The System of the United States of America

Originally posted by Alliance
There is much more detail to the US than the democratic government. I know democracy applies to more than direct democracy. It still does not make the US a democracy. Wait a week, I'll have sources for you and will have read yours.

Practiacally every govenrment in the world claims to be a democracy. That doesn't mean they are, just having some sort of people rule does not mean you are a democracy, you're just using some democratic principles (democratic government)

But by definition a "democratic Government" makes one a Democracy. Why would this definition not apply to the US? And do you think it generally doesn't apply or it only doesn't apply to the US?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Because the founding fathers themselves agreed that it was a federal republic with reserved rights for individuals? Because "democracy" became a contemporary catchphrase in the Cold War and WWII to denote an ideal of freedom and will of the people which doesn't exist like it's implied in the basic definition of "rule by the people". Because ancient Rome was virtually the same with the exception of reserved rights for individuals and a constitution, and no one calls it a democracy by definitinon.

So you just don't accept a definition because you don't want it to apply? Don't you feel ignorant now?

America ceased to be a democracy when it abolished the public assemblies.

"So you just don't accept a definition because you don't want it to apply? Don't you feel ignorant now?"

And that helped how?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
America ceased to be a democracy when it abolished the public assemblies.

[B]"So you just don't accept a definition because you don't want it to apply? Don't you feel ignorant now?"

And that helped how? [/B]

Not really, the US (as a System) is still a Democracy. A representative Democracy. No one ever argued that it was a direct one.

It amused me...

Arguing with Bardock is a bit like trying to catch an ocean with a sieve - absolutely pointless.

Unfortunately, what Bardock likes to gloss over is that simply having elections and people participation in a government doesn't make it democratic. Ancient Rome had elections of sorts. There were government groups to represent the people, and later on they acquired Tribunes, who basically were the people's mouthpiece.

The Roman Republic was established in 509 BC, according to later writers such as Livy, when the king was driven out, and a system of consuls was established in its place. The consuls, initially patrician but later opened to plebeians, were elected officials who exercised executive authority, but had to contend with the Roman Senate, which grew in size and power with the establishment of the Republic.

Keep in mind that the president of the United States isn't elected by the people's general will, nor are the Supreme Court justices elected either.

In 509 B.C., and after having expelled the Etruscans, the Romans constructed a form of political organization we call a republic. Gradually, a series of documents were drawn up which together make up the Roman constitution. The constitution outlined the legal rights of citizens and in Rome, everyone with the exception of women, slaves and resident aliens, qualified as a citizen. The Republic was not intended for the city-state. Instead, the Roman Republic was more like a confederation of states under the control of a representative, central authority

There were three major political components of the Republic. Two magistrates or consuls who served as the executive branch. They had supreme civil and military authority and held office for one year, then entered the Senate for life. Each consul could veto the action of the other. The Consuls were endowed with the ex-king's imperium. They led the army, served as judges, and had religious duties. Then came the Senate , a collection of citizens who served as the legislative branch of the government as well as an advisory body (senatus = "council of elders"😉. At its inception, the Roman Senate contained about 300 citizens. The ranks of the Senate were drawn from ex-consuls and other officers who served for life. By the reign of Julius Caesar, the ranks of the Senate had swollen to more than 800 members. The Assembly of Centuries (comitia centuriata), which conducted annual elections of consuls, was composed of all members of the army. In this assembly the wealthier citizen voted first and thereby had a profound influence on voting. Lastly, there was the Assembly of Tribes (comitia tributa), which contained all citizens. The Assembly approved or rejected laws and decided issues of war and peace. This is a form of government that we can call "mixed." That is, history – specifically Greek history – had shown the Romans that previous governments of the one, the few or the many just did not work. Instead, they mixed the three principal forms of government together to create a Republic. As such, their constitution was mixed as well: the executives serving as monarchical element, the Senate as the aristocratic and finally, the Assembly as the democratic element.

It was, of course, the ideal that such a constitution would prevent any one man or group of men to seize power on their own initiative. In other words, the Republic was a government of checks and balances. This ought to sound familiar since it is the basis of our own form of government, which is not a democracy, but a democratic republic. Again, the ideal was that no one group could seize power. What happened in practice was something decidedly different.

Source: http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture11b.html

I know that only election isn't enough....the USSR had elections, Cuba has election...they are not a democracy....but they also don't fit the definition of Democracy. The United States do.

