Democracy Vs Republican System of Government

I did a Google search on the differences between a Democracy and a Republic. The basic difference is that a Democracy can be a tyrant of the majority against the minority or the individual and a Republican System has a Constitution for the express purpose of defending the individual or the minority group of people. The primary difference being an unlimited authority of the majority in a Democracy that becomes tyranny vs a limited authority of the majority under a Constitutional Republic with the rights of the individual being protected.





Oh, a Republican form of government is the way to go. Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel, find the things that work the best and then improve on those things. Like the US Constitution for the bases of setting up a government and tweak that constitution for your new model. That way you don't make the same mistakes and you can refine something that already worked and then improve on it.

Larry,

You're absolutely right Martian. Why try to reinvent what is already a world-renowned system? We'll just make a few refinements here and there. Nothing revolutionary, although the effects might be profound ;-)

Ah, but when our Republican leaders (chosen how by the way?) start seeing themselves as 'above' the rest of us and act like aristocrats, using the power of government to enrich and protect themselves, how do the 'individuals' in the system protect themselves.

OR - when they enact laws that infringe 'just a little bit' on Individual rights (for the greater good of course) how do you stop that? Starting from a Clean Slate always sounds good, but it never really works. (does anyone use the Napoleonic calendar with the months named after fruits?)

The US had a good system, but it's gotten clogged up with detritus over the years, as any system will. It just needs a good laxative.

Actually, the French revolutionary calendar might not be such a bad idea, it is more logical. Unfortunately, it would be far too inconvenient to use when no-one else does- and that's where the benefit of the clean slate.

I generally support a semi-democratic system of government- take a look at my suggestions in other threads.

BTW, US is republican.

A Constituion is a very good thing to have, and it's something we need to get to work on.

I did a post on the Levels of Government, which was based on the original American system. Despite what people may say, the American system as the Founding Fathers intended it is the best system we can have, human nature being as it is.

We shouldn't try to create utopia. Utopias always fail when they have more than a small group of people, and more than a small group of people are needed to prevent a closed mindset. Instead, it should be based around human nature.

I think there's room for improvement- as with all things.

I have no problems with Libertarianism's 'Live and let live' philosophy. My issue is with people whose philosophies are 'Live and let die'. You mentioned human nature- and that is what people want to do, yet you cannot provide any moral justification for live and let die. It is an atrocious state of being, all for one and none for all.

A normal capitalistic economy has no inherent sense of direction, although it does have admirable efficiency.

I am not a socialist, but I do support a more mixed economy, where a democratic (NOT republican) ((These being systems of government, not American political parties) governemnt, with a few elements of republicanism provides direction and a few benefits that are necessary for a rational society.

Governemnt is there for the sole purpose of preventing 'Live and lets kill' from taking root.

The trouble with democracy - a.k.a Mob rule - is that if the majority of the people are against a minority of people, that minority will be oppressed by the majority. In a Republican system we have a Constitution to prevent those sorts of things.

There would be a constitution for a democracy system too. I actually think that very similar amendment procedures as in the USA constitution would work very well.

Doesn't 'live and let's kill' have the same effect as live and let's die'?

A constitution is a great thing when it's adhered to. The United States had a great start, but look what decades (centuries..) of abuses have done.

“A constitution is a great thing when it's adhered to. The United States had a great start, but look what decades (centuries..) of abuses have done.”

Let’s see. The United States started with millions of people in slavery. It took 89 years before slavery was abolished (the 13th Amendment of 1865), another century before the right to vote was established even as a theoretical legal right (the Voting Rights Act of 1965), and decades more before that right became effective.

I think I’d hang down my head in shame (as did Jefferson) at that start, and I would certainly celebrate the subsequent “abuses.”

As for voting, the United States started with a prohibition against women exercising the right to vote. It took 144 years of “abuses” to get to the point where it could be said, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” (the 19th Amendment of 1920).

It took another five years of “abuses” for that right to be extended to American Indians.

After another 45 years of “abuses” (Taylor v. Louisiana in 1975), the Supreme Court denied states the right to exclude women from juries.

I could go on at considerably greater length concerning things like:

The right to own property--no woman could property in any state in the United States until 1839, and even then, in only one state

Jobs--"No Irish Need Apply"

Public Accomadations--"Always a View, Never a Jew"

Medical care, education and on and on.

