If we can keep it.We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Well if you replace Republic with the word government in that comic I have the sudden urge to tell you the story of Darth Plagius the Wise.We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, since the comic's artist wants to conflate the people with the government, maybe try replacing it with "People's Republic" and see how that sounds
Much more accurate would be to replace Government with Bureaucracy.Presented with just one comment...
And that comment is...
GasBandit
Staff member
It just means combine and substitute, though yes, it is usually used to describe such being done erroneously. And it's an accurate description in this case. It's not "democracy" or "we the people" unless you're telling me that you, personally, have weighed in and signed off on every single decision a governmental entity has made, every law passed or repealed, and so on and so forth.
This should go to the pet peeve forum. but, "They are just playing politics." when they mean partisan in fighting.
Politics means governing!
Politics means governing!
Speak for yourself. I live in a Dominion . . .We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic
. . . yet y'all are the ones who worship the founders.
Monarchy represent whoop whoop!Speak for yourself. I live in a Dominion . . .
. . . yet y'all are the ones who worship the founders.
You know, i actually wonder, what would a republic that's not a democracy look like?We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic
GasBandit
Staff member
... like the United States across its entire history.
Are you telling me you *don't* worship the founders? Don't mind me, I just need to go have a talk with Weyoun about a mission for some Jem'Hadar.Speak for yourself. I live in a Dominion . . .
. . . yet y'all are the ones who worship the founders.
I meant describe the system of government... because, hint, the US is a representative democracy. You know, like i explained it top you the last 2-3 times.
I mean even a direct democracy, like the one you're thinking of when saying you're not a democracy, would still be a republic (which, btw means the same as democracy, it's just a latin term vs the greek one, they both mean rule by the people), unless it was like the UK, a parliamentary monarchy.
GasBandit
Staff member
You mean like you got it wrong the last 2-3 times, as you are with 90% of everything you post. You have to qualify it with representative, or call it a republic, because the distinction is important. Democracy is mob rule. It's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Our founders were quite hostile to the idea of democracy unfettered. Heck, originally, senators weren't even elected, they were appointed by the various state governments - a design meant to stave off the sort of rampant populism likely to become intrinsic to the popularly elected House.
What you're really trying to say is that you wonder what a Republic that didn't elect its representatives with a democratic process would look like.
My wild guess is, probably some sort of blending of feudalism with oligarchy.
GasBandit
Staff member
It might be. The extent of my knowledge about the process of becoming a Lord is what I learned in that one episode of Blackadder with the giant turnip.
No one said the distinction isn't important...
Although you seem to think it's not when you talk about direct democracy as simply democracy. Considering that the original version was about certain people voting to appoint rather autocratic leaders and generals, i find that disingenuous. The greeks and the romans would probably find your system to be mob rule...
Except that the word Republic does not imply in any way that you're using the representative system the US does.
I mean i know for usaians other countries are far off, alien concepts, but you can't really say they're not republics if they're small enough to implement direct democracy (i tihnk the swiss even get to vote for who becomes a citizen).
And those where the ways your FF fettered it. But you can actually fetter direct democracy too, while still having it count as direct democracy. I mean the judiciary branch would still be there if you replaced your voting system with an app where everyone in the US votes on every bill (which would be the most direct form of democracy).
And you'd need to take a wild guess, because it's not a thing.
And i don't know if an oligarchy would even count as a republic... i mean no one calls the Holy Roman Empire a republic, or a democracy, even though it had an electoral college and the monarchy wasn't supposed to be hereditary.
.....
Look, you're not wrong about what you think you're saying, but you're not using the right words to express it unambiguously. And that matters.
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe if I change font sizes for emphasis, you'll be able to understand me better. But at least you know I'm right
Yeah, you're just using the wrong words... and it only took me a couple of years to understand what you actually meant... i see no problem there.Maybe if I change font sizes for emphasis, you'll be able to understand me better. But at least you know I'm right
Necronic
Staff member
I don't really buy the whole "it's a republic not a democracy" thing. Modern usage across the board uses "democracy" to broadly define lots of different governments, including the United States. Pretty much every dictionary I can find agrees with this.
And while those in the tyrannical minority may want to cling to anachronistic definitions, isn't language itself the ultimate form of democracy?
