Originally posted by Bardock42
Where did you get those from? And why are they all brown and smelly?
If you looked at the original post, I cited them from Wikipeida's entry on "Federal Republic". Since you didn't know that, I question whether or not you are even reading our information, simply just arguing out our your arse. 🤣
Sorry, I do have to disagree that this is not true democracy, and that it is not unless the peopl;e rule directly, and I know experts in the political field who would also disagree.
Democracy means one thing only- that people get a vote. The basics of the word itself don't mean anything else. It was to be qualified with another word- hence, in our case, representative democracy means that your vote goes towards deciding who will represent you.
If what people are, for some reason, calling 'true' democracy went ahead, what we would have then is simple mob rule.
If you ask me, representative democracy is as true a democracy as you can get.
Originally posted by Alliance
If you looked at the original post, I cited them from Wikipeida's entry on "Federal Republic". Since you didn't know that, I question whether or not you are even reading our information, simply just arguing out our your arse. 🤣
So wikipedia is saying that representative Democracy is not a Democracy, while saying that representative Democracy is a Democracy?
As for the Original Post, i am srry I can't remember everything what you said.
Also, I looked it up, the part you quoted is not part of the Wikipedia Site. So, again, where did you get it from?
Originally posted by Bardock42
So wikipedia is saying that representative Democracy is not a Democracy, while saying that representative Democracy is a Democracy?As for the Original Post, i am srry I can't remember everything what you said.
Also, I looked it up, the part you quoted is not part of the Wikipedia Site. So, again, where did you get it from?
It'd take you ten minutes to page back and read things, Bardock. No need to be lazy about it.
Sorry, I do have to disagree that this is not true democracy, and that it is not unless the peopl;e rule directly, and I know experts in the political field who would also disagree.Democracy means one thing only- that people get a vote. The basics of the word itself don't mean anything else. It was to be qualified with another word- hence, in our case, representative democracy means that your vote goes towards deciding who will represent you.
If what people are, for some reason, calling 'true' democracy went ahead, what we would have then is simple mob rule.
If you ask me, representative democracy is as true a democracy as you can get.
Certainly more feasible than "mob rule", but less true to the ideal of rule by the people. And there are many different types of indirect democracy that are much closer to that ideal without sacrificing the neccessary buffer to prevent tyranny by majority.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
It'd take you ten minutes to page back and read things, Bardock. No need to be lazy about it.Certainly more feasible than "mob rule", but less true to the ideal of rule by the people. And there are many different types of indirect democracy that are much closer to that ideal without sacrificing the neccessary buffer to prevent tyranny by majority.
Not the point, the US is a democracy. What you find more democratic and such does not matter.
Who says that for a democracy to be 'true' it has to be in the form of people directly making decisions? Why does that best fit the definition? It is rule by the mob, not by 'the people' at all.
Bear in mind the term is 'the people', NOT 'the persons who live in this country." It's an embodiment, not literal.
Rule of the people is best expressed by elected representatives.
Originally posted by Alliance
1. Democracies do not have constitutions. People in federal repulics rule by law, not through popular opinon (as in democracy).
2. Independant states"A federal republic is a state which is both a federation and a republic. A federation is a state composed of a number of self-governing regions (often themselves referred to as 'states' or 'regions'😉 united by a central, federal government. In a federation, unlike in a unitary state, the self-governing status of autonomous regions is constitutionally entrenched and cannot be revoked by an unilateral decision of the central government." Wikipedia
Click on the link I so nicely provided...
The US is not and has never been a democracy. It uses democratic principles, but is a federal republic.
and hello Ush...I think the rule of the people is best expressed by the people themselves. It more convinient to rule through represenataives, but then additional complications are addeda nd the views of the people are not represented in this system.
Originally posted by Alliance
Click on the link I so nicely provided...The US is not and has never been a democracy. It uses democratic principles, but is a federal republic.
and hello Ush...I think the rule of the people is best expressed by the people themselves. It more convinient to rule through represenataives, but then additional complications are addeda nd the views of the people are not represented in this system.
