• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Not Anarchy?

if people would read what a classical republic is and that it is what the founders created, and stop advocating for democratic government......we could turn the government around.

but to many people have been fooled by people telling them how good democracy is, ...but it only destroys individual liberty.
 
Anarchy is so hard to plan.
 
CNT-FAI Radical said:
There's too much jargon and ambiguity in some of your word choices. Democracy can mean anything, just like Republican or Socialism. "...the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way." ~ Orwell, George Orwell: Politics and the English Language
Click to expand...

wrong....the founders created our republic based on the roman republic..

in the time of the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron.
 
Last edited:
A Classical Republic, (Greek: πολιτεια; Latin: respublica) is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of elements from three other types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. There is the Spartan model, which is a tripartite form of government which is a combination of kings, gerousia (aristocracy) and the assembly of all the males (democratic body). There is the Roman model that has a civilian head, and an aristocratic body which is the Senate and smaller assemblies representing the citizens. A republic is marked by a bicameral legislative body (the upper house being aristocratic) and by a written constitution that marks out the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies.

The classical republic or 'mixed government' is a product of the cultural mindset of the Indo-European races of trifunctionality1 and by and large, generated by citizen/soldier/farmer societies. It was first developed by the Doric Greeks on the island of Crete. 11 It is a by-product of the special Doric Cretan mentality of syncretism (which "Crete" forms the central portion of the word).62 "What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or cosmos, the regular combination of different elements." 58

Because of the character of the Anglo-Saxons,1 Britain in the 13th century naturally evolved into the structure of a classical republic mirroring the Spartan model. 2 The old English word "Commonwealth" is same as the Latin word Res publica. 57 The Founding Fathers of the United States modelled America along the same lines as her mother country, Britain, and the Roman Republic with her civilian head. Since the 1920's, there have been no governments that are 'mixed'.



Mentality between republic and democracy

Aristotle does not use the word democracy and republic interchangeably; neither does Socrates in Plato's Republic.

Aristotle defines a republic as the rule of law. "...it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens, and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them;... the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern..." 21 Thomas Jefferson beseeched his countrymen to "bind men down from mischief by the chains of the constitution". 61

A democracy's mentality is that the people are sovereign and have become a law unto themselves wherefore the phrase vox populi, vox dei. The mentality of Despotism, as it can be seen in the Asian kings of the Pharoahs, Babylonians and Persians, Alexander the Great, his successors and the Roman Emperors starting with Julius Caesar, is that the king or Emperor makes the law so he is God. For the Spartan mindset, the Law, the golden mean, is to rule not men collectively or singly as the Spartan King advises Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae, to wit, "The point is that although they're free, they're not entirely free; their master is the law, and they're far more afraid of this than your men are of you. At any rate, they do whatever the law commands...". 38 A man's obedience, loyalty, and fidelity lie in the law and not in persons; the Spartan mindset being, "I'm obedient to the law but under no man". 64

Aristotle notices that a democracy puts the people above the law: "men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people's being sovereign even over the laws." 22

When the law loses respect, Aristotle says in V vii 7 that "constitutional government turns into a democracy". And in that situation, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle fear the possibility that "Tyranny, then arises from no other form of government than democracy." Then, democracies are no more than ochlocracies. In more recent times, Huey Long said that when fascism came to the United States it would call itself "democracy". 23 See The Kyklos.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/186640-democracy-and-republic-w-172-a.html
 
Last edited:
The American Republic

The history of mixed government in America goes back to the chief founders of New England. The early Massachusetts government was predominantly aristocratic. John Cotton and John Winthrop had an aversion to democracy. The Puritan preachers strongly believed that Scriptures only approved monarchy and aristocracy. "At best, Winthrop and his friends believed in what they called 'a mixt aristocracy'". 24 (See section below on "Occurrences of the word".)

When the Articles of Confederation failed, a constitutional convention was convened to bring about a better form of federal government on 25 May 1787. Well schooled in the Classics, the convention members had a deep distrust of democracy. Governor Robert Morris of Pennsylvania believed that the Senate should be an aristocratic body composed of rich men holding office for life. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, declared that he "abhorred" democracy as "the worst of all political evils". Edmund Randolph, the governor of Virginia, believed that Virginia's Senate was designed as check against the tendencies of democracy. John Dickinson, another delegate, strongly urged that the United States Senate would be structured as nearly as possible to the House of Lords. 25 Finally, Alexander Hamilton wanted the American government to mirror the British government and also proposed that the Senate be styled along the same lines as the House of Lords. 26

Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion (pg 12), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities..." 27 Professor John D. Hicks in his book on The Federal Union said "Such statements could be multiplied almost at will." 28

"All agreed that society was divided along class lines and the "'the most common and durable source of factions'" was "'the various and unequal distribution of property'", as Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10. The common philosophy accepted by most of the delegates was that of balanced government. They wanted to construct a national government in which no single interest would dominate the others. Since the men in Philadelphia represented groups alarmed by the tendencies of the agrarian interests to interfere with property, they were primarily concerned with balancing the government in the direction of protection for property and business." 14

(For more information, see: United States Constitutional Convention)
Threefold structure

The tri-political concept of government and the tripartite form of mixed government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) can be seen in the United States Constitution.

The Presidency is the element of the monarchical office. The United States Senate is the representation of the aristocracy. 42 The House of Representatives is the element of democracy, representing the people. The Senate was originally intended to be the representative body of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, as well as a representation of state's interests, as a corporate entity, in the Federal Government. Madison said, "The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress." 29 Senators were appointed by their respective State legislatures and were not voted on by the people. The Senate was originally designed to check the House of Representatives and the Presidential office and be the "guardian of the constitution".

This is the original principle of a bicameral legislative house; i.e. the senate and the representatives. In Article III, sec 4, it states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." This means that all the state governments must have a bicameral house with the upper house being the seat of the aristocracy, not elected by the people.
Destruction of the upper house
 
Republics are converted to democracies by reformers and leaders who modify the constitution whereby the powers of the upper house, i.e. the Senate, are restricted and demoted.

Aristotle remarks that around 480 B.C., the Athenian polity was by slow stages growing into a democracy and about 462 B.C., the senate, the Council of the Areopagites, was stripped of its powers and the constitution relaxed turning the polity into a democracy.45

In modern times, "The abolition of the Senate, however, is a reform which American socialists demand in common with the Socialists of several countries. Thus we find the British Social Democratic Party, the Belgian Labor Party, the French Socialist Party and several other Socialist parties, demanding the abolition of the Senate, or, in England, the House of Lords". 41

In America, the XVII amendment in 1913 fundamentally changed the character of the American government. It starts by saying that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof,..."

It demolished the fundamental "checks and balances" that mark a republican form of government. The people elect both the Senators and the Representatives. In classical terminology and definition, the U.S. form of government was changed from a republic to a democracy.

In Britain, the House of Lords was also nullified when the law was changed making it possible that the Parliament (the assembly of the people) could overrule any veto of the House of Lords. The monarchy and the House of Lords are empty figureheads devoid of any real power. In classical terminology, Britain today is a democracy for the common people are the dominant factor.
 
Last edited:
CNT-FAI Radical said:
1. But if there was an equality in power positions, if each person participated in voluntary associations formed for cultural or social or industrially or scientific reasons, then the power struggle could never be dominated by any single powerful organization that ruled all.

2. Thank you for the warm welcome. ;) If you noticed, my argument begins with "Everyone makes up society," so I'm not certain why you doubt the community-centered nature of Anarchism. http://www.brassicanigra.org/IMG/jpg/ungdom.jpg
Click to expand...

1. Who says when equality is achieved? How would we distribute that power?

2. Sorry to burst your bubble but this internet community is not an anarchy. There are rules to follow, set by the founders/creators. Mods enforce the rules. You also mainly need to talk about politics. As the sub-forums aren't really too active. So non-political people would not be comfortable in this community.
 
TeleKat said:
If it weren't for the fact that nobody would ever let such a system take place, I'd be an anarchist. Some would say I am one anyway, in principle, seeing that ideally, I shrug off capitalism, statism, and other unilateral/vertical power structures as being grossly inefficient and immoral. But I don't see the super wealthy or the politicians they buy giving up their power, nor do I see the people as being viligant or educated enough to either instate anarchism or even maintain it once instated.

Anarchism is a beautiful philosophy. One that has been perverted throughout time by "anarcho"-capitalists, punk rockers, governments, and terrorists. But it is a philosophy for the optimistic. While I am optimistic about the future, I tend to be very pragmatic. Which is why I consider myself more of a liberal-libertarian hybrid than an anarchist. Perhaps, sometime in the future, when the corporate ruling class loses it's power, anarchism can be up for discussion. But for now I consider it way too far for it to be considered anything other than a dream. We have to work in the now.
Click to expand...

A very convincing argument. Yes, we have to work in the now, but how are we going to get to "the then" in the future if we don't know what direction it's in?

Love Emma Goldman, that essay was a good one. "A practical scheme, says Oscar Wilde, is either one already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under the existing conditions; but it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. The true criterion of the practical, therefore, is not whether the latter can keep intact the wrong or foolish; rather is it whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build, as well as sustain, new life."
 
ModerateGOP said:
2. Sorry to burst your bubble but this internet community is not an anarchy. There are rules to follow, set by the founders/creators. Mods enforce the rules. You also mainly need to talk about politics. As the sub-forums aren't really too active. So non-political people would not be comfortable in this community.
Click to expand...

Again, anarchy is a lack of government, not a lack of rules.
 
Henrin said:
I was unaware I voted for government to exist. I thought government just said, look, you can vote for who kicks your ass.
Click to expand...

then find a place where you can live ungoverned. take the initiative, and pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
 
The Greeks defined differing governments by their dominant factor. Aristotle writes: "Now a constitution (Politeia) is the ordering of a state (Poleos) in respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the government. 3 Our customary designation for a monarchy that aims at the common advantage is 'kingship'; for a government of more than one yet only a few 'aristocracy', ...while when the multitude govern the state with a view to the common advantage, it is called by the name common to all the forms of constitution, 'constitutional government'. 4 Where a government has only a king, the dominant factor, it is called a monarchy. Where a government has only a few nobles ruling, the dominant factor, it is called an aristocracy." Where the people are the dominant factor it is called a democracy.

The Greek word for State is "Poleos". It denotes "society" in general. Aristotle writes "A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state". 5 This Greek word, "Politeia" is then named for every government that includes numerous classes of people as citizens and a written law, a constitution, that defines and delegates rights and responsibilities of those classes. A republic is one that does not have a dominant factor".

Hence, the phrase "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. A democracy is when the people are dominant and a republic is mixed government wherein there is no dominant element. Therefore to say a "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. The confusion lies in that the word "republic" is synonymous with "constitution". For that reason, it is better to say "constitutional democracy" other than "democratic republic".
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/186640-democracy-and-republic-w-172-a-4.html
 
Helix said:
because government is better than the regional warlords and highwaymen that emerge in its absence.

/thread
Click to expand...

Highwaymen? You mean like from the book "Alas, Babylon," or the movie "Mad Max," or the game "Fallout"? Yes, all wonderful fictions. The reality of the actual Anarchist communities of the past is very different, though.
 
TNAR said:
I find that most people mistakenly associate anarchy with chaos; the two are not synonyms. Anarchy is simply without government.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that is chaos! Without simple rules like paying taxes, the government would fall apart as would basic society. Sure, I'm a Republican, so I would like the tax code simplified. I think everyone does, but that doesn't mean I want it to go away. It is necessary as well as a thousands of other laws enforced by the police/American Justice System.
 
Helix said:
then find a place where you can live ungoverned. take the initiative, and pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Click to expand...

So again, is the government a regional warlord and a highwaymen?
 
CNT-FAI Radical said:
Highwaymen? You mean like from the book "Alas, Babylon," or the movie "Mad Max," or the game "Fallout"? Yes, all wonderful fictions. The reality of the actual Anarchist communities of the past is very different, though.
Click to expand...

"fictions," like Somalia and Afghanistan. like it or not, when societal structure is destroyed, humans behave like assholes. i prefer living in a first world country.
 
Helix said:
no. warlords and highwaymen are not democratically elected representatives.
Click to expand...

But all governments are technically in a state of anarchy with regards to each other, some of them becoming warlords and highwaymen. Even if a state has a majority of its people voting for it, that was never enough to stop it from enslaving and oppressing its neighbors, whether in modern times (all across the world) or in ancient times (even in the Greek Democracy).

Helix said:
but it's satisfying to think of government in hyperbolic, inflammatory terms if you're a libertarian. i remember.
Click to expand...

Yes, it certainly is. =)
 
Henrin said:
So again, is the government a regional warlord and a highwaymen?
Click to expand...


no. we live in an elected duopoly.

why are you spending your time bitching about it on the internet of a governed nation when you could be packing up your stuff and finding a place to live that has no government?
 
CNT-FAI Radical said:
Why Not Abolish the Government?

Everyone makes up society, which makes it logical for everyone to have a voice in society, but even Democratic governments have abuses and scandals. So it's not enough just to have Democracy, but you need limited powers. And sometimes limiting the government's powers isn't even enough, and you have to guarantee that everyone has a right to revolt whenever they are being oppressed. But revolting and revolution are blood and full of conflict and suffering and the general disruption of society. Why not go further in the belief of limiting power and the right to revolt, and declare that any government is unjust because it places the participants on unequal footing that provides the powerful with a means to exploit the weak.

Scientific societies and labor unions generally have anarchy as an internal political system, even if it's called by the title "Delegation." In those cases, the only difference between government and anarchy is that no elected delegate can take a decision without a majority vote and any delegate can be removed by a no-confidence vote. And Anarchist societies of the past have been utopias compared to anything else around at that time. List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, why not end government?
Click to expand...
Do anarchists even organize to any meaningful extent anymore? I've been to meetings for organizing the book fair in NYC and all it was was people arguing over whether coming to a consensus decision was unjustly imposing upon people who voted against a decision
 
ModerateGOP said:
None of those things are pragmatic. "Corporate Ruling Class"? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Are you doubting that the wealthy have no influence over government and that the government isn't unusually responsive to this extremely small amount of people? How much does the US spend on agricultural subsidies compared to how few instances there are of small, independent farmers? Just one, small example.
 
Helix said:
no. we live in an elected duopoly.

why are you spending your time bitching about it on the internet of a governed nation when you could be packing up your stuff and finding a place to live that has no government?
Click to expand...

Yes, the highwaymen are allowing me the choice on who will rob me. Personally, I would much prefer single highwaymen then ones that partnered up.

Also, stop telling me to go places that don't exist.
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. Who says when equality is achieved? How would we distribute that power?

2. Sorry to burst your bubble but this internet community is not an anarchy. There are rules to follow, set by the founders/creators. Mods enforce the rules. You also mainly need to talk about politics. As the sub-forums aren't really too active. So non-political people would not be comfortable in this community.
Click to expand...

While I agree this forum is not an anarchy, anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, the highwaymen are allowing me the choice on who will rob me. Personally, I would much prefer single highwaymen then ones that partnered up.
Click to expand...

then why are you wasting your time telling me about it? find a place with warlords and highwaymen, and move there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom