The United States of America is not a democracy! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Irishsean · 10-28-2004, 05:43 AM

I'm really sick of hearing people refer to the US as a democracy. It is not, nor has it ever been a democracy.

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/...s/repvsdem.htm

Quote:

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Hanxter · 10-28-2004, 05:47 AM

you want to expand on why you think it is not???

shakran · 10-28-2004, 05:51 AM

Well if you wanna be technical, it's not a democracy OR a republic right now. Our "president" was appointed by a council of judicial ministers, and was NOT elected by the people.

Don't forget that the supreme court bypassed the electoral process when they installed Bush in office.

cthulu23 · 10-28-2004, 05:53 AM

We are a republic, aka a representative democracy.

Irishsean · 10-28-2004, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanxter

you want to expand on why you think it is not???

Ther is no thinking about it, the US government was never set up to be a democracy, it was set up as a republic. This is not my opinion, its a fact. I learned this in government class, which was a mandatory part of the education system where I grew up in michigan.

Quote:

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

Irishsean · 10-28-2004, 06:01 AM

More links with information:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm

Quote:

Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. "I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.

The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

Quote:

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure 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"

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...democracy.html

Quote:

Why "Democracy" is a threat to liberty!

roachboy · 10-28-2004, 06:24 AM

i enjoy the occasional reminder that america is not a democracy.
particuarly when it comes from conservatives (the website you link for sure...)
and when this reminder circulates through conservative media
"dont worry, little people--you are not free in any meaningful sense
because there is nothing really at stake in your participation in the electoral process, we can say anything..."

because, it seems, these folk think democracy is antithetical to "individual freedom"...democracy is communism....somehow this is linked, without the slightest analysis, to "socrates was killed by a democracy"--which you know about from plato, who was an enemy of democracy--a great philosopher--but an enemy of democracy.

it is understood as the "tyranny of the majority" without the slightest evidence, as if the information context particular to the bankrupt form of oligarchy rotation that we currently enjoy sets an eternal standard for information contexts.
as if information context could be the same if actual decisions relied on the deliberation of a collective.
as if the present kind of social subjectivity would be adequate for a democracy.
all without any analysis.

wow.
i guess there are frames of reference where simply citing one of the mystics who founded the current regime is in itself adequate--no need to do any thinking on the matter really, just cite jefferson.
apprently this is one of them.

so what i have learned this morning:

"individual freedom" is best preserved in a system that allows people actual power one day every four years, and even then mediates it with an appointed "collegial" body.

formal freedom is enough.

all you really need to do for americans to think they are free in any substantive way is to use the word alot.

apparently freedom works best when no-one is responsible for anything at the collective level. when there is no collective. when there is no deliberation. when there are no collective mechanisms. where there is no actual power excersized by the people. when there is only the fiction of power residing with the people.

that sounds about right.
thanks.

yet somehow the bush administration likes to talk about exporting democracy to iraq, which i just learned is a system that it does not have and does not want at home.
how does that work?

cthulu23 · 10-28-2004, 06:26 AM

I have to take exception to some of the claims made in your quote. Rights and minority protections could easily be built into a direct democracy just as they are not necessarily implicit in a republic. All of the wonderful protections that US citizens enjoy are a feature of our individual nation and not something that came bundled with our system of government.

Irishsean · 10-28-2004, 06:34 AM

I can't refute anything roachboy said, as I can't read it, please for the love of god, use capitalization and normal text formatting. It's very hard to read unless you do.

cthulu23: Semantics and partisanship aside, we do live in a republic, not a democracy. Don't take this off track by arguing the non-important claims, do some research and look it up yourself.

The truth is out there, its just become a buzzword of the media and politicians for so long its slipped past a lot of people.

warrrreagl · 10-28-2004, 06:51 AM

Well, once we've knocked each other in the heads finalizing the semantics of the name of the type of government in the US, then what?