I am referring to the first two points, you just made those up. THat's the problem.
The US is a Democracy by definition. It is not a direct Democracy, but that doesn't matter.
The US is both, a federal republic, and a representative Democracy.
Think of it like this, a Basketball ball is round and has an Orange-Brown colour. It can be both. And it is both. What do you study again?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Who says that for a democracy to be 'true' it has to be in the form of people directly making decisions? Why does that best fit the definition? It is rule by the mob, not by 'the people' at all.
Ush, do you understand the American fascination and love for the ideals of democracy? Do you know what's in the mind of every average American who thinks "Hey, we're free and equal and our voices are heard and our demands met"? I really don't think you do. Most Americans aren't fully aware of the fact that their system isn't a democracy any more than the Roman Republic was. If anything, the onl thing that's really changed is a protection of basic human rights and the idea of the social contract; that's it.
Now, how is a country being ruled "By the people, for the people" when the elections are limited to people who can receive large sums of money for campaigning (For example, Bush brought up literally millions upon millions of dollars to campaign in 2000.) who then get into office and receive back to back lobbying from large interest groups, on top of pressure from peers, their own agendas, and the people who provided money for the campaigning along with their political party? Simply put- it isn't. That's a form of a republic, where the wealthy class holds all the power and those with money make the policies. It's not a real democracy any more than Rome was. Whether or not it's effective isn't what I'd like to address though.
And the people ARE the mob, Ush. It's the same thing.
Bear in mind the term is 'the people', NOT 'the persons who live in this country." It's an embodiment, not literal.
Embodiment of what? Where are you plucking this definition from? Personal viewpoint? Unfortunately, you seem to be adding definitions on to the original meaning of the word. That'd be fine if you dictated the definitions of the English language, but you don't.
Rule of the people is best expressed by elected representatives.
Personal opinion and irrelevant. The entire debate was about what constitutes a "true democracy", not what is more feasible in practice.
I took those concepts straight from the article. I even provided the quote for you.
"A federal republic is a state which is both a federation and a republic. A federation is a state composed of a number of self-governing regions (often themselves referred to as 'states' or 'regions'😉 united by a central, federal government. In a federation, unlike in a unitary state, the self-governing status of autonomous regions is constitutionally entrenched and cannot be revoked by an unilateral decision of the central government."
cited from Wikipedia
could I make myself more clear as to where I got them from?
Originally posted by Bardock42
The US is a Democracy by definition. It is not a direct Democracy, but that doesn't matter.
Except for you use the definiton of democracy and apply it to the United States. This is your opinon. You have NOT provided a definiton that says the US is a democracy. You say the US is like a democracy by comparing porcedures, elections, and government structure. I have porvided, REPEATEDLY, credible sources that say DIRECTLY the US is a federal republic with strong democratic ideals, among them dictionary.com, the CIA, and Wikipedia. I have direct links, you create them.
I am a honors history major with concentrations in classical history and the history of science. I also am a fanatical follower of politics and have been for 6 years now. Even so, thsi wouldn't even matter, I have evidence, you do not.
And Janus dont take your anger out on Ush, he just came to the argument.
And I think the views of the people are not represented by 'direct' democracy either, merely the loudest of those people- once more, the mob. It fails to live up to the embodiment of Government by the concept of 'the people'.
Trying to argue the US is not a Democracy on dry technical grounds is a dead end. It's at best pedanticism, and at worst (more likely) simply irrelevant to the way the term is used.
You cannot really debate that:
1. The US directly fits into the term 'Democracy' as defined in most dictionaries.
2. That when people try to say it is not a Democracy, they mean that people do not directly makes decisions. However, that is not the sole definition of democracy, so the logic does not carry.
3. That there is such a term as 'Representative Democracy', that the US fits into that model, and so therefore to try and say the US is not a Democracy is something that does not stand up to close examination.
