Conquer Club

muy_thaiguy wrote:

suggs wrote:Thaiguy, I think Megs has shown you're talking out of your arse.
But the USA IS A DEMOCRACY. People vote for the leaders. Demos=people. Democracy=rule by the people.
Sort it out.

No, the US is now, and was founded as a Republic. To be very specific, a Constitutional Federal Republic. The Constitution is the law of the land and basis for all of the laws in the country, not the majority. Encyclopedia Britannica AND Wikipedia for starters both call the US as such.
http://www.britannica.com/nations/United-States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US

And even meggy's merriamwebster says the US is as such.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Why is it so offensive to you that in the United States the people have a say in who their leaders will be?

Why is it so offensive to you that a republic is intrinsically and essentially (read: by definition... the definition that you posted pages ago) a form of democracy?

I think you must be pulling my leg. If not... I just don't understand what you're not understanding. Obviously the US is a republic... that was never disputed. It's also a democracy (though of course not a pure democracy which is what I think you mistakenly think "democracy" in general is... I don't know of any present-day country that is a pure democracy).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

suggs wrote:Thaiguy, I think Megs has shown you're talking out of your arse.
But the USA IS A DEMOCRACY. People vote for the leaders. Demos=people. Democracy=rule by the people.
Sort it out.

No, the US is now, and was founded as a Republic. To be very specific, a Constitutional Federal Republic. The Constitution is the law of the land and basis for all of the laws in the country, not the majority. Encyclopedia Britannica AND Wikipedia for starters both call the US as such.
http://www.britannica.com/nations/United-States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US

And even meggy's merriamwebster says the US is as such.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Actually, if you are going to split hairs we are a reprsentative democracy, or republic. We vote for leaders who, in turn vote for the real choices. In fact, when we vote "for" a president (or most non-local officials, for that matter), we are actually voting for a member of the electoral college who will, in turn vote in a specific way. BUT, they are not actually obligated by law or other real means to vote that way. They do by custom, except in cases where the person they are to represent has withdrawn (or died), a few other cases.

AND, Meg is quite correct... "democracy" is used and quite well understood in common usage to mean almost any system where people vote and majoriy rules.

What you described is what a Republic, not a Democracy, is.

btownmeggy wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

suggs wrote:Thaiguy, I think Megs has shown you're talking out of your arse.
But the USA IS A DEMOCRACY. People vote for the leaders. Demos=people. Democracy=rule by the people.
Sort it out.

No, the US is now, and was founded as a Republic. To be very specific, a Constitutional Federal Republic. The Constitution is the law of the land and basis for all of the laws in the country, not the majority. Encyclopedia Britannica AND Wikipedia for starters both call the US as such.
http://www.britannica.com/nations/United-States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US

And even meggy's merriamwebster says the US is as such.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Why is it so offensive to you that in the United States the people have a say in who their leaders will be?

And here we go with this kind of routine. Please don't try to pull this kind of thing on me anymore, it just makes me mad. And I get annoyed when people call the US a Democracy and NOT a Republic (like what you and suggs were trying to pull earlier).

Why is it so offensive to you that a republic is intrinsically and essentially (read: by definition... the definition that you posted pages ago) a form of democracy?

And here I wish you would take a closer look at what I wrote. I wrote that a Republic and Democracy are similar, but different, which is the correct way to look at it.

I think you must be pulling my leg. If not... I just don't understand what you're not understanding. Obviously the US is a republic... that was never disputed. It's also a democracy (though of course not a pure democracy which is what I think you mistakenly think "democracy" in general is... I don't know of any present-day country that is a pure democracy).

Can you say "flip-flop?" Earlier in the thread both you and suggs were really insistent on the US NOT being a Republic and only a Democracy so don'y even try to pull this on me. And if the US was a Democracy, don't you think the sources above would have said so?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

suggs wrote:Thaiguy, I think Megs has shown you're talking out of your arse.
But the USA IS A DEMOCRACY. People vote for the leaders. Demos=people. Democracy=rule by the people.
Sort it out.

No, the US is now, and was founded as a Republic. To be very specific, a Constitutional Federal Republic. The Constitution is the law of the land and basis for all of the laws in the country, not the majority. Encyclopedia Britannica AND Wikipedia for starters both call the US as such.
http://www.britannica.com/nations/United-States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US

And even meggy's merriamwebster says the US is as such.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Actually, if you are going to split hairs we are a reprsentative democracy, or republic. We vote for leaders who, in turn vote for the real choices. In fact, when we vote "for" a president (or most non-local officials, for that matter), we are actually voting for a member of the electoral college who will, in turn vote in a specific way. BUT, they are not actually obligated by law or other real means to vote that way. They do by custom, except in cases where the person they are to represent has withdrawn (or died), a few other cases.

