Communism & Dictatorships

Originally posted by Alliance
I have repeadetly given sources that say the US is a federal republic, including the CIA. the US has a DEMOCRATIC style of governement, that is why the defition appears to fit. HOWEVER, becuase of the actual structure of the government, it is NOT a democracy

No need to shout.

Sadly, the definitions clearly make out the US style of Government to be not only Democratic, but also to be a Democracy- a clear reference. By the rules of how language works- especially in that English is defined by the use people make of words, not by definitions being enforced onto people, unlike French- I think that strongly undermines your position.

Like I say, you are relying on a very technical argument, and I do not think it has any currency.

Alliance, it's actually very telling that your argument to Bardock is that he can describe it as Democratic but not call it a Democracy...

... but then you try and use 'Constitutional Monarchy' as the end-all definition of the UK.

Nah. The UK has a Constitutional Monarchy, but that is an entirely inadequate definition of what the UK is, because it could work so many ways under that definition.

What it is, is a Democracy. Which is most certainly what we call it, and be damned to these attempts to define that out.

What is stopping us from being a Republic is that we have a Queen. But it's bugger all to do with the way our democracy works.

Talking of which, I'd be interested to know what you think Canada and Australia are.

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

That's basically not true. Most of Europe's Countries are Democracies. All of North America last time i checked....

You seem to think that democratic Ideals for some reason would be a much better term. Well guess what, they have democratic Ideals because they are Democracies. Republics do not need to be Democracies, but they can be.

Ok...this is my last post for today as I have a term paper to finish and this is distracting.

There is a difference between a democracy and a democratic state. I have been over this previously. A Ferrari has elements of a tractor, this does not mean that they are the same thing. A tractor could be described as car-like, that doen't mean its a car.

I would like to keep this debate focused on the US. That is what I know the most about and what I am the most comfortable talking about. I clearly do not undertand how the American govenment can say its is a federal republic, and you two flat out deny it. I never claimed America was ademocratic, democratic ideals are clearly present. However, thats not the strucutre of government and ITS NOT WHAT IT DEFINES ITSELF AS. This ins't simply my opinion, its the opinion of the US governement.

Just becuase some joe calls it a democracy, doesn't make it so. He has yet to provide official positions that the US is a democracy. I don't think he'll find crdible sources on this. Just because a definition applies does not mean the word under that definition is true, especially with abstract concepts like government. I'm sick of the sematics arguement that becuase a defenition applies its true. This isnt so. Bardock has been all over the place in this argument

I'm sorry I haven't had time to provide more sources (I have finals to worry about), but I have provided much more that Ush and Bardock. I don't know every aspect of a federal republic, thats whe I'm here, desiring to learn. Even though I have the US government's officioal position as sayig its a federal republic. Since this is apparently not enough, I look forward to gatherin more official sources when I have time.

I have taken a position, broken down why I believe that position, re-evalueated its merit and restated it in a revised and better form citing official evidence as backup. This as opposed to Bardock wh has simply blindly stated <democracy...democracy...democracy...why? because I think so> over and over again. I don't care about the definition, I said the US was democratic, so does the US government. Convince me by using evidnece, not the rhetoric that this discussion has turned to. The United States is DEFINED in Wikipedia as A federal republic.

"The United States of America (the U.S., the U.S.A., the States, the United States, or America[1]) is a federal republic in North America. With a history of over 200 years, the country is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world." <citation>

Now this brings up a point.

NO ONE has brought up this point, so I will bring it up now. Republics and democracies are very similar, espcially taking the cold war definion of democracy. Every country wants to be democratic. Democracy has be whored out to every type of government in existance. Defining a government by clear lines is difficult. Federal Republics are considered by some to be forms liberal democracies. Others like myself, draw distictions, citing the use of a consitution and a federation of states forming one nation. This is a debate that most likely cannot be resolved. However, since liberal democracies are a very general, loosely defined term that more often applies to governement philosophy and not policy, the US is best described as federal republic.

Again, this is a debate that most likely cannot be resolved. Hopefully this will end the ignorant rampge that is going on in this thread that the four of us have clearly hijacked. What makes me (personally) most angry is that Ush and Hardock have based their argument on an interpretation in the face of clear, direct evidence invalidating thier point.

A few points:

"I would like to keep this debate focused on the US. That is what I know the most about and what I am the most comfortable talking about."

That's okay, but at least know about that System, you don't, I understand you desire to learn. So don't argue, you don't seem to actually know about it.

"However, thats not the strucutre of government and ITS NOT WHAT IT DEFINES ITSELF AS. This ins't simply my opinion, its the opinion of the US governement."