Originally posted by Alliance
I took those concepts straight from the article. I evne provided the quote for you."A federal republic is a state which is both a federation and a republic. A federation is a state composed of a number of self-governing regions (often themselves referred to as 'states' or 'regions'😉 united by a central, federal government. In a federation, unlike in a unitary state, the self-governing status of autonomous regions is constitutionally entrenched and cannot be revoked by an unilateral decision of the central government." Wikipedia
That says what a federal Republic is, not what a democracy is not. You understand the difference, I suppose. What do you study again?
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Ush, do you understand the American fascination and love for the ideals of democracy? Do you know what's in the mind of every average American who thinks "Hey, we're free and equal and our voices are heard and our demands met"? I really don't think you do. Most Americans aren't fully aware of the fact that their system isn't a democracy any more than the Roman Republic was. If anything, the onl thing that's really changed is a protection of basic human rights and the idea of the social contract; that's it.Now, how is a country being ruled "By the people, for the people" when the elections are limited to people who can receive large sums of money for campaigning (For example, Bush brought up literally millions upon millions of dollars to campaign in 2000.) who then get into office and receive back to back lobbying from large interest groups, on top of pressure from peers, their own agendas, and the people who provided money for the campaigning along with their political party? Simply put- it isn't. That's a form of a republic, where the wealthy class holds all the power and those with money make the policies. It's not a real democracy any more than Rome was. Whether or not it's effective isn't what I'd like to address though.
What the American People think is of no matter. If they think about a direct democracy or not...same difference really.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Personal opinion and irrelevant. The entire debate was about what constitutes a "true democracy", not what is more feasible in practice.Err, no, it was not. It was about the US being a Democracy or not.
Here is the post that started the argument:
[QUOTE=6423519]Originally posted by Janus Marius
Don't confuse democracy with American capitalism. And America is a Republic, not a democracy.
You claiming that the US was not a Democracy. Well, that is wrong. The US is a Democracy. Clear now?
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Ush, do you understand the American fascination and love for the ideals of democracy? Do you know what's in the mind of every average American who thinks "Hey, we're free and equal and our voices are heard and our demands met"? I really don't think you do. Most Americans aren't fully aware of the fact that their system isn't a democracy any more than the Roman Republic was. If anything, the onl thing that's really changed is a protection of basic human rights and the idea of the social contract; that's it.Now, how is a country being ruled "By the people, for the people" when the elections are limited to people who can receive large sums of money for campaigning (For example, Bush brought up literally millions upon millions of dollars to campaign in 2000.) who then get into office and receive back to back lobbying from large interest groups, on top of pressure from peers, their own agendas, and the people who provided money for the campaigning along with their political party? Simply put- it isn't. That's a form of a republic, where the wealthy class holds all the power and those with money make the policies. It's not a real democracy any more than Rome was. Whether or not it's effective isn't what I'd like to address though.
And the people ARE the mob, Ush. It's the same thing.
Embodiment of what? Where are you plucking this definition from? Personal viewpoint? Unfortunately, you seem to be adding definitions on to the original meaning of the word. That'd be fine if you dictated the definitions of the English language, but you don't.
Personal opinion and irrelevant. The entire debate was about what constitutes a "true democracy", not what is more feasible in practice.
Well, I certainly understand that Americans have a tendency to feel that they know best what Democracy is and are continually scorned by the rest of the world for it, yes.
If you want to talk about the perils of representative democracy, I think that would be better done in another thread. But right now you are arguing its definition, which really doesn't give you much to stand on, as the dictionaries are against you. Odd, seeing as you are trying to use the 'English language' defence- something you are failing on, rather fundamentally.
I also take enormous exception to someone who confuses the mob with the people. You need to better understand the concept of 'people' in this sense.
And there is plenty of personal opinion flying around in this debate, so you have no cause to call me out on that. People have expressed an opinion that is the opposite of what I have said as well.
And Janus dont take your anger out on Ush, he just came to the argument.
I'm hardly taking out my anger on anyone here. I don't really have a whole lot of anger right now; not at work yet.
You claiming that the US was not a Democracy. Well, that is wrong. The US is a Democracy. Clear now?