By your own logic, so does the Roman Republic.

Only, neither you nor Ush considers that a democracy. Funny how that works.

Maybe you should concede the point that "democracy" is currently being used as a catchphrase for any government that is similar to the United States and not one of its political enemies (Communist regimes, National Socialists, etc.). Never once is "democracy" the title of the United States federal republic by the founding fathers, who made the government. And never once is such a term applied to an identical ancient Roman Republic.

So obviously U.S. != democracy. It is a democratic republic, meaning it has democratic principles (Some measure of the people effecting their government indirectly.). However, these same democratic principles are being embellished - people had nearly similar political rights in other governments, including the one in ancient Rome. And I pointed out in the other thread that of all the forms of indirect democracy, the United States' version was the least true to the ideals of true democracy (a.k.a direct democracy, which is pure rule by the people.)

So, where I'm going with this is that a United States being called a democracy is about as accurate as calling the Roman Republic a democracy; it's not. It's misleading. It's a republic. Founding fathers say so. CIA says so. History majors and political teachers say so. Those tend to overrule your opinion and Dictionary.com.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
By your own logic, so does the Roman Republic.

Only, neither you nor Ush considers that a democracy. Funny how that works.

Maybe you should concede the point that "democracy" is currently being used as a catchphrase for any government that is similar to the United States and not one of its political enemies (Communist regimes, National Socialists, etc.). Never once is "democracy" the title of the United States federal republic by the founding fathers, who made the government. And never once is such a term applied to an identical ancient Roman Republic.

So obviously U.S. != democracy. It is a democratic republic, meaning it has democratic principles (Some measure of the people effecting their government indirectly.). However, these same democratic principles are being embellished - people had nearly similar political rights in other governments, including the one in ancient Rome. And I pointed out in the other thread that of all the forms of indirect democracy, the United States' version was the least true to the ideals of true democracy (a.k.a direct democracy, which is pure rule by the people.)

So, where I'm going with this is that a United States being called a democracy is about as accurate as calling the Roman Republic a democracy; it's not. It's misleading. It's a republic. Founding fathers say so. CIA says so. History majors and political teachers say so. Those tend to overrule your opinion and Dictionary.com.

Really? How did the Roman Republic have free equal democratic elections?

Also, you know that a Federal Republic doesn't need to be a Democracy. The US just happens to be one....

tribune, in ancient Rome, one of various officers. The history of the office of tribune is closely associated with the struggle of the plebs against the patrician class to achieve a more equitable position in the state. From c.508 B.C. the military tribunes (tribuni militum) were the senior officers of the legions, elected by the people and with the rank of magistrate; a plebeian could hold the position. The office of military tribune with the power of consul (tribuni militum consulari potestate) was established in 444 B.C. The office meant that certain of the military tribunes were invested with the political power of the consul. Although military tribunes were abolished (367 B.C.), the office of tribune of the plebs (tribuni plebis) designed to protect plebeian rights, especially against abuse by magistrates, had been formed (493 B.C.). The original number of such tribunes is uncertain, but by 449 B.C. there were 10. These tribunes were plebeians elected by an assembly of plebs. The power of the tribune derived from two basic prerogatives, the right of the tribune to inflict punishment upon a magistrate who disregarded either his injunction or the inviolability (sacrosanctitas) of the tribune's person. Gradually the tribune gained the intercessio or the right to veto a decision of a magistrate—which in effect was a veto over any official act of administration—and the right to prosecute corrupt magistrates before a public body. He further acquired (3d cent. B.C.) the power to attend and convene the senate and to lay before it matters for consideration. As the plebeians came to occupy more and more public offices, the tribune became less the champion of a class and more the representative of the individual over the state. With the reforms of the Gracchi in the late 2d cent. B.C., the office of tribune acquired wider significance, but later Sulla, combating these reforms, tried to remove the tribuneship as a factor in Roman government. Pompey restored the tribunes to their old power. Under the empire the tribuneship was held by the emperors. This gave to the emperors few powers that they did not otherwise possess, but the tradition of the office as a defender of popular rights and its inviolability was useful to them.

