If we can keep it.We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic
If we can keep it.We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic
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
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 soundsWell 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.
Much more accurate would be to replace Government with Bureaucracy.Presented with just one comment...
And that comment is...
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personally, have weighed in and signed off on every single decision a governmental entity has made, every law passed or repealed, and so on and so forth.Everyone keeps using that word "conflate" lately. I don't think it applies if you're intentionally making a point. You can disagree with their point, but it doesn't mean they conflated, since that's an action on their part.
Speak for yourself. I live in a Dominion . . .We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic
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
... like the United States across its entire history.You know, i actually wonder, what would a republic that's not a democracy look like?
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.
Yes, but which one?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.
... like the United States across its entire history.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Wouldn't that be the House of Lords?
No one said the distinction isn't important...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.
Except that the word Republic does not imply in any way that you're using the representative system the US does.or call it a republic
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).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.
And you'd need to take a wild guess, because it's not a thing.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.
Maybe if I change font sizes for emphasis, you'll be able to understand me better. But at least you know I'm rightLook, 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.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.Democracy is not the same as tyranny of the majority.
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.For an example of this, consider our current Presidents inability to understand his own legislation, and his over-reliance on highly questionable advisors.
Arguing for "Democracy" as any one group sees it tends to get into a "No True Scotsman" fallacy really fast.