Can I get an "Amen and move on?"

irateplatypus · 10-28-2004, 06:56 AM

our government is more of a republic than a pure democracy... but there are still very fundamental elements of democracy in our system. to say the US is a democracy is true, but the answer is more of a broad brush response.

there are no states with pure doctrines. that is to say, it's impossible to point to any country and say "this is a democratic/socialist/communist/fascist country". each country is a blend of 2 or more ideals. The North Korean government refers to themselves as the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). It's obvious that these terms have huge umbrellas over them. While people who claim the U.S. is a democracy often have little knowledge of what is actually meant by that statement... they are not completely away from the truth.

cthulu23 · 10-28-2004, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishsean

cthulu23: Semantics and partisanship aside, we do live in a republic, not a democracy. Don't take this off track by arguing the non-important claims, do some research and look it up yourself.

Partisanship? Who said anything partisan? As for semantics, the entire premise of this thread is based on semantic hair splitting. Republics are not necessarily representative democracies but the US is.

If you require a source for this obvious statement, here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Quote:

Representative democracy came into particular general favour in post-industrial revolution nation states where large numbers of subjects or (latterly) citizens evinced interest in politics, but where technology and population figures remained unsuited to direct democracy.

The United Kingdom exemplifies a representative democracy; Germany has been one since 1949. The United States and Canada are two more well-known examples.

A more accurate title for this thread might be "The USA is not a direct democracy!"

Irishsean · 10-28-2004, 07:09 AM

Long read, but informative and worthwhile...

Quote:

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"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."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles

by Hamilton Abert Long, 1976

roachboy · 10-28-2004, 07:22 AM

irish: try a little harder to read the post and maybe a discussion could come of it.
maybe if you put your face really really close to the monitor....

i do not like using caps. so i use spacing to make reading easier. i do not think it hard to follow.

Irishsean · 10-28-2004, 07:55 AM

Ok roachboy, I ran your post thru a quick and easy Microsoft Word spelling and grammar check, and this is what I came up with. Let me know if anything is substantially changed by following commonly held standards as to writing format.

I’ll refute this point by point, so bear with me.

Quote:

I enjoy the occasional reminder that America is not a democracy. Particularly when it comes from conservatives (the website you link for sure...) and when this reminder circulates through conservative media. "Don’t worry, little people--you are not free in any meaningful sense because there is nothing really at stake in your participation in the electoral process, we can say anything..."

Because, it seems, these folk think democracy is antithetical to "individual freedom"...democracy is communism.... somehow this is linked, without the slightest analysis, to "Socrates was killed by a democracy"--which you know about from Plato, who was an enemy of democracy--a great philosopher--but an enemy of democracy.

Who said Democracy is communism? You came up with that on your own.

Quote:

It is understood as the "tyranny of the majority" without the slightest evidence, as if the information context particular to the bankrupt forms of oligarchy rotation that we currently enjoy sets an eternal standard for information contexts. As if information context could be the same if actual decisions relied on the deliberation of a collective. As if the present kind of social subjectivity would be adequate for a democracy, all without any analysis.

Wow.

I guess there are frames of reference where simply citing one of the mystics who founded the current regime is adequate--no need to do any thinking on the matter really, just cite Jefferson. Apparently this is one of them.

Jefferson was one of the guys who wrote the constitution, you think he might have had a clue what he was doing when he made sure the government that was set up in the constitution was not a democracy. He was actually quite a critic of the idea of a democracy if you take the time to read the text of the Framer’s Convention.

Quote:

So what I have learned this morning:

"Individual freedom" is best preserved in a system that allows people actual power one day every four years, and even then mediates it with an appointed "collegial" body.

Formal freedom is enough.

All you really need to do for Americans to think they are free in any substantive way is to use the word a lot.

Apparently freedom works best when no one is responsible for anything at the collective level. When there is no collective. When there is no deliberation. When there are no collective mechanisms. Where there is no actual power exercised by the people. When there is only the fiction of power residing with the people.

That sounds about right.
Thanks.

If you want to argue whether it works as a form of government, start a different post. The point of this one is whether the US is a Republic or a Democracy.

Quote:

Yet somehow the Bush administration likes to talk about exporting democracy to Iraq, which I just learned is a system that it does not have and does not want at home. How does that work?

