Democracy or Capitalism

[anuthervoice]

 

[editec]

We theoretically live in a democratic republic.

The democratic parts come from the fact that ordinary CITIZENS get to choose the people who will be in government.

It is entirely possible to live in a NON-DEMOCRATIC republic.

And example of that might be a nation where ONLY the peers of the realm (the artistos) have any say in the the way the government is run.

Most oligarchies are in fact Republics, but without that messy democratic business thrown into the mix.

I find it almost unbelievable that this issue is really worthy of debate.

 

[Truthmatters]

The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.

Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?

what do they hope to gain?

 

[DiamondDave]

BTW a horse can call its self a pegasus but that doesnt make it a pegasus

This is your answer.

That is not answering the question... I did not ask what China calls itself.. or what they think.. I asked what YOU thought

See... I answered yours.. No, we are not a Democracy nor were we set up to be... Noting on capitalism was mentioned in the Constitution but the rights of private property ownership is....

So your either/or question was not valid...

I asked 2 simple yes or no questions, and even gave you the legal definition to base it on...

So.. again

With:

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Function: noun
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Is China a Republic? Yes or No will suffice
If by your definition, all Republics are inherently Democracies, is China a Democracy? Yes or No will suffice

If you do not believe it's a Republic, say so... if you do or not believe it is then a Democracy, say so....


And no... by definition, as shown to you NUMEROUS times with the legal definition of Democracy as a form of government... we are NOT a democracy... we are a Constitutional Republic... but thanks for playing

 

[Robert]

The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.

Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?

what do they hope to gain?

Representative Republic not a democracy have you really forgotten that already?

 

[editec]

The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.

Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?

what do they hope to gain?

Mind control, what else?

People who think that they live in a nation with a government is of the people by the people and FOR the people might start taking that phrase seriously.

Why they might even start using terms like liberty, equality and FRATERNITY and demanding that this nation take such concepts seriously, too.

Can't have that happening when the masters have spend the last 40 years telling people that society is an illusion, that everything good in life has to do with private wealth, and that GREED IS GOOD, can we?

 

[Truthmatters]

The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.

Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?

what do they hope to gain?

Representative Republic not a democracy have you really forgotten that already?

You saying it dosent make it true.

I gave you many sources that proved you wrong but like a good con you just ignored the facts and kept on spewing talking points in their place.

 

[American Legacy]

So you think voting is a privledge?

Voting is a privilege. It is not a right. That is as true today as it was when the Constitution was written.

 

[Truthmatters]

The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.

Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?

what do they hope to gain?

Mind control, what else?

People who think that they live in a nation with a government is of the people by the people and FOR the people might start taking that phrase seriously.

Why they might even start using terms like liberty, equality and FRATERNITY and demanding that this nation take such concepts seriously, too.

Can't have that happening when the masters have spend the last 40 years telling people that society is an illusion, that everything good in life has to do with private wealth, and that GREED IS GOOD, can we?

What is it these little people here think they have to gain by lying?

 

[Si modo]

This is a serious question: Did we stop requiring 7th graders to pass civics before they could advance in school?

The obvious follow-up question would be: How do we explain TM?

 

[Truthmatters]

why are you so commited to denying the definitions of words?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.

Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?

what do they hope to gain?

Is this your party's talking point for the week?

Are you just going to keep harping on it until they give you new instructions?

 

[Truthmatters]

Go find this subject anywhere but here.

This is from my own thoughts and questions trying to figure out why the rights view of things can be warped so easily by your masters

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The left wing buzzword for this week is "definitions".

I have it on good authority that next week's talking point will be "synonyms".

 

[Si modo]

The left wing buzzword for this week is "definitions".

I have it on good authority that next week's talking point will be "synonyms".

Caplitaism and capitalism must be synonyms.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

TM repeating things over and over doesn't change the reality.

We are a constitutional republic. Yes we do have democratic elections but our GOVT itself is still a constitutional republic.

Facts:
United States Government type - Government
Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion piece
America*is a Constitutional*Republic . . . NOT a Democracy

hi TM

I tried guys, what are you going to do when someone does not want to learn? I will keep trying I guess.

 

[American Legacy]

There is an important distinction between a republic and a democracy which can be found at the heart of where each government derives its authority.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 10:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. . .

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.

You can go back to Plato for how these terms have been understood since antiquity, if you have the time to read "The Republic".

Or you could just take the next seventeen minutes to educate yourself.

Either way, if you believe a republic is a democracy or that our Founders designed, wanted or left us with a democracy, it's time to go back to school.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is an important distinction between a republic and a democracy which can be found at the heart of where each government derives its authority.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 10:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. . .

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.

You can go back to Plato for how these terms have been understood since antiquity, if you have the time to read "The Republic".

Or you could just take the next seventeen minutes to educate yourself.

Either way, if you believe a republic is a democracy or that our Founders designed, wanted or left us with a democracy, it's time to go back to school.

You have missed the most important distinction of all. Our founders chose a representative republic as their chosen form of government. But those same men had very democratic ideals, beliefs and convictions. The two terms are being compared in the wrong way.

 

[editec]

The fact is by the very definition of the words we are a Democracy.

Why is the right so bent on distroying the Name democracy?

what do they hope to gain?

Representative Republic not a democracy have you really forgotten that already?

I'm sorry but you are wrong if you believe that there is only one kind of democracy.

Systems of governance are manmade social structures.

They are highly adapatable and so one can have all sorts of democratic systems (including democratic republics) that are still (in part) DEMOcracies.

Of course a PURE democratic system is one where every citizen votes on every issue of government.

If that is your point (that we do not live in a pure democratic system) you are right without in any way really advancing the discussion.

 

[Truthmatters]

By the very definitions of the words we are a democracy