I’d say three cheers for the “abuses.”

Bob

jumpboy11j, 'live and let's kill' is different from 'live and let's die'. The presence of an appostrophe indicates that it is 'live and let us kill' as opposed to 'live and let us die'. The latter does not make sense. Perhaps you meant 'live and let die', in which case the difference would be the same as murdering someone vs. refusing to help someone who is dying?

bounf, given that we'd be starting from a cleanslate, we can clear those 'abuses'. There is a method set up for changing the US Constitution, except that it requires a majority (3/4 of the states) to pass...

My bad.

Live and let die is still not a good way of life.

We need a Constitution, definately. Oppresion of the majority is the definition of a democracy.

I would never argue that there should not be a constitution. If you think I have been saying that, you have grossly misconstrued what I have been saying.

You can give people full political power, and still have a constitution.

How? A Constitution implies limits on political power, which itself limits others political power.

Meaning that the people fill all political offices equally.

The USA could become a (direct) democracy simply by expanding the house of representatives to 169 million.

"A constitution is a great thing when it's adhered to. The United States had a great start, but look what decades (centuries..) of abuses have done."

Bob,

I wasn't referring to specifics, and I should have been more clear. Giving women the right to vote, ending slavery, etc etc, are not abuses! They are proper implementations of how the constitution is supposed to work.

What abuses were you referring to, and how is it more abused now than it was right at the start, or soonafter?

It would still not be a direct democracy, Redsand11j. The population is 300 million, so you'd still be denying a third to a half the population a vote.

Of course, if we new what the population would be it would help a lot. We can always break it up into districts, and have direct democracy at that level. Maybe a meeting once a month, with a council for day to day issues. Everyone's invited, with due provision made for members of the essential services.

I made a post called 'Levels of Government'. It will apply to the power structure as well as tax.

Total democracy in anything other than a town or community is merely tyranny of the majority.

Which is why we havem things called Constitutions, to avoid that problem. Democracy: two foxes and a rabbit debating what to have for dinner. Liberty: a well armed rabbit reentering negotions.

terraformer (In all honesty, that's how I think of you)-

A direct democracy CAN AND WOULD have a constitution. Using the ridiculous rabbit analogy, the foxes would be declawed or whatever (I'm not up on my woodland creatures anatomy), so that they can't eat the rabbit.

167 million is the number of registered voters in the USA. While admittedly not everyone, I think that affords a good proportion of the entire population.

But that's going against their rights. See, now it's not a total democracy, as the majority wants the rabbit to be eaten.

Frankly, terraformer, Democracy has nothing to do with rights. They are totally separate things. I point you to American slavery.

You obviously think that you've trapped me. Watch this:

If the majority says they should eat the rabbit, then let the rabbit die.

"If the majority says they should eat the rabbit, then let the rabbit die."

This is the main issue of democracy, even when rights are protected by a constitution. All rights can't be included, and when the morality of a society is degraded, rights of others are infringed upon.

Then let them be infringed upon. The great thing about Direct Democracy is that it would be supported from the most liberal liberal to the most social darwinist conservative.

I take it you're not a fan of conservatism.

Admittedly, no. However, I was using it more to contrast with liberalism (Which has major flaws as well).

How about this: The great thing about Direct Democracy is that it would be supported by everyone from socialists to the a social darwinists.

I don't support total democracy. Republicanism is necessary due to the single fact that the majority of the populace is clueless.

Exactly.

Which is why I suggested testing people when they go to vote, and then attaching more importance to the votes of people who actually know what they're voting for.

We need a central Constitution, which is their to guarentee rights of the people. I prefer the Federal system, because it means that the Constitution simply has to guarantee the right to move state, and then the people can find the state they like. If they can't find one, create one! Or if two end up really similar, merge!

How about something called schooling? If a majority of the population is clueless, don't exclude them from the legal process, educate them!

Terraformer- do you admit that a democracy can have a constitution, at least?

You need more than grease to fix a broken wheel. Education alone can't change the cultural and societal characteristics of a population.

Well, we need to find a wrench. This is a CSCS, after all. That means no more business as usual.

Educate them? A couple of problems with that:

1. What if they don't want to be?
2. How do you prevent education from being indoctrination, something which it has a tendency to do.

