-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The Jamil and DadSmith Democracy vs. Republic Thread
- Thread starter DoggyDaddy
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
SKKUUUUUUZZE Me, but Star Trek (any generation) HAD better episodes? Gonna have to sell that bologna down the block a bit.Season 5
Episode 2
of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Darmok - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And.. personally, I DON'T think it's one of their better episodes.
Try 'du hast recht' then
Here I am to save the thread.
I do not do anything on my day of worship other than study God's Word, pray, gather with the church etc. Now that time is over I'm back.
The argument is over.
The disagreement was over what he believed is democracy via we vote in representatives thus making us like a democracy. Often saying we're in one form or another.
However, James Madison definitely described our republic as having that feature and Jamil agreed that it is a feature, and function of our republic.
It has nothing to do with being a democracy.
Our founders made that very clear.
Many Americans, and other people worldwide have a misunderstanding of our form of government.
So calling us a democracy is undermining the constitution, and our form of government.
Undermining
undermined; undermining; undermines
Synonyms of undermine
transitive verb
1
: to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly
2
: to weaken or ruin by degrees
3
: to wash away supporting material from under
4
: to excavate the earth beneath
Apparently not. You did this on purpose didn't you. You say it's over, and then argue.
I mean, no. The disagreement has two sides, and you're not really acknowledging them both.
What we agree on: the US is a republic.
What we don't agree on: the us is also a representative democracy.
Your disagreement with me as I understand it, is that "democracy" doesn't have types, that it only means one thing (people vote on stuff directly), that republics and democracies are different and mutually exclusive.
You're also depending on your definitions to claim that saying the US is a democracy, is undermining our republic.
Your evidence of your belief about the mutual exclusivity of both, is quotes from some founders, the federalist papers, etcetera.
Did I get that right?
So then, my disagreement with you is over meanings of "democracy" and "republic". I don't agree that they're mutually exclusive terms, because we have many examples in history, long before the US ever came into existence, where republics are also democracies. And I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how "democracy" and "republic" describe the US system.
My evidence is the various definitions of these terms and many historical examples of them not being mutually exclusive.
My position is that the definition of a representative democracy fits the way the US decides how and to whom power is granted. At least on paper. And because we don't have sovereignty vested in a person or small group of elites (on paper anyway) that makes us a republic. That's two things about the US government that each part describes.
My position on your assertion that people calling us a democracy is undermining the republic is that I think there are people on the left who are repeating the phrase "our democracy" too often for it not to have some purpose. The purpose seems obviously to marginalize Trump and his supporters, by claiming that Trump is destroying "our democracy". I do think they're using "democracy" differently from the way in which the US is a democracy. But that's not to say the US is not a democracy at all. I strongly suspect they're using the term in the Marxist utopian sense.
is that your understanding of my disagreement?
Yes, having a democratic process for selecting political positions is a feature of our particular republic, but not exclusively so. These things are not what make the US a republic.
But I can see how you might misunderstand the words of Madison. He was not saying that because we elect representatives that makes us uniquely a republic. That's not what a republic is per se. Political office holders could be chosen by whoever can urinate the farthest of all the candidates for each office. And we'd still be a republic!
Correct. What makes us a republic has nothing to do with the fact that we're a representative democracy. It's as simple as this. A republic does not derive its sovereignty from a monarchy, or an oligarchy. That's pretty much all she wrote. But our particular republic has some extra features built in. Three coequal branches, electoral college, and the constitution as the basis for rule of law. Any or all of those things absent, and we're still a republic! The democracy part only describes the process we use to fill political offices.
Why do you assume it's not you with the misunderstanding? I read the founders too. There's nothing incongruent with the definition of representative democracy and republic.
Okay, you have not connected the dots for how calling us a democracy is undermining the constitution. You just said some words and then just declared it.
Not that I don't believe the constitution is being undermined. I think you misunderstand the game. It's not the word democracy alone. Everyone knows that laws aren't created by the people directly. Everyone knows that we vote for representatives who make the laws. They at least understand that we hold elections. The con isn't trying to get people to believe that.
The con is using "our" in conjunction with "democracy" to form an us/them duality where the good guys--the left, stand in solidarity against the bad guys--the right.
This isn't an argument. I don't know why it's here. No one has disputed what "undermining" means.
Last edited:
We already went through this people can read it all in the Trump thread.Apparently not. You did this on purpose didn't you. You say it's over, and then argue.
I mean, no. The disagreement has two sides, and you're not really acknowledging them both.