And while those in the tyrannical minority may want to cling to anachronistic definitions, isn't language itself the ultimate form of democracy?
By a very cynical definition (that isn't necessarily wrong) any structure that exists for anything BUT direct democracy is meant to subvert or limit it in some way. A recent obvious example would be your country's Electoral College. The whole purpose that I've seen stated for it is so that smaller states have disproportionate influence, which means that their influence can be more than what the simple popular vote says. So to those complaining that it doesn't reflect the Will of the People (or whatever), I'd say "Ya, that's the point. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have been set up in the first place."
Pretty much everything in a modern "democracy" is set up to limit or amplify a group's power (different groups in different circumstances), and to subvert the ideas of what the majority wants is what happens. The remaining question is whether and to what extent this is a good thing, and when it isn't. Sometimes this prevents mob rule. Sometimes it enforces oligarchy. Sometimes both.
Pretty much everything in a modern "democracy" is set up to limit or amplify a group's power (different groups in different circumstances), and to subvert the ideas of what the majority wants is what happens. The remaining question is whether and to what extent this is a good thing, and when it isn't. Sometimes this prevents mob rule. Sometimes it enforces oligarchy. Sometimes both.
It should also be pointed out that the US is organized around the idea of the States holding influence and serving their populations while the Federal government is to serve the needs of the states as much as, if not more than the citizens. It's why the Senate was originally appointed by governors and each state holds an equal number of seats regardless of population. This has obviously changed over time and one can argue that with today's communication capabilities how necessary it still is, but our government was pretty clearly designed not to be as top heavy as it is.
Democracy is not the same as tyranny of the majority. People who are in favor of absolute direct democracy usually either are usually not aware how stupid the masses really are. And no, I don't mean "dem dirty republicans". People in general are short-sighted and selfish and prone to quick emotional reactions. Which is not exactly the way to rule a country - look at Zimbabwe for some great ideas on how not to do some things like redistribute taxes.
As was mentioned above, definitions get "fun" really fast. Arguing for "Democracy" as any one group sees it tends to get into a "No True Scotsman" fallacy really fast. The best "guideline" for a definition of what people actually want that I've seen is some variant of this idea: Balance the rights of the individual against the good of the majority against the will of the majority. Figuring out what all 3 of those mean is why it's not simple.
Necronic
Staff member
There's also the reality that it is practically impossible for someone not steeped in government for many years to really understand the implications of the myriad of bills and decisions that roll through congress/White House every year, let alone have the time to really analyze them. This is especially true for all the minor things that don't make the news, we would have to dedicate many hours a week to have a any semblance of real view on them, but it's also true for the more important issues.
We all may be able to broadly identify our positions on the key pieces of legislation out there that everyone talks about, but the devil is in the details on those, and there is a wealth of details that most of us really don't have the time to learn. A direct democracy just wouldn't work because the decisions are simply too complex, and that would lead to some really foolish decisions.
So we would just end up falling back on listening to bullet pointed summaries and opinion pieces by charismatic types like O'Reilly or Oliver to tell us how to vote, which would put a lot of power in their court.
For an example of this, consider our current Presidents inability to understand his own legislation, and his over-reliance on highly questionable advisors.
We all may be able to broadly identify our positions on the key pieces of legislation out there that everyone talks about, but the devil is in the details on those, and there is a wealth of details that most of us really don't have the time to learn. A direct democracy just wouldn't work because the decisions are simply too complex, and that would lead to some really foolish decisions.
So we would just end up falling back on listening to bullet pointed summaries and opinion pieces by charismatic types like O'Reilly or Oliver to tell us how to vote, which would put a lot of power in their court.
For an example of this, consider our current Presidents inability to understand his own legislation, and his over-reliance on highly questionable advisors.
Undoubtedly. I'd actually say that for a LOT of successful people and politicians, it's who they surround themselves with that determines their success/failure. Of course determining whom that should be is a skill itself.
However on the inability to understand legislation, I would remind you of the "We have to pass the bill to see/understand what's inside of it." (I'm mis-quoting I'm sure, but I'm referring to the ACA)
Except that it doesn't, because the whole point of the Scotsman thing is that what a Scotsman is is well defined by ancestry and geography.
The fallacy example wouldn't work if said uncle was actually chinese, and only moved to Scotland 3 months ago.