AND, btownmeggy is quite correct... "democracy" is used and quite well understood in common usage to mean almost any system where people vote and majoriy rules.

What you described is what a Republic, not a Democracy, is.

which might be why I said "republic"

... and btownmeggy was right as far as common usage goes, which is what she and I both specifically said.

I have highlighted the pertinent pieces.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Why is it so offensive to you that a republic is intrinsically and essentially (read: by definition... the definition that you posted pages ago) a form of democracy?

And here I wish you would take a closer look at what I wrote. I wrote that a Republic and Democracy are similar, but different, which is the correct way to look at it.

You're still wrong.

A republic is a democracy, but a democracy is not automatically a republic.


Merriam webster says democracy=a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Democracy is a name for any government where people vote and elect their rulers, either directly or indirectly. There are different types of it.

To get back to the original question (now having actually read the whole thread ...)

Ironically, Machiavelli and Marx both agree on one point. The government needs to do enough to keep folks happy without causing revolt.

Specifically, adding in a good deal of modern science and modern values:

Government should be run by laws, decided more or less by the people. For the most part, given the right information, folks will make reasonable choices. Not perfect ones, but reasonable. That's democracy.

BUT, since few people have the time, energy or knowledge to be truly informed, it helps to designate others who (hopefully) are those things ... ergo representative democracy, or republic.

AND, because individuals will naturally try to grab power for themselves, against the interests of society as a whole (greedy, not necessarily evil, sometimes just plain blind). LAWS are needed to reign in the abusers. We have a constitution and a system of checks and balances that more or less work pretty well.

I would add to this that while free commerce is good, we need to establish a few things. A universal education system for one. Necessary both for true decent commerce and for democracy. Reigns on the externalities. This is a big one. It means competitions is OK, monopolies not. Since the best competitors will "naturally" tend toward monopolies without an external check, we need laws. Pollution hurts us all. (there may well be debate over what is pollution and how bad various types harm us, but I believe that basic idea is accepted universally). However, there is no direct "check" on polluting. A company can pollute and not come to any harm itself... another externality.

Those are pretty accepted externalities. I would put base employee wages into this category. Employees need to work and don't actually have true freedom of movement or choice at the lowest ends (at the upper ends, yes, but not at the level of minimum wages). Skill is often a very real limiter, as is education and location. I consider it crass to just announce that folks can live where they choose and that anyone who works hard and make the "correct" choices will go far. For one thing, those ideas typically only take straight income into account. Am I being lazy because I stay home with my children? I am not directly contributing to society, after all. (and note, I actually would prefer to work elsewhere, but many women don't) Or, am I providing a greater benefit to society by ensuring that my children get the best care possible and have a better chance, therefore of becoming happy and productive citizens?


I would also add healthcare, but there is already a whole thread on that topic.

Finally, I would add some qualifications to pollution. Pollution is typically thought of as chemicals or perhaps noise. BUT, I would argue that we actually have innate needs for something I will call "beauty" though I know it leaves me wide open to ridicule. It is a hard to define something that makes us just enjoy being in one place instead of another. I would suggest that at some point, we need limits on just how much another person is allowed to impact the environment of another. In truth, these are actually among the most highly defended qualities and, perhaps ironically (because they are considered somewhat "soft", not true "needs") heavily regulated. But I just put forward that there is a real need there that exists ... while leaving a definition open.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Can you say "flip-flop?" Earlier in the thread both you and suggs were really insistent on the US NOT being a Republic and only a Democracy so don'y even try to pull this on me. And if the US was a Democracy, don't you think the sources above would have said so?

PLEASE quote me where I said that the US was not a republic. PLEASE.

Also, Wikipedia and Britannica links you provided DO say the US is a democracy, as well as a republic.

Guy, when the only person on your side in a debate is jenos, you have a strong indicator that you're not espousing a reasonable position.

btownmeggy wrote:Why is it so offensive to you that in the United States the people have a say in who their leaders will be?

I can't speak for others, but I've been pointing out that while the United States is very much a Democracy today it was not founded that way and the founing fathers would have thought it a four letter word.

Please note that Webster's Unabridged gives the following definition for Democracy:

"1 a : government by the people : rule of the majority b (1) : a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly (as in the ancient Greek city-states or the New England town meeting) -- called also direct democracy (2) : a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority in which the people choose their officials and representatives at periodically held free elections -- called also representative democracy"

At the time the U.S. Constitution was created only the House of Representatives was elected by the people, all other officers were elected through the states. This changed over time through Constitutional amendments. One could argue that the purpose of the Senate and even the veto power of the President was to prevent "rule of the majority." A super majority is needed and then again you need a complex process of state ratification in order to make a change to the Constitution.

Also most people associate "democracy" with the direct democracy element of ballot initatives, which are either loved or despised depending on the group making the initative at the time.