I said the U.S. was a republic and was not a true democracy. You argued against this. Clear now?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, I certainly understand that Americans have a tendency to feel that they know best what Democracy is and are continually scorned by the rest of the world for it, yes.If you want to talk about the perils of representative democracy, I think that would be better done in another thread. But right now you are arguing its definition, which really doesn't give you much to stand on, as the dictionaries are against you. Odd, seeing as you are trying to use the 'English language' defence- something you are failing on, rather fundamentally.
I also take enormous exception to someone who confuses the mob with the people. You need to better understand the concept of 'people' in this sense.
And there is plenty of personal opinion flying around in this debate, so you have no cause to call me out on that. People have expressed an opinion that is the opposite of what I have said as well.
1. I've pointed out plenty of evidence on my behalf. Have you reviewed it all?
2. I am hardly using the "English language" defence, though I do take offense when Bardock, who can't spell "like" right on the first try and contradicts himself every five posts, tells me I don't know a damn thing about my own form of government. Especially given that I'm in goverment classes as we speak.
3. I'm glad you take "enormous exception". Now, when you can show me how people and the mob are not synonymous, I'll entertain it. You're applying your own personal unsupported definition of what "the people" are in the sense of democracy. Take a look at a political rally or gathering- you mean to tell me that isn' moblike behavior? Look at the factionalization at debates and in schools over issues... you mean that isn't moblike behavior? You mean that when people start putting flags all over their cars and houses during a time of war and crises, rallied against a common foe, that isn't moblike behavior?
When you have "the people", you have essentially a mob of people. They are acting as a group. Groups have dynamics. It's not like it's a nice quiet auditorium and tons of quiet, educated and respectable people are going to make fully informed and righteous decisions. Let's not be silly here- nations act like mobs all the time, and especially in the case of politics.
Originally posted by Alliance
Except for you use the definiton of democracy and apply it to the United States. This is your opinon. You have NOT provided a definiton that says the US is a democracy. You say the US is like a democracy by comparing porcedures, elections, and government structure. I have porvided, REPEATEDLY, credible sources that say DIRECTLY the US is a federal republic with strong democratic ideals, among them dictionary.com, the CIA, and Wikipedia. [b]I have direct links, you create them.I am a honors history major with concentrations in classical history and the history of science. I also am a fanatical follower of politics and have been for 6 years now. Even so, thsi wouldn't even matter, I have evidence, you do not.
And Janus dont take your anger out on Ush, he just came to the argument. [/B]
What makes the definitions not apply to the US? Is the US for some reason a special object that is not linked to the real world? If it fits the definition of Democracy (and it does9 then it is a democracy, that is all there is. If you produce one million people that say that the US is not a democracy, it doesn't matter it is factually a democracy.
Sticking feathers up my butt won'T make me a chicken. And denying that I am a human doesn't mean I am not human.
Well, I am sorry to say, your education seems to be wasted on you, if you don't even understand such simple concepts as Democracy.
"Take a look at a political rally or gathering- you mean to tell me that isn' moblike behavior? "
Nope. I would say it is VERY moblike behaviour- and not the slightest bit democratic.
Ok, here is an example. When Lincoln said 'for the people', he did NOT mean the mob. He did not mean the loudest voice or even the greatest number of loudest voices. He meant a Government that would serve the people as a whole.
There is a very, very distinct semantic difference when the words 'mob' and 'people' are used.
BTW, this line:
"That'd be fine if you dictated the definitions of the English language, but you don't"
That was the English language defence. I am surprised you forget using it so quickly. But I am reminding you of how the language is used, not dictating it myself, is the thing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What makes the definitions not apply to the US? Is the US for some reason a special object that is not linked to the real world? If it fits the definition of Democracy (and it does) then it is a democracy, that is all there is. If you produce one million people that say that the US is not a democracy, it doesn't matter it is factually a democracy.
Most of the world does not have a democracy. Its not special, its like every other country. It has DEMOCRATIC IDEALS, but it is not a democracy. Dictatorships, federal republics, constitutional monarchies, all use democratic ideals. None of them are democracies.