The english Language defines it as one. As you will say as well, even if the USSR didn't define itself as a dictatorship, it was. Even is the US doesn't define itself as a democracy it is.

"I don't know every aspect of a federal republic, thats whe I'm here, desiring to learn. Even though I have the US government's officioal position as sayig its a federal republic. Since this is apparently not enough, I look forward to gatherin more official sources when I have time. "

No one denied that it was a Federal Republic. Yes it is obvious that you don't know much about federal Republics...well I know some, I happen to live in one. One of the most important aspects you need to learn is this: Federal republics and Democracies are NOT mutually exclusive.

"Republics and democracies are very similar, espcially taking the cold war definion of democracy."

Actually for people like me...and probably USh, Republics and Democracies are very clearly defined. The only problem we have in this Thread is that you and Janus are unable to understand that Democracy and Republic do not describe the same thing. A country can be a Democracy and at the same time a Republic, or a Monarchy.

ok...i lied about that being a last post.

I do know a heck of a lot about the US govenrnment, I said I didn't know every detail about federal republics. I just know the US is considerd to be one, but unlike you, I have and will contiune to back it with more than just my opinion. I certainly have the right to argue. You have been unable to mount an effective argument using evidence and not rhetoric. I have never used ad hominum resoning aginst you, don't use it agisnt me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one denied that it was a Federal Republic. Yes it is obvious that you don't know much about federal Republics...well I know some, I happen to live in one. One of the most important aspects you need to learn is this: Federal republics and Democracies are NOT mutually exclusive.

Stop talking down to me like I'm a child. I will learn on my own accord and I don't trust you to make accurate judegemnts. I use facts from people who know what they're talking about, you use your own opinions. I live in a federal republic too. I don't live in a democracy. The US has one national government. End of story.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually for people like me...and probably USh, Republics and Democracies are very clearly defined. The only problem we have in this Thread is that you and Janus are unable to understand that Democracy and Republic do not describe the same thing. A country can be a Democracy and at the same time a Republic, or a Monarchy.

This totally conflicts with your previous statement. You say you live in a federal republic, and in a democracy. Then you say they are clearly different. Republics and democracies are "not mutually exclusive" but are "totally different"? Make up your mind.

Republics and democracies are not clearly defined, that is why the federal republic of the united states is described as democratic and the modern definition of democracy seems to apply to what is termed a federal republic. If they were so clearly defined, why is this argument continuing.

Well, first of all, wikipedia isn't a credible source. You'll have to provide the sources within it.

Secondly you seem to have rather dodged very important and pertinent issues by saying you will only answer for the US.

Thirdly, you haven't addressed the point that the US fits the definition of a democracy. Not of being democratic, but of being a democracy. The links for that definition have been provided. How can you run away from the term 'representative Democracy', something which directly defines the US? You are too fixated on using the technical terminology of literal, direct Democracy instead of its wider (and far more commonly used) meaning.

Fourthly, you are making a basic misconception in saying that a Republic and a Democracy are mutually exclusive. That's not true. Rome was a Republic but not a Democracy, but the modern US is both.

Have a look at this article on the concept:

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html

Got to say Alliance, frankly, I think the facts speak strongly against you, not for you.

Also, Bardock simply meant at the end there that they don't have to be different things. Remember, English is not his first language and small slips like that can occur. The meaning of the paragrpah is clear, as he gives examples.

Originally posted by Alliance
I do know a heck of a lot about the US govenrnment, I said I didn't know every detail about federal republics. I just know the US is considerd to be one, but unlike you, I have and will contiune to back it with more than just my opinion. I certainly have the right to argue. You have been unable to mount an effective argument using evidence and not rhetoric.

Originally posted by Alliance
I have never used ad hominum resoning aginst you, don't use it agisnt me.

It is actually called "ad hominem" but never mind that. I will try not to use it on you...and I think that I actually didn't.

Originally posted by Alliance
Stop talking down to me like I'm a child. I will learn on my own accord and I don't trust you to make accurate judegemnts. I use facts from people who know what they're talking about, you use your own opinions. I live in a federal republic too. I don't live in a democracy. The US has one national government. End of story.

Well actually you live in a Democracy. But except for that good. Also, it is not my opinion...it is the definition.

Originally posted by Alliance
This totally conflicts with your previous statement. You say you live in a federal republic, and in a democracy. Then you say they are clearly different. Republics and democracies are "not mutually exclusive" but are "totally different"? Make up your mind.

No, it is not contradicting. Going back to the Ball analogy, a ball can be round and yellow. Still round and yellow are totally different things. Get it?

Originally posted by Alliance
Republics and democracies are not clearly defined, that is why the federal republic of the united states is described as democratic and the modern definition of democracy seems to apply to what is termed a federal republic. If they were so clearly defined, why is this argument continuing.

Err, this argument is continuing because you and wesker have a false notion of the word Democracy. The terms are defined pretty clear..and you can show me any kind of government and I will tell you if it is a republic, a direct Democracy, a Monarchy or whatever. And I will probably be right on every time.

A quick response to Ush:

1. Wikipedia is a only a semi-credible source. The CIA defines the US govenrmnet as a federal republic. (source: CIA World Factbook, Entry: United States) I have said thsi at least 10 time now. The CIA definces america's govenrment as "a federal republic; strong democratic traditions" The CIA is a credible source. I would like to find real reseach, I currently don't thave time. I will find more professional sources.

2. Point, and ok. The original argument started about the US.

3. I am not fixed on "democracy" as direct democracy. I have said that the US government is democratic and uses many principles similar or identical to those found in democracies, particularly liberal democracies. This leads to point

4. I have not said that Republic ans democracies are mutually exclusive (Bardock made that point, just that a nation can only have one form of govenermnet. You cannot live simultanously in a system that is both defines as a democracy and a republic. You can only have one noun, adjcetives like federal and democratic (both describing the US) clarify specifics of that type of government, but do not redefine it. Since the US is a federation of independant states and is rueld under a constitution, this to me presents that the US is (at its core, with federal and democratic adjectives) more a republic than a democracy, even a liberal democracy.

Thank you for providing and article and I will read it and examine its credibility and concept later. Perhaps this argument can turn more...intellectual. Prior to this no evidence has been presented, just Bardock's rhetoric on what he thinks democracy is. I thnk the evidence, has been in my favor, but I look forward to reading what you posted.

Originally posted by Alliance
4. I have not said that Republic ans democracies are mutually exclusive (Bardock made that point,

Bardock's rhetoric on what he thinks democracy is.

Actually I said they are not mutually exclusive...see the "not" there....

Not what I think democracy is. What the definition of Democracy is. The actual definition.

Yes, but the defintion did not say the US is a democracy. No source I hae found defines the US as any form of democracy. You said that defintion applies to the US. I do too. This difference is that you think because the definiton applies, the US is a democracy. I'm saying the definition applies, making the US government democratic, but I think it is better defined as a federal republic.

To use your analogy. An Orange is orange, round, and slightly bumpy. The same three words can be used to describe a basketball. YOu would say the basketball was an orange. I would say it is orange-like and better defined as a basketball.

For future reference, be specific about the type of governement you are talking about. democracy=direct democracy. If you mean liberal or representative democracy. Say those things. This will help clarify.

A definition doesn't need to say that something is defined as that. that'S why it is a definition. Everything that fits that definition is a what the definition says.

Okay, tell me why the definition that I provided does NOT apply to the US and I will consider your argument.

No,that is wrong, democracy = democracy (representative, direct, liberal, illiberal)

Wesker said the US is not a Democracy. It is. It is a representative Democracy, which is a Democracy.

So again, can you provide andy reason why the US is NOT a representative Democracy?

Hooray for derailing the thread 😛 . This is about COMMUNISM whi doesn't '=democracy'.

😂 so true, but given the size this argument has become, the title of the thread should be changed.

Yippee!

Well, the US is a more of a federal republic.

Well, as it has derailed the thread, rather, I won't carry on unless someone opens a dedicated thread about it somewhere.

I believe that has now been done! 😂

I might have a bit different opinions about communism than the majority of the people of this forum, but here it comes. Hopefully you are not insulted and I am ready to discuss them whenever I read the forum.

As we all know, the first officially communist nation was the USSR. As far as I know, the main reasons of disliking communism are pretty much related to the culture we live in and the horrid acts committed in the communist countries. But what if I said there has been no communist countries at all?

The way I see communism is almost solely based on a sentence that goes something like this (Sorry, I have to translate this from Finnish so the diction might not be exactly like the original) "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." So, in my opinion communist country might not even have currency or a government since it would be run according to the statement: Everything would be produced to be given away to those who need and eventually the government would wither away and the people would keep living by the same principles.

While the idea is brilliant, it is not possible in action. Sad but true. So, my point is that before considering communist dictators you should think of that statement. This is of course only my way of seeing it, but there have been no communist countries.

I agree with most things you say besides one...an idea that just doesn't work out is not brilliant in my book.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with most things you say besides one...an idea that just doesn't work out is not brilliant in my book.

So the idea of world peace isn't brilliant? Or putting end to the starvation? Whatever floats your boat, mate. And nice to see someone who agrees with the most of my statement.