At the local level the various town governments, county governments and even state governments were and still are representative democracies. The federal government has become one over time.

btownmeggy wrote:Why is it so offensive to you that in the United States the people have a say in who their leaders will be?

Why is it so offensive to you that a republic is intrinsically and essentially (read: by definition... the definition that you posted pages ago) a form of democracy?

Both straw man arguments. MTG never claimed that the electing of leaders democratically is offensive.

DangerBoy wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Why is it so offensive to you that in the United States the people have a say in who their leaders will be?

Why is it so offensive to you that a republic is intrinsically and essentially (read: by definition... the definition that you posted pages ago) a form of democracy?

Both straw man arguments. MTG never claimed that the electing of leaders democratically is offensive.

He's obviously upset about the idea... to the point of being unwilling to listen to and seriously consider what nearly everyone is saying to him. He seems offended.

Anarchy.

Anarchy is more of a personal philosphy, a way of viewing the world, than a political map of how to do things.
I voted "Anarchy" myself though.

btownmeggy wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Why is it so offensive to you that in the United States the people have a say in who their leaders will be?

Why is it so offensive to you that a republic is intrinsically and essentially (read: by definition... the definition that you posted pages ago) a form of democracy?

Both straw man arguments. MTG never claimed that the electing of leaders democratically is offensive.

He's obviously upset about the idea... to the point of being unwilling to listen to and seriously consider what nearly everyone is saying to him. He seems offended.

To be quite honest you seem equally offended. Yes, we have strong democratic traditions in our country when it comes to elections. However, he made it quite clear that the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic. He's provided citations for that as well.

The majority or its elected representatives do not hold the supreme authority in our country. The supreme authority of law rests in the Constitution. We have specific separation of powers to ensure that it remains so.

Can we just resolve this and say that the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic, and that the easier (and just as accurate) way of saying that is "limited democracy"?

Thank you.

Hologram wrote:Can we just resolve this and say that the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic, and that the easier (and just as accurate) way of saying that is "limited democracy"?

Thank you.

I'd like to think so but I rather doubt it.

Hologram wrote:Can we just resolve this and say that the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic, and that the easier (and just as accurate) way of saying that is "limited democracy"?

Thank you.

Well... I don't know if I'd say "limited"... but close enough. I'm willing to jump on the freedom wagon.

Representative democracy is undemocratic, discuss.

protectedbygold wrote:To be quite honest you seem equally offended. Yes, we have strong democratic traditions in our country when it comes to elections. However, he made it quite clear that the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic. He's provided citations for that as well.

And it's still a democracy too.

I know that I am late to the party, but the USA is a democracy... Noticed I used a little "d." democracy with a little d has come to mean a state that is answerable to the people... So the USA is a democracy, France is a democracy... with a broad stroke you can categorize all free states as democracys...

However the USA is not a Democracy... notice the big "D." If the USA were a Democracy then we would have polls for every bill that got passed... there would have to be a poll every friday after work, and people would cast their ballot on what bills are going around.

I believe that the proper way to classify the USA form of government is as a Constitutional Federal Republic. We have a written constitution that frames the basic rules of governing. The USA are a Federation of 50 states, and we elect representatives that make law.

nmhunate wrote:However the USA is not a Democracy... notice the big "D." If the USA were a Democracy then we would have polls for every bill that got passed... there would have to be a poll every friday after work, and people would cast their ballot on what bills are going around.

Well then "Democracy" doesn't exist.


Not that I oppose the idea though, but I can see why noone would like such a system in a country. (The city-state could do with it, but not much else.)

Snorri1234 wrote:

nmhunate wrote:However the USA is not a Democracy... notice the big "D." If the USA were a Democracy then we would have polls for every bill that got passed... there would have to be a poll every friday after work, and people would cast their ballot on what bills are going around.

Well then "Democracy" doesn't exist.


Not that I oppose the idea though, but I can see why noone would like such a system in a country. (The city-state could do with it, but not much else.)

Well, really, with the advent of computers, if we could get people to stop being scared of poll manipulation and computer errors, we could have a kind of nearly pure democracy (not that we will, this is just pure speculation).

I mean, we'd have to choose, preferably by election, some executives on various levels to wage wars, deal with disasters and the like that would need to be handled immediately. But for legislative purposes we could, as you suggested, just go down to the local city hall, line up in a computer poll booth, vote on the issues of the week on the various levels (city, county, state, federal), and since the vote system is by computer it would be counted immediately and then put into action.

Sure it would be an annoyance to a lot of people, but those would basically be the same people who find the current voting system an annoyance, and we would cut down on politicians as the entire legislative branch would be replaced by the people instead of the representatives.

Hologram wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

nmhunate wrote:However the USA is not a Democracy... notice the big "D." If the USA were a Democracy then we would have polls for every bill that got passed... there would have to be a poll every friday after work, and people would cast their ballot on what bills are going around.

