Are we a 'republic' or a 'democracy'?

volatile said:
No it doesn't. Ochlocracy means mob rule. Democracy means "rule by the people".
Click to expand...
What are mobs made up of? People. Pure democracy as mob rule is indeed correct, per your post.

It turns out that not all mobs are alike. Some are more moby than dicky.

DR
 
beeksc1 said:
+++

Democracy means mob-rule; and the masses are often misled.

A republic is a state who's top priority is economic freedom and individual freedom. As noted, America was founded upon the principles of a republic.

The US is far from a republic: prohibition, Patriot act, Multilateral policy; etc.

The US maybe considered an indirect democracy; but, if both candidates from the major parties are basically of the small ideology, is that a real choice?

Clinton and Bush
Kerry and Bush

Perhaps, the US is considered a psuedo-democracy?

The people get a topical choice; but, when it comes down to the issues, recently it has been two candidates who phrase things differently, yet their messages are practically the same.

Do you choice red or blue?
Do you vote for the establishment of a worldwide supranational government through force and fear-induction? Or do you vote for the establishment of a global oligarchy through gradualism and false-promises?

Any which way, it is just a ride.
Click to expand...

Worst necromancy ever.
 
Darth Rotor said:
What are mobs made up of? People. Pure democracy as mob rule is indeed correct, per your post.
Click to expand...

Well, not quite. If you read the Wiki article on ochlocracy, you'll see there is a functional (though certainly rather subjective) difference between the two. There are certainly differences, for example, between the "People", as understood as the citizens of a sovereign state, and a "mob", both in the way they enforce their will and the way that will functions politically.

It's far from useful to define democracy as mob rule, because the People do not work as a mob, nor do they share the ethical or political homogeneity which, to my mind, would characterise a mob.
 
Republic I think would fit our government's profile.

We elect people to represent us. And we vote for our leader (which is sort of both)
 
beeksc1 said:
A republic is a state who's top priority is economic freedom and individual freedom
Click to expand...

Goodness. Not only are you involved in thread-necromancy, but you start out with a statement that's completely, unalterably, beyond-a-doubt, WRONG.

A republic is simply a state that's not a monarchy (and not a few other minor types of government such as theocracy, none of which are significant players either philosophically or politically). The Roman Republic was not a state who's top priority was economic and/or individual freedom, but it was a republic nonetheless.
 
drkitten said:
Goodness. Not only are you involved in thread-necromancy, but you start out with a statement that's completely, unalterably, beyond-a-doubt, WRONG.

A republic is simply a state that's not a monarchy (and not a few other minor types of government such as theocracy, none of which are significant players either philosophically or politically). The Roman Republic was not a state who's top priority was economic and/or individual freedom, but it was a republic nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Not to mention beeks understanding of what constitutes "economic and or individual freedom" is probably highly questionable and open to argument.


Darth:
What are mobs made up of? People. Pure democracy as mob rule is indeed correct, per your post.
Click to expand...

So when my book club decides what day to meet for the next season, or what book to read, and we have an open discussion followed by a majority vote (with equal voting power) that's "mob-rule"? I am so tired of this easy and stupid slander. Are minority dominated systems governed by the best? This is exactly why even Aristotle recognized sub-categories. It makes sense to distinguish ochlocracy from democracy and aristocracy from oligarchy.
 
Cain said:
Not to mention beeks understanding of what constitutes "economic and or individual freedom" is probably highly questionable and open to argument.


Darth:


So when my book club decides what day to meet for the next season, or what book to read, and we have an open discussion followed by a majority vote (with equal voting power) that's "mob-rule"? I am so tired of this easy and stupid slander. Are minority dominated systems governed by the best? This is exactly why even Aristotle recognized sub-categories. It makes sense to distinguish ochlocracy from democracy and aristocracy from oligarchy.
Click to expand...
Jesus wept, can't anyone crack a joke around here without certain people, like yourself, leaping for the humorless overreaction lever?

The high dudgeon act isn't cutting it, Cain. Of course there's a difference.

What, you need smilies?