I agree with you here, the word “democracy” has become such a buzzword lately that people have lost track of what it means. Your last paragraph here makes my point.

powerclown · 10-28-2004, 08:07 AM

irish: Spend a month in Mexico - clear your senses a bit.

roachboy: Couldn't you apply the concept of oligarchy to any system of government anywhere, where a tiny minority of 'elites' run the country? Of course it is your right, but why single out America as being particularly rancid in this respect? There are poor, destitute, alienated citizens in every country, under every type of political system, no?

roachboy · 10-28-2004, 08:13 AM

first, i would like to thank you for your patronizing "translation" and "correction" of my post. sets about the right tone for this non-conversation. well done, a near classical mirroring of form and content.

the answer to the question of whether the u.s. is or is not a democracy is obvious and in itself not interesting.

that your thinking on the matter required you route a self-evident claim through jefferson strikes me a strange--but whatever, i took the citation as a point of departure for talking about something else---if you reverse your priority of republic relative to democracy and use the latter to critique the former, you can isolate interesting features. using the notion of democracy to criticize the american system is useful, i find. you are obviously not interested in the question. so be it.

what i am saying is that your post itself indicates no conception of what athenian democracy might have been like--instead of actually thinking about the matter, you prefer to cite a website that cites jefferson as if that settled the matter. fact is that jefferson understood democracy through plato. it settles nothing.

additionally, i read the website you linked--the "tyranny of the majority" in the context of the website made it sound as if the writer associated the two. in any event, it links to the hallucination of "democratic despotism" than runs through the federalist papers, etc. plato again.

and it always strikes me as odd when someone who begins a thread understands that they get to police how the thread unfolds. quite a strange notion of free discussion you have. but no matter, if you want to limit things to your initial "point" then its self-evidence requires no conversation. and maybe you do not want any. so talk to yourself. no problem.

bodymassage3 · 10-28-2004, 08:19 AM

I don't want to try and speak for him, but if I was asked the same question, my answer would be something along the lines of "I live here, I have more input here than I do there (though the results of my voting/etc. could influence those also places possibly), and thusly I care about the United States moreso than I do a third world country; not to say I *don't* care about what happens there, its just that this affects me more directly."

tecoyah · 10-28-2004, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishsean

Ok roachboy, I ran your post thru a quick and easy Microsoft Word spelling and grammar check, and this is what I came up with. Let me know if anything is substantially changed by following commonly held standards as to writing format.

If you wish to pick apart the Data.....feel free.
If you decide to pick apart the individual...I must get involved.

Respect and civility, are the new norm in TFpolitics

Irishsean · 10-28-2004, 08:28 AM

roachboy, It's become quite obvious that you have no thoughts concerning the original post, and merely want to argue points that you yourself brought up that have no relevance to the original post whatsoever.

The original post followed the idea that people use the word democracy to describe the US, even tho it was founded as a republic, and that there are differences in a republic and a democracy.

As I said before, if you want to argue which is better, or argue the origins and basis of the word democracy and the codes that Plato ascribed to it, start a thread about that, don't hijack this one.

tecoyah · 10-28-2004, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

irish: try a little harder to read the post and maybe a discussion could come of it.
maybe if you put your face really really close to the monitor....

Anyone want to see how we make ourselves a target....

Please people....a little less vigor in the spite category

powerclown · 10-28-2004, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodymassage3

I don't want to try and speak for him, but if I was asked the same question, my answer would be something along the lines of "I live here, I have more input here than I do there (though the results of my voting/etc. could influence those also places possibly), and thusly I care about the United States moreso than I do a third world country; not to say I *don't* care about what happens there, its just that this affects me more directly."

How can one, then, gauge the 'effectiveness of their input' in any governmental system?

I might have been unclear: I'm not saying that Third World countries have the only form of government ruled by an 'Oligarchy', as might have been interpreted. How about Germany, Japan, France, Australia, Spain, Italy, China, Poland, England, Norway, Holland, Nigeria, Israel, Brazil, India or any other country you can think of. Power & control in the hands of the social 'elites'; societies fueled by the majority.

Willravel · 10-28-2004, 10:30 AM

We're an empire. Bong!

D Rice · 10-28-2004, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We're an empire. Bong!