The office of Tribune and all it entailed gave plenty of rights to the common people of Rome and put a measure of fairness and equality into administration.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
tribune, in ancient Rome, one of various officers. The history of the office of tribune is closely associated with the struggle of the plebs against the patrician class to achieve a more equitable position in the state. From c.508 B.C. the military tribunes (tribuni militum) were the senior officers of the legions, elected by the people and with the rank of magistrate; a plebeian could hold the position. The office of military tribune with the power of consul (tribuni militum consulari potestate) was established in 444 B.C. The office meant that certain of the military tribunes were invested with the political power of the consul. Although military tribunes were abolished (367 B.C.), the office of tribune of the plebs (tribuni plebis) designed to protect plebeian rights, especially against abuse by magistrates, had been formed (493 B.C.). The original number of such tribunes is uncertain, but by 449 B.C. there were 10. These tribunes were plebeians elected by an assembly of plebs. The power of the tribune derived from two basic prerogatives, the right of the tribune to inflict punishment upon a magistrate who disregarded either his injunction or the inviolability (sacrosanctitas) of the tribune's person. Gradually the tribune gained the intercessio or the right to veto a decision of a magistrate—which in effect was a veto over any official act of administration—and the right to prosecute corrupt magistrates before a public body. He further acquired (3d cent. B.C.) the power to attend and convene the senate and to lay before it matters for consideration. As the plebeians came to occupy more and more public offices, the tribune became less the champion of a class and more the representative of the individual over the state. With the reforms of the Gracchi in the late 2d cent. B.C., the office of tribune acquired wider significance, but later Sulla, combating these reforms, tried to remove the tribuneship as a factor in Roman government. Pompey restored the tribunes to their old power. Under the empire the tribuneship was held by the emperors. This gave to the emperors few powers that they did not otherwise possess, but the tradition of the office as a defender of popular rights and its inviolability was useful to them.

The office of Tribune and all it entailed gave plenty of rights to the common people of Rome and put a measure of fairness and equality into administration.

Haha, you are funny....you as a History Major should really have the truth in mind not propaganda....well, sadly for you I know some about the Roman System....so, do you know what the Cursus Honorum is? Yeah? Good...well that is entirely undemocratic (besides other things, that are also not democratic) that makes Rome not a Democracy. THe United States (and GB and Germany for that matter) on the other hand has a democratic Governments and fits the definition of representative Democracy....therefore it is a Democracy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, you are funny....you as a History Major should really have the truth in mind not propaganda....well, sadly for you I know some about the Roman System....so, do you know what the Cursus Honorum is? Yeah? Good...well that is entirely undemocratic (besides other things, that are also not democratic) that makes Rome not a Democracy. THe United States (and GB and Germany for that matter) on the other hand has a democratic Governments and fits the definition of representative Democracy....therefore it is a Democracy.

Haha, you're ignorant.

Cursus Honorum is hardly different from the status quo that's maintained in the current U.S. government. There's similar age limits, and the higher the office, the more neccessary it is to have extensive poltical background. There's actually over a dozen official levels of government workers, of which only those over a certain level can attain high government offices like senator and House of Representatives. Also, just to campaign for such offices requires ridiculous spending. The campaigns of some governmental officials borders on the absurdly expensive, rivalling say, Marius' campaign while he was on leave away from Metellus.

And repeating democratic in a sentence three times doesn't establish a democracy. But I can try it too, look:

The Roman Republic has a democratic government and fits the definition of representative democracy, therefore it is a democracy.

Absence of proof is fun!

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Haha, you're ignorant.

Cursus Honorum is hardly different from the status quo that's maintained in the current U.S. government. There's similar age limits, and the higher the office, the more neccessary it is to have extensive poltical background. There's actually over a dozen official levels of government workers, of which only those over a certain level can attain high government offices like senator and House of Representatives. Also, just to campaign for such offices requires ridiculous spending. The campaigns of some governmental officials borders on the absurdly expensive, rivalling say, Marius' campaign while he was on leave away from Metellus.

And repeating democratic in a sentence three times doesn't establish a democracy. But I can try it too, look:

The Roman Republic has a democratic government and fits the definition of representative democracy, therefore it is a democracy.

Absence of proof is fun!

Also, I still want to know why this definition...

"de·moc·ra·cy
[...]
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
[...]
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc."

...does not apply? Why? Why? Why? It is the definition of Democracy, why does it not apply to the US. Tell me? Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No it isn't...you could run for president...that's the point...everyone that hit a certain age is entitled to....that's why it is democratic.....