Well then "Democracy" doesn't exist.


Not that I oppose the idea though, but I can see why noone would like such a system in a country. (The city-state could do with it, but not much else.)

Well, really, with the advent of computers, if we could get people to stop being scared of poll manipulation and computer errors, we could have a kind of nearly pure democracy (not that we will, this is just pure speculation).

I mean, we'd have to choose, preferably by election, some executives on various levels to wage wars, deal with disasters and the like that would need to be handled immediately. But for legislative purposes we could, as you suggested, just go down to the local city hall, line up in a computer poll booth, vote on the issues of the week on the various levels (city, county, state, federal), and since the vote system is by computer it would be counted immediately and then put into action.

Sure it would be an annoyance to a lot of people, but those would basically be the same people who find the current voting system an annoyance, and we would cut down on politicians as the entire legislative branch would be replaced by the people instead of the representatives.

Well it would be a lot of work, especially on the federal level. I would suggest doing state and federal voting on a monthly basis or something. Giving people time to decide on issues is important, especially on big things.

I think it's a neat idea though. It prevents politicians from doing stuff people didn't want them to do. (Like Bush steadily losing approval-rating due to doing and saying the most outrageous stuff but there being noone to stop him.)

As a matter of fact, that gives me an idea. How about an oppurtunity for a citizen-vote to send representatives away when they act "evil" (i can't think of a better word)? It would have to a be large majority to actually do it to prevent the daily flunctuations of approval to affect it, but it would mean that at any time a politician could be send away when he majorly fucks up.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Hologram wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

nmhunate wrote:However the USA is not a Democracy... notice the big "D." If the USA were a Democracy then we would have polls for every bill that got passed... there would have to be a poll every friday after work, and people would cast their ballot on what bills are going around.

Well then "Democracy" doesn't exist.


Not that I oppose the idea though, but I can see why noone would like such a system in a country. (The city-state could do with it, but not much else.)

Well, really, with the advent of computers, if we could get people to stop being scared of poll manipulation and computer errors, we could have a kind of nearly pure democracy (not that we will, this is just pure speculation).

I mean, we'd have to choose, preferably by election, some executives on various levels to wage wars, deal with disasters and the like that would need to be handled immediately. But for legislative purposes we could, as you suggested, just go down to the local city hall, line up in a computer poll booth, vote on the issues of the week on the various levels (city, county, state, federal), and since the vote system is by computer it would be counted immediately and then put into action.

Sure it would be an annoyance to a lot of people, but those would basically be the same people who find the current voting system an annoyance, and we would cut down on politicians as the entire legislative branch would be replaced by the people instead of the representatives.

Well it would be a lot of work, especially on the federal level. I would suggest doing state and federal voting on a monthly basis or something. Giving people time to decide on issues is important, especially on big things.

I think it's a neat idea though. It prevents politicians from doing stuff people didn't want them to do. (Like Bush steadily losing approval-rating due to doing and saying the most outrageous stuff but there being noone to stop him.)

As a matter of fact, that gives me an idea. How about an oppurtunity for a citizen-vote to send representatives away when they act "evil" (i can't think of a better word)? It would have to a be large majority to actually do it to prevent the daily flunctuations of approval to affect it, but it would mean that at any time a politician could be send away when he majorly fucks up.

It's called a recall.

And yeah, really any kind of time frame would work weekly, biweekly, monthly, whatever. It's just the point of getting legislation out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of the people.

But, again, this is all pure speculation. To implement that sort of a thing, one would have to instigate a revolution or convince the politicians to give up their careers and amend the Constitution in that way (not likely to happen).

Hologram wrote: convince the politicians to give up their careers and amend the Constitution in that way (not likely to happen).

Yeah, if that was doable the whole point of it would be less important anyway.

By sending politicians away when they act evil will create a new problem. When they decide to take a bill which may be bad for certain people, even if it would be good in the long term, it will be very easy to rise the people against the politicians. That would lead all politicians to become populists, which will be a disaster. Of course this happens because of the elections and will always be a certain amount of populism, but by having politicians constantly under the threat of losing their power will only worsen the situation.

Ntetos wrote:By sending politicians away when they act evil will create a new problem. When they decide to take a bill which may be bad for certain people, even if it would be good in the long term, it will be very easy to rise the people against the politicians. That would lead all politicians to become populists, which will be a disaster. Of course this happens because of the elections and will always be a certain amount of populism, but by having politicians constantly under the threat of losing their power will only worsen the situation.

Well, the US has many recall/impeachment/suspension laws in place in order to actually take someone out of office, and it usually takes incredible unpopularity to even get the ball rolling on something like that because of all the work of signing petitions and getting legislatures to accept a vote for a recall and then you actually have to do the recall. It's really one big mess, but it can be done if the representative is bad enough.

Remember California's last governor? Victim of a recall.