Dynasty

bling · 10-28-2004, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i enjoy the occasional reminder that america is not a democracy.
particuarly when it comes from conservatives (the website you link for sure...)
and when this reminder circulates through conservative media
"dont worry, little people--you are not free in any meaningful sense
because there is nothing really at stake in your participation in the electoral process, we can say anything..."

because, it seems, these folk think democracy is antithetical to "individual freedom"...democracy is communism....somehow this is linked, without the slightest analysis, to "socrates was killed by a democracy"--which you know about from plato, who was an enemy of democracy--a great philosopher--but an enemy of democracy.

it is understood as the "tyranny of the majority" without the slightest evidence, as if the information context particular to the bankrupt form of oligarchy rotation that we currently enjoy sets an eternal standard for information contexts.
as if information context could be the same if actual decisions relied on the deliberation of a collective.
as if the present kind of social subjectivity would be adequate for a democracy.
all without any analysis.

wow.
i guess there are frames of reference where simply citing one of the mystics who founded the current regime is in itself adequate--no need to do any thinking on the matter really, just cite jefferson.
apprently this is one of them.

so what i have learned this morning:

"individual freedom" is best preserved in a system that allows people actual power one day every four years, and even then mediates it with an appointed "collegial" body.

formal freedom is enough.

all you really need to do for americans to think they are free in any substantive way is to use the word alot.

apparently freedom works best when no-one is responsible for anything at the collective level. when there is no collective. when there is no deliberation. when there are no collective mechanisms. where there is no actual power excersized by the people. when there is only the fiction of power residing with the people.

that sounds about right.
thanks.

yet somehow the bush administration likes to talk about exporting democracy to iraq, which i just learned is a system that it does not have and does not want at home.
how does that work?

This is one of the best posts I've read on TFP Politics.

About the only thing I can fault it on is the statement that we are able to express our freedom once every 4 years. That is, unfortunately, not even true. Every 4 years, we can choose between one of two options. Even our miniscule true freedom is limited to a lowest common denominator prospect.

10-28-2004, 06:24 AM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i enjoy the occasional reminder that america is not a democracy. particuarly when it comes from conservatives (the website you link for sure...) and when this reminder circulates through conservative media "dont worry, little people--you are not free in any meaningful sense because there is nothing really at stake in your participation in the electoral process, we can say anything..." because, it seems, these folk think democracy is antithetical to "individual freedom"...democracy is communism....somehow this is linked, without the slightest analysis, to "socrates was killed by a democracy"--which you know about from plato, who was an enemy of democracy--a great philosopher--but an enemy of democracy. it is understood as the "tyranny of the majority" without the slightest evidence, as if the information context particular to the bankrupt form of oligarchy rotation that we currently enjoy sets an eternal standard for information contexts. as if information context could be the same if actual decisions relied on the deliberation of a collective. as if the present kind of social subjectivity would be adequate for a democracy. all without any analysis. wow. i guess there are frames of reference where simply citing one of the mystics who founded the current regime is in itself adequate--no need to do any thinking on the matter really, just cite jefferson. apprently this is one of them. so what i have learned this morning: "individual freedom" is best preserved in a system that allows people actual power one day every four years, and even then mediates it with an appointed "collegial" body. formal freedom is enough. all you really need to do for americans to think they are free in any substantive way is to use the word alot. apparently freedom works best when no-one is responsible for anything at the collective level. when there is no collective. when there is no deliberation. when there are no collective mechanisms. where there is no actual power excersized by the people. when there is only the fiction of power residing with the people. that sounds about right. thanks. yet somehow the bush administration likes to talk about exporting democracy to iraq, which i just learned is a system that it does not have and does not want at home. how does that work? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2004, 06:34 AM	#9 (permalink)
Irishsean edited for content Location: Austin, TX	I can't refute anything roachboy said, as I can't read it, please for the love of god, use capitalization and normal text formatting. It's very hard to read unless you do. cthulu23: Semantics and partisanship aside, we do live in a republic, not a democracy. Don't take this off track by arguing the non-important claims, do some research and look it up yourself. The truth is out there, its just become a buzzword of the media and politicians for so long its slipped past a lot of people. __________________ There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances. Leon Trotsky

10-28-2004, 06:51 AM	#10 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	Well, once we've knocked each other in the heads finalizing the semantics of the name of the type of government in the US, then what? Can I get an "Amen and move on?" __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