What we agree on: the US is a republic.
What we don't agree on: the us is also a representative democracy.
Your disagreement with me as I understand it, is that "democracy" doesn't have types, that it only means one thing (people vote on stuff directly), that republics and democracies are different and mutually exclusive.
You're also depending on your definitions to claim that saying the US is a democracy, is undermining our republic.
Your evidence of your belief about the mutual exclusivity of both, is quotes from some founders, the federalist papers, etcetera.
Did I get that right?
So then, my disagreement with you is over meanings of "democracy" and "republic". I don't agree that they're mutually exclusive terms, because we have many examples in history, long before the US ever came into existence, where republics are also democracies. And I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how "democracy" and "republic" describe the US system.
My evidence is the various definitions of these terms and many historical examples of them not being mutually exclusive.
My position is that the definition of a representative democracy fits the way the US decides how and to whom power is granted. At least on paper. And because we don't have sovereignty vested in a person or small group of elites (on paper anyway) that makes us a republic. That's two things about the US government that each part describes.
My position on your assertion that people calling us a democracy is undermining the republic is that I think there are people on the left who are repeating the phrase "our democracy" too often for it not to have some purpose. The purpose seems obviously to marginalize Trump and his supporters, by claiming that Trump is destroying "our democracy". I do think they're using "democracy" differently from the way in which the US is a democracy. But that's not to say the US is not a democracy at all. I strongly suspect they're using the term in the Marxist utopian sense.
is that your understanding of my disagreement?
Yes, having a democratic process for selecting political positions is a feature of our particular republic, but not exclusively so. These things are not what make the US a republic.
But I can see how you might misunderstand the words of Madison. He was not saying that because we elect representatives that makes us uniquely a republic. That's not what a republic is per se. Political office holders could be chosen by whoever can urinate the farthest of all the candidates for each office. And we'd still be a republic!
Correct. What makes us a republic has nothing to do with the fact that we're a representative democracy. It's as simple as this. A republic does not derive its sovereignty from a monarchy, or an oligarchy. That's pretty much all she wrote. But our particular republic has some extra features built in. Three coequal branches, electoral college, and the constitution as the basis for rule of law. Any or all of those things absent, and we're still a republic! The democracy part only describes the process we use to fill political offices.
Why do you assume it's not you with the misunderstanding?
Okay, you have not connected the dots for how calling us a democracy is undermining the constitution. You just said some words and then just declared it.
Not that I don't believe the constitution is being undermined. I think you misunderstand the game. It's not the word democracy alone. Everyone knows that laws aren't created by the people directly. Everyone knows that we vote for representatives who make the laws. They at least understand that we hold elections. The con isn't trying to get people to believe that.
The con is using "our" in conjunction with "democracy" to form an us/them duality where the good guys--the left, stand in solidarity against the bad guys--the right.
This isn't an argument. I don't know why it's here. No one has disputed what "undermining" means.
Edit:
Even though you don't think the founders knew what they were talking about doesn't change the fact we are a republic not a democracy of any kind.
We are closer to the Roman Republic in our form of government if I had to choose one that would be the closest.
They also voted in representatives, yet wait for it. They were a republic.
Last edited:
Why would you phrase it like that? That's not anything close to my actual thinking.
This makes me pretty sure you don't understand what a republic is. The US founders did not define "republic". The Roman Republic was a democracy on paper. But in reality, the people had little power. It was not "representative". They could elect magistrates but only from important families. And the real political power in the republic was the Senate, which the consuls appointed.
Okay. I have to ask. What is your definition of a Republic? Use your own words. What you believe. But, if it's not congruent with history, it's not a definition.
Apparently not. You did this on purpose didn't you. You say it's over, and then argue.
I mean, no. The disagreement has two sides, and you're not really acknowledging them both.
What we agree on: the US is a republic.
What we don't agree on: the us is also a representative democracy.
Your disagreement with me as I understand it, is that "democracy" doesn't have types, that it only means one thing (people vote on stuff directly), that republics and democracies are different and mutually exclusive.
You're also depending on your definitions to claim that saying the US is a democracy, is undermining our republic.
Your evidence of your belief about the mutual exclusivity of both, is quotes from some founders, the federalist papers, etcetera.
Did I get that right?
So then, my disagreement with you is over meanings of "democracy" and "republic". I don't agree that they're mutually exclusive terms, because we have many examples in history, long before the US ever came into existence, where republics are also democracies. And I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how "democracy" and "republic" describe the US system.
My evidence is the various definitions of these terms and many historical examples of them not being mutually exclusive.