Everyone is in theory entitled to, but it's not like I could just waltz up there and get my name on the ballot. In America, you need sponsorship and personal wealth up the ass, along with the backing of one of the two major political parties. And if you knew about Roman history AND you read the material I posted you'd realize that the patrician claim on the consulship waned, and eventually even plebians of capability could attain that title and others. The Roman Republic, especially after the Gracci reforms, was very much like the present day United States, with the differences being mostly cosmetic.

Also, I still want to know why this definition...

"de·moc·ra·cy
[...]
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
[...]
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc."

...does not apply? Why? Why? Why? It is the definition of Democracy, why does it not apply to the US. Tell me? Why?

I already spoke on this:

So, where I'm going with this is that a United States being called a democracy is about as accurate as calling the Roman Republic a democracy; it's not. It's misleading. It's a republic. Founding fathers say so. CIA says so. History majors and political teachers say so. Those tend to overrule your opinion and Dictionary.com.

And a dictionary of law does not overwrite the definition set forth by the founders of the country, the political science major's opinions, and other sources I've provided and Alliance has provided. You have... an online definition that is from a singular source and vague as all hell. I'm pointing out that that definition is misleading, and it's modern propaganda. When you get this, we'll reach an agreement.

That's not the point, your System is a Democracy...how it is corrupted and or used is of no matter. The System of the USA as it is defined is a Democracy by the modern definition of the word.

Also, Democracy is not about the right to get elected, but about the right to have the possibility to get elected. You have that. It's a Democracy.

If the Roman Republic was like the USA are today (and it obviously wasn't) then it would have been a Democracy as well.

Oh indeed, you spoke on it sorry, so let me see. Since when do opinions overrule actual Definitions? My opinion ids of no matter here, it happens to be right, but it is only right because in the English Language as it is today the USA fit the definition of a Democracy.

I'm sorry but the actual definition of a word certainly overwrites the opinions of your founding fathers.

It's basically the same thing you say, during the cold war many countries felt the need to call themselves Democracies...many of them weren't . Just because your founding fathers didn't call it a Democracy, doesn't mean that by the understanding of the word today their country isn't indeed a Democracy. Yes, face it, you lie in a Democracy, I understand that is a horrible truth but nonetheless, it is truth.

oh my...all this text has put me out of this argument for a week...

Originally posted by Alliance
oh my...all this text has put me out of this argument for a week...

I know...That's why I'm afraid to say anything...They have a good debate going. lol

Janus, you're a history major?

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I know...That's why I'm afraid to say anything...They have a good debate going. lol

Janus, you're a history major?

Yessir. And you two can have fun with Bardock, I'm done. I'd sooner make peace between Israel and Palestine before I'll convince him of anything in this world. Bardock disagrees with me on every thread out of principle.

I'll pick it up again after finals...qand don't be afraid to say anything Macabre

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Yessir. And you two can have fun with Bardock, I'm done. I'd sooner make peace between Israel and Palestine before I'll convince him of anything in this world. Bardock disagrees with me on every thread out of principle.

Nah, just when you are wrong. As in this case. I even agree with you that Goku couldn't beat Superman...isn't that sweet?

You have just some opinions of people (granted in high positions) that do not want the US to be seen as Democracy. I actually have the definition of Democracy that fits the US. So, the US is in fact a Democracy. Now on the other hand I think you probably accepted that and are now looking for an easy way out. That's okay.....

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I know...That's why I'm afraid to say anything...They have a good debate going. lol

Janus, you're a history major?

Please say something, I hope you have good arguments (I don't care for what side...would be a nice change if the others had some as well)

Technically you're both right....Connotatively, it's a republic with democratic values and tendencies. Denotatively, it is a democracy.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Everyone is in theory entitled to, but it's not like I could just waltz up there and get my name on the ballot. In America, you need sponsorship and personal wealth up the ass, along with the backing of one of the two major political parties.

But you are entitled to being elected...That there is the possibility to being elected, however slim it is, is what makes it a democracy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not the point, your System is a Democracy...how it is corrupted and or used is of no matter. The System of the USA as it is defined is a Democracy by the modern definition of the word.

Oh, but it does matter...For if the people don't have the chance to run for or elect their leaders, then it isn't a democracy...It's just a front to have everyone think it's a democracy.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Oh, but it does matter...For if the people don't have the chance to run for or elect their leaders, then it isn't a democracy...It's just a front to have everyone think it's a democracy.

Well I meant it does not matter that it is complicated to win....

In the USA you can run for or elect your leaders that's why it is a Democracy.

And how can we both be right, when one side denies that the US is a Democracy and the other states that it is?