a majority rule "rule of man"
Republic is "rule of Law"

democracy is :: 5 people say that they agree you should be hung, you get hung without due proccess/trial.

Republic is :: you get to be tried by under rule of law.

Look back at the old days, if you were of color "non-white" and the mob wanted to lynch you.
Would you rather the same mob vote on it or have a court here the charges and rule if you broke the law ??

Wiki:
A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people and representatives they elect
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally "rule of the people"

reply to post by Klassified


Indeed, we are in essence arguing over semantics, at least partly.

However, there does seem to be a prevailing (see latest poster...) thought here that a Republic is distinct from a Democracy because they have representatives, whereas a Democracy doesn't because it is "mob rule".

If that is true, then there is not a single democratic state in the world. Every country has a form of Parliament/Congress, even the Swiss with their famous "direct democracy" system, which would make every country a "Republican" form of Government. But this clearly not true.

I think the confusion, as you have rightly pointed out, stems from the ancient use of the terms as opposed to the modern usage. Oddly, the US seems to want to use the 2,500 year old definitions as opposed to the modern ones, but then you all get mixed up which only confuses the matter.

This whole topic could be put to bed if you made the distinction that one is a form of Government while the other is the method by which it is chosen, as per the current definitions of the words.

Kali74
reply to post by stumason

 

It is a nasty, nasty habit in which language is destroyed. We seem to define words by how a person or persons that through their actions distorted a word rather than being able to say this person uses this word incorrectly.

We too often define our words by consensus. Even the dictionary is guilty on this one. When one begins to look at origins and history of any given word, we start finding out that meanings frequently morph, twist, and pervert as time goes on. Especially when you include the social engineers of our time in that picture.

The founders of our country framed our constitution according to their understanding of these two forms of governance. So we have to look at their definitions, not ours, to understand their intent behind the document that embodies the foundational governing principles of our country.

reply to post by stumason

However, there does seem to be a prevailing (see latest poster...) thought here that a Republic is distinct from a Democracy because they have representatives, whereas a Democracy doesn't because it is "mob rule".

Agreed. It comes from over simplifying. A nasty habit we Americans have. We know what we mean. Everyone else should too. LOL!

If that is true, then there is not a single democratic state in the world. Every country has a form of Parliament/Congress, even the Swiss with their famous "direct democracy" system, which would make every country a "Republican" form of Government. But this clearly not true.

I haven't read their constitution, but they may have the closest thing to the ancient system of democracy in the world today, from what I've heard thus far.

I think the confusion, as you have rightly pointed out, stems from the ancient use of the terms as opposed to the modern usage. Oddly, the US seems to want to use the 2,500 year old definitions as opposed to the modern ones, but then you all get mixed up which only confuses the matter.

To me, the original intent of a word is always the one it should be understood by. No matter how old it is. However, I understand that isn't realistic in many cases. Nevertheless, to understand the system of governance of the USA, one must understand it's framers, and how they defined the words they used. Only then can we understand their intent.

This whole topic could be put to bed if you made the distinction that one is a form of Government while the other is the method by which it is chosen, as per the current definitions of the words.

i guess i better not bring up the observation
parties are whats making this so difficult to define

the soviets were a one party system they still voted democratically
but they were run by oligarchs behind the scenes
the US is a multiparty state with the Obama and bush being not legitimate due to illegalities in the elections resulting in convictions for party members...
democracy in theory oligarchy in practice

" give me control of the issuance of currency..."

spell check is great
dang, now if they would just come out with a check speller

reply to post by Klassified


Thank you Klass for pointing out what should be obvious.

It hurts my mind to respond to the insanity of the people who do not understand why they do not understand.

reply to post by stumason


ITS NOT ABOUT WHAT THE WORDS MEAN ITS HOW THE IDEA IMPLEMENT

Please stop analysing the definitions of the words and understand that its the idea of how we apply those words to our country and how they were meant to be applied.

Our constitutional republic limits the power of the government over the people to protect the minority from majority rule and to guarantee individual civil liberties and to ensure a free market.


Stop debating over what the words mean its completely FRUITLESS. In America this is what our form of government is suppose to be doing.

They want direct democracy all over the world and they want majority rule systems in place so they can take over countries through consumerism and economic tyranny.

How insane is it that you guys are sitting hear debating over the exact literary meaning of these rather then analysing them from the perspective of the people who used them at the time they were used for the reason they were used.

UGH

reply to post by onequestion


Haha, ok... Let's not worry about what words mean....

Right, then what is the point of the thread? If words definitions don't mean anything, you may as well say the US is a Flibbley Wibbley Jibbery Woo....

And in what country have they installed Direct Democracy or tried too? By not understanding what words "mean", you have let yourself talk utter bollocks.

You've just shown yourself to have little understanding of what it is you're moaning about - which harks back to the meanings of words. Very important skill that, learning what words mean....

here is why the debate is important
these guys have stood up better then anyone
maybe we should all take a lesson

oh....NO PARTIES
people should check out the Iroquois 6 nations

the oldest functioning all inclusive democracy on the planet
and still sovereign

Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth

The Six Nations

The people of the Six Nations, also known by the French term, Iroquois Confederacy, call themselves the Hau de no sau nee (ho dee noe sho nee) or People of the Longhouse. Located in the northeastern region of North America, originally the Six Nations were five and included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The sixth nation, the Tuscaroras, migrated into Iroquois country in the early eighteenth century. Together these peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth. Their story, and governance truly based on the consent of the governed, contains a great deal of life-promoting intelligence for those of us not familiar with this area of American history. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations. In our present day, we can benefit immensely, in our quest to establish a new a government truly dedicated to all life's liberty and happiness much as has been practiced by the Six Nations for over 800 hundred years.

democraciaparticipativa.net...

reply to post by onequestion

How insane is it that you guys are sitting hear debating over the exact literary meaning of these rather then analysing them from the perspective of the people who used them at the time they were used for the reason they were used.

Unfortunately, that insanity is caused by modern social engineering. Muddying the waters, so to speak. People have a hard time conversing about this topic because every time either word is used in a sentence, both people take their own meaning from it. Which lends to a widening of the gulf between those discussing it, and a lesser chance they will come together in understanding each others perspective.

So while it may be insane, it becomes necessary to close the gap, and come to a common understanding. A form of the dialectic, if you will. The unfortunate part is, this kind of constructive discussion doesn't happen more often. I understand Stu better now, and he understands me better. It doesn't mean we agree on everything, but we are at least closer to understanding one another's perspective. I consider that a plus for everyone involved.