My position is that the definition of a representative democracy fits the way the US decides how and to whom power is granted. At least on paper. And because we don't have sovereignty vested in a person or small group of elites (on paper anyway) that makes us a republic. That's two things about the US government that each part describes.
My position on your assertion that people calling us a democracy is undermining the republic is that I think there are people on the left who are repeating the phrase "our democracy" too often for it not to have some purpose. The purpose seems obviously to marginalize Trump and his supporters, by claiming that Trump is destroying "our democracy". I do think they're using "democracy" differently from the way in which the US is a democracy. But that's not to say the US is not a democracy at all. I strongly suspect they're using the term in the Marxist utopian sense.
is that your understanding of my disagreement?
Yes, having a democratic process for selecting political positions is a feature of our particular republic, but not exclusively so. These things are not what make the US a republic.
But I can see how you might misunderstand the words of Madison. He was not saying that because we elect representatives that makes us uniquely a republic. That's not what a republic is per se. Political office holders could be chosen by whoever can urinate the farthest of all the candidates for each office. And we'd still be a republic!
Correct. What makes us a republic has nothing to do with the fact that we're a representative democracy. It's as simple as this. A republic does not derive its sovereignty from a monarchy, or an oligarchy. That's pretty much all she wrote. But our particular republic has some extra features built in. Three coequal branches, electoral college, and the constitution as the basis for rule of law. Any or all of those things absent, and we're still a republic! The democracy part only describes the process we use to fill political offices.
Why do you assume it's not you with the misunderstanding? I read the founders too. There's nothing incongruent with the definition of representative democracy and republic.
Okay, you have not connected the dots for how calling us a democracy is undermining the constitution. You just said some words and then just declared it.
Not that I don't believe the constitution is being undermined. I think you misunderstand the game. It's not the word democracy alone. Everyone knows that laws aren't created by the people directly. Everyone knows that we vote for representatives who make the laws. They at least understand that we hold elections. The con isn't trying to get people to believe that.
The con is using "our" in conjunction with "democracy" to form an us/them duality where the good guys--the left, stand in solidarity against the bad guys--the right.
This isn't an argument. I don't know why it's here. No one has disputed what "undermining" means.
Ahh, there it is!
What our founders set up. For one and the only republic I care about.
You think representation is democracy or the voting of representatives.
That is all republicanism.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
I take it you claim because we vote in representatives we are a democracy. Or a representative democracy as you call it.
“We may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour.” - James Madison.
Voting in representatives is a feature, and function of a republic not a democracy.
Russia can be representative democracy as you call it because they vote in representatives believe that or not. Any country that votes in representatives could be called a representative democracy.
Yet that function and feature is if a republic.
Show me in the constitution where we are a representative democracy. Because all I've read is republic.
Guess what we are arguing the same thing over again.
This has been hashed out and I'm not repeating myself over and over again.
When you prove to me by our founders or in our founding documents that we are a democracy, or as you call it a representative democracy then let me know.
Until then we have a constitutional republic. No democracy of any kind.
Last edited:
That's not a definition. What does republic mean?
Ordinary citizens voting for their representatives, means the citizens are participating in government. That's democracy. Representation on its own, is not what makes it democracy. Like I said, if we chose our representatives by whizzing contests, we'd still be a republic. Just not a democratic one. The citizens voting is the democratic part.
You are misunderstanding what representative democracy is and what a republic is. It doesn't matter which one you're interested in. It's not like the founders redefined words to make republic mean whatever they wanted.
I think you should look up the definition. This comment makes me think you've never heard of it before. It's a thing. I learned about it in civics class and US government back in the 70's. I didn't make it up. lol
Here you go: https://www.britannica.com/topic/representative-democracy
If we hold elections to determine who our representatives and executives are, that's a democratic process. And that makes the U.S. a representative democracy, by definition. But, that's not all.
Since the US derives its sovereign power from the states and the people, rather from a monarchy, it is a republic. Also, a common feature in a republic is a representative government. A government "of the people", if you will, rather of the monarchy. The people own the US and its territories. The monarchy owns its territories, not the people. That's why the UK is not a republic. Ironically, the UK is also a representative democracy.
And saying US is a representative democracy is not undermining the constitution. The constitution as an authoritative document prescribes how we choose leaders. The system it prescribes matches the definition of representative democracy. But, telling people that we have to save "our democracy" from Trump and his supporters is undermining the constitution, the democratic process for choosing our leaders, and the republic itself.
Still waiting on you to prove by our founding documents or founding fathers that we are representative democracy or any type of democracy.
I'll make it real simple.
In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws (like our constitution), and guidelines specifically limiting the powers of the majority with respect to the rights of the minority (like the Bill of Rights) exist. A democracy by definition doesn't provide such protections.
In a representative democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority. Group A doesn't like group B, group A has 60% of the vote, group A can vote to banish group B.
We don't even have a representative democracy.
So if someone is calling our form of government that the founding fathers made a representative democracy then they are using the wrong term. They are mistakenly calling our republic a representative democracy.
I'll make it real simple.
In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws (like our constitution), and guidelines specifically limiting the powers of the majority with respect to the rights of the minority (like the Bill of Rights) exist. A democracy by definition doesn't provide such protections.
In a representative democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority. Group A doesn't like group B, group A has 60% of the vote, group A can vote to banish group B.
We don't even have a representative democracy.
So if someone is calling our form of government that the founding fathers made a representative democracy then they are using the wrong term. They are mistakenly calling our republic a representative democracy.
Last edited:
Did you read the definition of representative democracy?
I've described our system as it is. It is the system itself that determines which words apply to describe it. I can look at the French government and see how it's formed, how leaders are chosen, from where it gets its sovereignty, and be able to determine what form of government it is. I understand the US government. From this I can describe it's features.
You can make it complicated. I deal with complexities for a living.
A republic does not require a constitution. A republic doesn't require limiting the powers of the majority, with respect to the rights of the minority.
You didn't mention that the constitution also prescribes that we hold public popular vote elections to choose our representatives at the local state and federal level, and that we choose the chief executive by popular vote indirectly through slates of electors in each state. See, that's the democratic part.
No. Seriously. Did you read the article? In a representative democracy citizens vote for representatives and executives.
In our implementation, a simple majority of popular vote wins. Except in presidential elections, the citizens of each state vote for their candidate, and the winner of the popular vote, gets to choose his slate of electors to represent that state, to vote for the president. That's all very democratic. But that's just how we choose leaders. It's not how we make policy. The people elected make the policy.
Well. You've not proven your point. I described above how you misused the term.
They call our republic a representative democracy. They are wrong.
Our features are different than any government in past history. We are unique.
But we are talking about our republic not other countries.
I have by direct quote of James Madison, we can read how our republic functions in the constitution.
Did you ignore what true representative democracies are?
A fact of life in many so called representative democracies such as Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela to name a few oppress the minority.
We are not a representative democracy. We are a republic.
Again
In a representative democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority. Group A doesn't like group B, group A has 60% of the vote, group A can vote to banish group B.
You just described republicanism.
I feel the same about you.
I use direct quotes from the founders, I use the constitution. I know that all that goes against the latest and greatest minds who push the idea that the majority rule via representation, and whatever the majority want they get.
Just because we vote in representatives does not make us a representative democracy. If that were the case the majority would stomp out the minority. If a representative democracy sits up rules or regulations to safeguard against that they are no longer a true representative democracy.
Again we are not talking about the other republics, or representative democracies in the world we are talking about our republic.
Representative democracy might fit other countries form of government but it doesn't fit ours.
Our republic is built on the recognition that no single part of the community has a monopoly on justice.
Americans today confuse republicanism with democracy because they have forgotten, and our educators no longer remind them of, the non and even counter majoritarian rationale for our distinctive political institutions.
Of course, this amnesia about republicanism is not simply due to non existent or ineffective civics curricula. Its underlying cause is an insatiable love of democracy that seeks to apply its egalitarian principle to the family, education, social and religious life, and finally to the norms, practices, and institutions that define who we are as a republic. - Bernard Dobski, Ph.D.
This country has a system of representative government, where elected officials make decisions on behalf of the people, rather than a direct democracy where citizens vote on every issue.
The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, where different branches of government have powers to limit the actions of other branches, which is a key feature of a republic.
I'm still waiting on proof of this democracy we have from the founders comments and founding documents.
Since we are both entrenched with our ideas.
I think it best to agree to disagree.
My final thought on this subject to show the difference between a Representative Democracy and our Republic.
Representative Democracy:
A system where citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf
Power is held by the elected representatives, who are accountable to the people
Decisions are made through a representative body, such as a parliament or congress
The majority has the power to make decisions, with no explicit limits on government power
Our Republic:
A system where power is held by the people, but exercised through elected representatives
A constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government
The government is limited by a set of laws and principles, ensuring that the majority cannot impose its will on the minority
The elected representatives are bound by the constitution and are accountable to the people
Last edited:
People, as a general rule, accept the first thing they hear as the truth. If someone at work complains about something you did (whether you did it or not), your boss will make no effort to find out the truth about what transpired. What your boss will do is confront you with a vague accusation and demand an explanation and accounting of what (he/she believes) you did. When you deny that any such thing has happened, you are being disagreeable/confrontational.
The exact same thing is happening in this thread. Each and every one of was told in the 3rd grade about what a great Democracy America is. Children are taught this, not because it is true, but because it is what they can understand with an 8 or 9 year old brain. Seems a lot of folks cling to that tidbit of (misguided) education. If you are still arguing that the United States of America is a Democracy, you are arguing from a 3rd grade point of view, and a 3rd grade education.
All of the arguments in this thread based on what someone once said or did are totally and completely irrelevant. The argument is Republic or Democracy. The end of the argument will come from the definitions of the two words. It will not come from what James Madison or Karl Marx or anyone else said about either/both systems. The answer is in the dictionary.
The United States of America never was, is not now, and never will be a Democracy. I have not read one iota of information in this thread that supports claiming the USofA is a Democracy. The USofA was conceived, formed, and continues to function as a constitutional republic. I make no claim as to whether or not that is how/what the framers wanted. I make no claim as to whether or not that is right or wrong. I only assert what it actually is.
The exact same thing is happening in this thread. Each and every one of was told in the 3rd grade about what a great Democracy America is. Children are taught this, not because it is true, but because it is what they can understand with an 8 or 9 year old brain. Seems a lot of folks cling to that tidbit of (misguided) education. If you are still arguing that the United States of America is a Democracy, you are arguing from a 3rd grade point of view, and a 3rd grade education.
All of the arguments in this thread based on what someone once said or did are totally and completely irrelevant. The argument is Republic or Democracy. The end of the argument will come from the definitions of the two words. It will not come from what James Madison or Karl Marx or anyone else said about either/both systems. The answer is in the dictionary.
The United States of America never was, is not now, and never will be a Democracy. I have not read one iota of information in this thread that supports claiming the USofA is a Democracy. The USofA was conceived, formed, and continues to function as a constitutional republic. I make no claim as to whether or not that is how/what the framers wanted. I make no claim as to whether or not that is right or wrong. I only assert what it actually is.
Well, I hate for you to go around thinking wrong things.
What you described of representative democracy describes our government, except the founders put limitations on the power of representatives in the constitution. That's one of those unique features of our system we talked about, but that aren't necessarily "republican".
The elected part is the democratic part.
Or you could choose leaders by how far they can pee. Or...hand size. It doesn't have to be democratic to be a republic. It just happens that ours is.No disagreement there. But that only places limitations on what the people we democratically elect can do. That in itself doesn't make us a republic. That the power comes from the authorization of the people is what makes us a republic. Everything else is icing.
That's not an exclusively republican or democratic feature. Our system has that. Not all do. It's something our founders put in the constitution. But, I'll disagree that it ensures that the majority cannot impose its will on the minority. It makes it harder to, but it doesn't prevent it.
Again, that's a feature that's not unique to a republic. Parliamentary democracies have charters and are also representative democracies. Canada, which is not a republic, has representative democracy, and has a charter to limit the power of government. Fat lot of good that's done them though. And fat lot of good our system has done for us.
We've been arguing about what our system is on paper. It's not living up to it though. The last 4 years has proven that our system can be defeated from within. A republic if you can keep it, indeed.
Site Supporter
Members online
- led4thehed2
- Mackeryd
- Knight Rider
- 357 Terms
- Mas86
- opus1776
- Jndturner317
- 63PGP
- bigz82
- 223 Gunner
- KJQ6945
- BeDome
- oze
- indyartisan
- AndyF
- Talkinghalls
- KG1
- BrentTheBoat
- DDadams
- abraham743
- slims2002
- LokhXIV
- Midwestjimbo
- DoggyDaddy
- BigJDC04
- joncon
- MarylandTacomaRider
- jcj54
- Mgderf
- GUNS&MOPAR
- El Conquistador
- Averygc
- NHT3
- jbm1521
- edwea
- junglerogue
- Dirty Steve
- shawnfox12
- whippo
- Cavman
- OneBadV8
- Nazgul
- pewpew2232
- MCgrease08
- tv1217
- Firehawk
- mr_kravmaga
- Gingerbeardman
- ComeJesuscome
- FredMcIntire