Capitalism in theory(Marxism) would work very well if it were not for greed jealousy. If the world were occupied by two governmental entities, there would be social unrest because if they don't like their system, move to the other. or if the other is worse, move there and then move back so you woulnd't complain. I'm going to call this calvinocracy.(not to be confused with calvinism)
in some ways, but not really. "Democratic Republic" is a term made up to help people think of our government as democratic. If you ask most Americans, they'll tell you thier government is a democracy. Therefore, they get really confused if it is called a republic, even a democratic republic sometimes.
I'm sure the terms has liks to the cold war. It wasn't republicanism vs communism. Its democracy (freedom, human rights, cremé bruleé, and kittens, and little blonde children) vs. communism. Therefore, if Americans figure out they live in a Republic, the cold war cohesion against communism breaks down and "threatens" American stability.
Originally posted by Alliance
in some ways, but not really. "Democratic Republic" is a term made up to help people think of our government as democratic. If you ask most Americans, they'll tell you thier government is a democracy. Therefore, they get really confused if it is called a republic, even a democratic republic sometimes.I'm sure the terms has liks to the cold war. It wasn't republicanism vs communism. Its democracy (freedom, human rights, cremé bruleé, and kittens, and little blonde children) vs. communism. Therefore, if Americans figure out they live in a Republic, the cold war cohesion against communism breaks down and "threatens" American stability.
Well said.
Originally posted by Alliance
in some ways, but not really. "Democratic Republic" is a term made up to help people think of our government as democratic. If you ask most Americans, they'll tell you thier government is a democracy. Therefore, they get really confused if it is called a republic, even a democratic republic sometimes.I'm sure the terms has liks to the cold war. It wasn't republicanism vs communism. Its democracy (freedom, human rights, cremé bruleé, and kittens, and little blonde children) vs. communism. Therefore, if Americans figure out they live in a Republic, the cold war cohesion against communism breaks down and "threatens" American stability.
You make good points but the fact remains that the USA is both.
It is a Democracy because the government is voted by people and consists of those. The Society controls the Government
And it is a Republic because the Head of State gets elected. A republic doesn't need to be democratic, look at East Germany for example.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
I think you're missing the point- it's not a true democracy or even a real democracy because the people only elect representatives... just like they did in the ancient Roman Republic.
That's included in the definition of Democracy though. "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.". The thing is that Republic and Democracy are not exclusive. Actually the USSR was a Republic as well. Not a Democracy though.
On the contrary- Caesar was an elected dictator. In a sense, so was Napoleon. See, in the definition you've given, there's little that separates the direct will of the people with decisions made by appointed representatives.
See, in a direct democracy, the people ARE the government. In a republic, some of the people will vote to see that men (Who are already predetermined by the government's standards and must be men of extreme wealth) fill up offices and make all their decisions for them.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
On the contrary- Caesar was an elected dictator. In a sense, so was Napoleon. See, in the definition you've given, there's little that separates the direct will of the people with decisions made by appointed representatives.See, in a direct democracy, the people ARE the government. In a republic, some of the people will vote to see that men (Who are already predetermined by the government's standards and must be men of extreme wealth) fill up offices and make all their decisions for them.
Well if they are elected then it is a democracy.
Republic and Democracy are not describin the same thing.
From dictionary.com
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1 Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2 A political or social unit that has such a government.
3 The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4 Majority rule.
5 The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
and
re·pub·lic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.
A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
So, an elected monarch, or an elected dictator can still be in a democracy. But it cannot be a Repuböic.
The USA is factually both. It is a Republic, because that is the form of government they have. 3 Branches, President, blah, blah. And it is a democracy because the people elect their leaders, indirectly but they still do. Please don't argue this, it is just the way it is.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
I think you're missing the point- it's not a true democracy or even a real democracy because the people only elect representatives... just like they did in the ancient Roman Republic.
I was first addressing the idea of what a true democracy was. The ideals of democracy are not synonymous with a republic. You simply brought up a half of a definition and got carried away.
Please don't do that anymore.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
I was first addressing the idea of what a true democracy was. The ideals of democracy are not synonymous with a republic. You simply brought up a half of a definition and got carried away.Please don't do that anymore.
It is a true and a real democracy though. Maybe you should read the definitions of democracy again. Everything that fits that definition is a "true" democracy.
Again Democracy and Republic describe not the same thing. Something can be a Democracy and a Republic (USA, Germany, France....), something can be a Democracy and a Monarchy (England, Spain (I think)), but nothing can be a Republic and a Monarchy...for example.
Originally posted by Alliance
In case you forgot, the electorate votes for the president, not the voter.Also, republics often rely on democratic principles, that doesn't mean however, that they are democacies. You don't vote on every piece of legislation > thats a true democracy.
That does not matter. It doesn't need to be direct to be a democracy.
No, that's wrong, that is one form of democracy. Direct Democracy. Not "true" democracy.