Direct democracy is possible, but only on a town level. Which is why towns should have some autonomy.

As long as they obey the constitution.

(By direct democracy I mean everyone)

I support voting tests, which, yes, will have to be kept from being corrupted. This could be done by convening panels of outside political scientists/activists/governmental people/maybe a few lawyers to review the test, or even to make it themselves.

People would retake the test every 5 years or so, and this would ensure that there is an educated electorate.

Direct democracy can and must work on a national level, since it is the only way to depose those horrible politicians.

It can't work on a national level; it's just too complex. Imagine having a general election every week. It takes a few weeks to simply count the votes.

A voting test should be simple enough that it can be taken every time voting occurs. A voting test for a president would have the voters being tested on the candidates policies. Yoyu fail, you vote isn't worth much. You pass with flying colours, your vote is worth the most.

Direct democracy is like Communism: it works on paper, but unfortunately the world isn't made of paper.

Ever heard of e-democracy? 95-99% of human labor can be removed. Voting practices today are on the whole anachronistic, and need more than anything to be replaced.

I say we need an international direct democracy. That is the only way humanity can act as one and stop fighting these silly wars that waste our true capacity.

I say we need a fair Constitution before we need Democracy.

You missed it again

I am a constitutionalist. Constitution or no constitution was decided about 200 years ago (actually, we're coming on 220 years since the french revolution, which was without a doubt more significant than the American IMO), and I don't seek to undo that part of common knowledge.

A constitution is a given. You can't even claim to have a government if that government is not laid out. That said, the constitution need not be an actual piece of paper, although symbolically, it might be a good idea. Anyway, a constitution is a given. It's what the constitution says that we're arguing about. I'm arguing that only a democracy, where people contribute to the government through a 'wiki system', IE a system where people can create and vote for proposals on different ways to solve different issues.

In point of fact, the line between democracy and anarchy is slight. When the people rule, with no legislators etc, who's to say that there really is a government anyway? This would be the final realization of Rousseau's idea of a 'social contract,' or a constitution- namely that it is an agreement between the people and themselves.

Anarchy - do what you like.
Democracy - do what the majority want.

There is a big difference.


Direct democracy is very difficult to implement on a large scale, and there is really no need. What is the point of having a direct democracy implemented, say, in Europe? Or America? I chose those places because they are the most similar to a Federal system we have. Nearly all laws should be decided on a state level, anyway. Now, if you're proposing direct democracy in, say, Britain or Vermont, then yes, that could work and be desirable.

No, Anarchy is from the greek "No Ruler"- which is now seen as no government. It is possible to say that there is no government if it is the people who are truly running the country.

I say, with a truly educated, pensive, etc populace, e-DD is the best way to run a country. You say that no populace has ever been that educated?

This is the clean slate, remember. If they need to be that educated and pensive, make them so.

Quote :

It is possible to say that there is no government if it is the people who are truly running the country.

No elected leaders? No judicial system? No laws?

I wrote:

Direct democracy is very difficult to implement on a large scale, and there is really no need. What is the point of having a direct democracy implemented, say, in Europe? Or America? I chose those places because they are the most similar to a Federal system we have. Nearly all laws should be decided on a state level, anyway. Now, if you're proposing direct democracy in, say, Britain or Vermont, then yes, that could work and be desirable.

Although I'd implement it on an even smaller level. It makes it easier and decentralises power further.

Locksley wrote:

Quote :

It is possible to say that there is no government if it is the people who are truly running the country.

No elected leaders? No judicial system? No laws?

I actually don't advocate the e-DD as anarchy position, but surely it is much closer than what we have now, since Anarchy is the ideal state, if only it worked.

You missed it again. Democracy is dictatorship of the majority.

There's no need for direct democracy on a massive scale. At most you require direct democracy at the scale most laws are created. That would be the equivilent of having direct democracy covering Vermont or Alaska, but not the entire USA.

A Night-watchman type state may be something to look into.

Eh? Elaborate, please.

Nightwatch? Or Nightwatch? Or maybe even Nightwatch?

What were you refering to? What about a Day-watchmen type state?

A Night-watchman type state consists of primarily police, judicial, and military forces. In other words, they prevent the infringing on of basic rights by other individuals.

Backed by a constitution that cannot be amended, (except perhaps by community votes) this is a very minimal government.