DR
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
No it doesn't. Ochlocracy means mob rule. Democracy means "rule by the people".
Click to expand...
I think the term direct democracy is closer than mob rule. We have many levels of direct democracy at the state and local levels of government in the form of referenda. The only allegory at the federal level that I can think of would be when an amendment to the constitution is put to the voters nationwide for ratification The Federal constitution does not allow for direct democracy and even the states that have referenda the result of that referendum cannot be used to overcome a federal statute nor can it be used to void a state law enacted in the state legislature.
 
Odd thread...

In the strictest sense a Republic is a state in which the populous are sovereign. A Democracy is a state in which governance is decided by the citizens gathering at casting votes.

The two are certainly not interchangeable, however while there's plenty of examples of democracies that are not Republics, (my own springs to mind), having a Republic that is not democratic is less common - Imperial Rome is probably the best example of a state in which the populous were sovereign, yet did not really have much of a direct say in governance.

Of course direct democracy is rather unworkable in a modern society due to sheer scale of numbers - the citizens of Athens would gather in the assembly and debate all major issues/trials/laws, and of course everyone was equal. I am sure you can imagine that allowing 100 million people or so to all "have their say" would pretty much render government impotent.

For this reason, in modern states we have representative democracy - theoretically we elect individuals who then represent our interests in the democratic process. As such, the actual democracy of a modern state is not when you go to the voting booth, but when your representative casts their vote in the senate/congress/parliament/reichstag/whatever.

Of course I'm rather skeptical of that because frankly I see little evidence of politicians representing the interests of their constituents, specifically the party system which appears to be relatively universal, directly undermines democracy. The people you vote for don't represent you at all, they represent their party interests, and often times people don't even vote for an individual to represent them, but for a party to rule the country as it sees fit. Worse yet, if you have an MMP system like my country does, half of the votes are not for representatives at all, but for a particular party.

In my opinion such as system cannot be considered democracy or a republic as the population relinquishes their power to a private organisation.

I am all for the banning of political parties - I think people should vote for individuals, not parties. Modern technology now offers the possibility of taking a giant step closer to true direct democracy, however I'm somewhat hesitant of the notion - direct democracy was built on an ideal of responsibility - not entitlement. Each citizen was supposed to take their responsibility for running the state very seriously, and as such would be expected to be attentive and aware of all issues.

I can't see the average modern westerner as being capable of actually living up to the ideals of direct democracy. So direct democracy in the west would very much descend into mob rule, I fear. Skeptics of all people are aware that the popularity of a belief does not reflect it's accuracy.

(Consider, for example, that the Athenian assembly would vote on matters of justice, acting as the court - imagine holding a referendum to determine a person's guilt!)
 
Darth Rotor said:
Jesus wept, can't anyone crack a joke around here without certain people, like yourself, leaping for the humorless overreaction lever?
Click to expand...

It seemed in keeping with what you have said previously.

Gumboot:
Of course direct democracy is rather unworkable in a modern society due to sheer scale of numbers - the citizens of Athens would gather in the assembly and debate all major issues/trials/laws, and of course everyone was equal. I am sure you can imagine that allowing 100 million people or so to all "have their say" would pretty much render government impotent.
Click to expand...

There's room to expand democracy into other domains, specifically and especially, business. A worker controlled enterprise, one where a vote is seen and felt immediately in day to day life, would promote democratic values of responsibility, autonomy and equality. Of course this notion of radical freedom is far removed from the ideals of modern (American) conservatives and liberals, two wings of the same ideology that openly despises non-elite control, the only difference of which is that conservatives view people with indifference and liberals claim to want to protect the contemptible masses from themselves.
 
I was quite inspired at the US holding the 2004 public election in conformity with the minimum standards of a democratic republic.
 
Cain said:
It seemed in keeping with what you have said previously.

Gumboot:


There's room to expand democracy into other domains, specifically and especially, business. A worker controlled enterprise, one where a vote is seen and felt immediately in day to day life, would promote democratic values of responsibility, autonomy and equality. Of course this notion of radical freedom is far removed from the ideals of modern (American) conservatives and liberals, two wings of the same ideology that openly despises non-elite control, the only difference of which is that conservatives view people with indifference and liberals claim to want to protect the contemptible masses from themselves.
Click to expand...
Well then let the workers get together the capital and build an enterprise. It has been done but has a very poor track record of success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom