Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Farren · 08-02-2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by lunachick
We have proportional representation here. Personally, I think that is far more democratic than first past the post, winner takes all.

Us too. So there

Oh, now you're just being silly! And you have the cheek to call me the lunatic.

Silly? Erudite, more like:

Quote:

weal
Pronunciation: weel

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] a raised mark on the skin (as produced by the blow of a whip); characteristic of many allergic reactions

Farren
----------------------------------------------
Brain the size of a planet and look
what they've got me doing...

[edit]
p.s. I really, really, really need some doob, pot, twang, weed, green, five leaf giggly twig or whatever have you right now, but its 5 in the morning. Damn, I wish email were airmail.

FoE · 08-02-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Farren

Of course, this makes 99.9999999% of the world's democracies republican. I could be wrong, but it looks that way to me.

Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand aren't republics though. Our head of state is the Queen. The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain, and Belgium are all monarchies too.

pariah · 08-02-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat_Somm_Faen
Could USA is not a democracy be an example of "No True Scotsman"?

No! But what it could be is that we vote through representation, not directly on the issues! =P Indeed, although we wear a kilt, we are no scotsman.

People confuse the words "democracy" and "democratic". As FoE pointed out, monarchies can be democratic as well.

meritocrat · 08-03-2003, 06:51 AM

America is a representative democracy in that the people choose representatives to serve their interests. Virtually all democracies in the world are of such a nature.

I think Americans use the term republic to mean a system in which the people choose representatives. But that system is a representative democracy as I've described.

In the strictest sense a republic is simply a state in which the head of state is a president and not a hereditary monarch. For example if Australians want their country to be a republic then they mean that they wish for their head of state to be a president and not the Queen of Britain (or a representative of the Queen).

meritocrat · 08-03-2003, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by schu
In a Democracy everyone who has the vote gets to vote on everything, you need not have representatives. Issues are settled by referendum. The majority on an issue always win. That is why I described it as mob rule. Once the mob finds it can vote money out of the coffers of government the game is up. As I've said before, four wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Why people find a system where people can use force to take property and wealth from others is beyond me.

That is direct democracy.

Quote:

In a Republic the voters send representatives to a congress where the representatives vote on the issues. Many are set up as bicameral and in the US the state governments used to vote on the Senators. That has changed and with it the lessening of states rights. This may not be the best form of government, but it can if used effectively preserve the rights of individuals and ward off mob rule.

And what you describe now is representative democracy.

meritocrat · 08-03-2003, 10:05 AM

Quote:

So what can't a Republic also be a true democracy, and what would it take for America to be a truly democratic republic?

In a 'true democracy' there would be no government, at least in the sense that exists in representative democracies. Of course you'd need some sort of civil service in order to carry out the decisions that the people make in a direct democracy.

asgardhaven · 08-03-2003, 10:33 AM

My impression of Republic vs. Democracy was that it was always rooted in the distinctions between Athens and Rome. Many have looked on Athen's direct democracy as allowing the dngerous rule of the mob under the influence of a power hungry demagoue to prevail. On the other hand the Roman republic has often seemed a better balance of the interest of the few vs. the many; when the few ruled in the name of the many. I think its perhaps the lingering affects of those two examples as much as the formal definitions that effect modern day usage.

enfant terrible · 08-03-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lunachick
A few times lately I've read "America is not a true democracy, it is a Republic".

What does that mean, exactly?

It means that the speaker/writer is an idiot. No less and no more.

John Hancock · 08-03-2003, 06:13 PM

High? All

Farren poof to that gage I should have a red or a coupla yellow jackets to go with my beer (aw the good old days

). Now who am I? I mean where.

The confusion as to the Demoncratic nature of the USA lies in historical semantics. Recall when the fine Gentlemen that formulated this government got together they were merely representative of the landed gentry.

Not only was suffrage non-universal within the new Republic but those more elite envisioned a system of electors that "they believed would be more educated and equipped to render a populous decision null".

Herein arises the terminology of a Republic run in a democratic manner. Course now if corporations hadn't unconstitutional gained citizenship we'd actually have a representative Democracy.

Course conservatives walk backwards.

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

Farren · 08-03-2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by John Hancock
High? All

Farren poof to that gage I should have a red or a coupla yellow jackets to go with my beer (aw the good old days ). Now who am I? I mean where.

Damn you got good shit. I always remember who I am, although I often lose my car keys.

Course conservatives walk backwards.

Micheal Jackson's a conservative?!?!?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2003, 06:51 AM	#14
meritocrat Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 2,608	America is a representative democracy in that the people choose representatives to serve their interests. Virtually all democracies in the world are of such a nature. I think Americans use the term republic to mean a system in which the people choose representatives. But that system is a representative democracy as I've described. In the strictest sense a republic is simply a state in which the head of state is a president and not a hereditary monarch. For example if Australians want their country to be a republic then they mean that they wish for their head of state to be a president and not the Queen of Britain (or a representative of the Queen).

08-03-2003, 10:33 AM	#17
asgardhaven Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN USA Posts: 129	My impression of Republic vs. Democracy was that it was always rooted in the distinctions between Athens and Rome. Many have looked on Athen's direct democracy as allowing the dngerous rule of the mob under the influence of a power hungry demagoue to prevail. On the other hand the Roman republic has often seemed a better balance of the interest of the few vs. the many; when the few ruled in the name of the many. I think its perhaps the lingering affects of those two examples as much as the formal definitions that effect modern day usage.

08-03-2003, 06:13 PM	#19
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	High? All Farren poof to that gage I should have a red or a coupla yellow jackets to go with my beer (aw the good old days ). Now who am I? I mean where. The confusion as to the Demoncratic nature of the USA lies in historical semantics. Recall when the fine Gentlemen that formulated this government got together they were merely representative of the landed gentry. Not only was suffrage non-universal within the new Republic but those more elite envisioned a system of electors that "they believed would be more educated and equipped to render a populous decision null". Herein arises the terminology of a Republic run in a democratic manner. Course now if corporations hadn't unconstitutional gained citizenship we'd actually have a representative Democracy. Course conservatives walk backwards. John Hancock __________________ "Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

08-03-2003, 07:00 PM	#20
Farren Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,194	Originally posted by John Hancock High? All Farren poof to that gage I should have a red or a coupla yellow jackets to go with my beer (aw the good old days ). Now who am I? I mean where. Damn you got good shit. I always remember who I am, although I often lose my car keys. Course conservatives walk backwards. Micheal Jackson's a conservative?!?!?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.