10-28-2004, 06:56 AM	#11 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	our government is more of a republic than a pure democracy... but there are still very fundamental elements of democracy in our system. to say the US is a democracy is true, but the answer is more of a broad brush response. there are no states with pure doctrines. that is to say, it's impossible to point to any country and say "this is a democratic/socialist/communist/fascist country". each country is a blend of 2 or more ideals. The North Korean government refers to themselves as the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). It's obvious that these terms have huge umbrellas over them. While people who claim the U.S. is a democracy often have little knowledge of what is actually meant by that statement... they are not completely away from the truth. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-28-2004, 07:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	irish: try a little harder to read the post and maybe a discussion could come of it. maybe if you put your face really really close to the monitor.... i do not like using caps. so i use spacing to make reading easier. i do not think it hard to follow. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2004, 05:47 AM	#2 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	you want to expand on why you think it is not???

10-28-2004, 05:51 AM	#3 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Well if you wanna be technical, it's not a democracy OR a republic right now. Our "president" was appointed by a council of judicial ministers, and was NOT elected by the people. Don't forget that the supreme court bypassed the electoral process when they installed Bush in office.

10-28-2004, 05:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	We are a republic, aka a representative democracy.

10-28-2004, 06:26 AM	#8 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	I have to take exception to some of the claims made in your quote. Rights and minority protections could easily be built into a direct democracy just as they are not necessarily implicit in a republic. All of the wonderful protections that US citizens enjoy are a feature of our individual nation and not something that came bundled with our system of government.

10-28-2004, 08:07 AM	#16 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	irish: Spend a month in Mexico - clear your senses a bit. roachboy: Couldn't you apply the concept of oligarchy to any system of government anywhere, where a tiny minority of 'elites' run the country? Of course it is your right, but why single out America as being particularly rancid in this respect? There are poor, destitute, alienated citizens in every country, under every type of political system, no?

10-28-2004, 08:13 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	first, i would like to thank you for your patronizing "translation" and "correction" of my post. sets about the right tone for this non-conversation. well done, a near classical mirroring of form and content. the answer to the question of whether the u.s. is or is not a democracy is obvious and in itself not interesting. that your thinking on the matter required you route a self-evident claim through jefferson strikes me a strange--but whatever, i took the citation as a point of departure for talking about something else---if you reverse your priority of republic relative to democracy and use the latter to critique the former, you can isolate interesting features. using the notion of democracy to criticize the american system is useful, i find. you are obviously not interested in the question. so be it. what i am saying is that your post itself indicates no conception of what athenian democracy might have been like--instead of actually thinking about the matter, you prefer to cite a website that cites jefferson as if that settled the matter. fact is that jefferson understood democracy through plato. it settles nothing. additionally, i read the website you linked--the "tyranny of the majority" in the context of the website made it sound as if the writer associated the two. in any event, it links to the hallucination of "democratic despotism" than runs through the federalist papers, etc. plato again. and it always strikes me as odd when someone who begins a thread understands that they get to police how the thread unfolds. quite a strange notion of free discussion you have. but no matter, if you want to limit things to your initial "point" then its self-evidence requires no conversation. and maybe you do not want any. so talk to yourself. no problem. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-28-2004 at 08:16 AM..

10-28-2004, 08:19 AM	#18 (permalink)
bodymassage3 Upright	I don't want to try and speak for him, but if I was asked the same question, my answer would be something along the lines of "I live here, I have more input here than I do there (though the results of my voting/etc. could influence those also places possibly), and thusly I care about the United States moreso than I do a third world country; not to say I don't care about what happens there, its just that this affects me more directly."

10-28-2004, 08:28 AM	#20 (permalink)
Irishsean edited for content Location: Austin, TX	roachboy, It's become quite obvious that you have no thoughts concerning the original post, and merely want to argue points that you yourself brought up that have no relevance to the original post whatsoever. The original post followed the idea that people use the word democracy to describe the US, even tho it was founded as a republic, and that there are differences in a republic and a democracy. As I said before, if you want to argue which is better, or argue the origins and basis of the word democracy and the codes that Plato ascribed to it, start a thread about that, don't hijack this one. __________________ There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances. Leon Trotsky

10-28-2004, 10:30 AM	#23 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	We're an empire. Bong!