- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 24,544
- Reaction score
- 8,614
- Location
- Israel
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Finally you agree.A constitutional republic is a specific form of democracy
Finally you agree.A constitutional republic is a specific form of democracy
Finally you agree.
Right, the intent of the thread. However, the two terms are not interchangeable. For instance, appeal to democracy in the form of direct democracy is an appeal to majority, which is fine in a direct democracy. However, we are a representative republic based on a democratic election process, so appeal to majority is irrelevant in that we elect representatives who, in theory should be listening to the will of the people, but since appeal to majority is a potential loophole, we wrote a constitution specifically limiting what the majority could have or impose.What some people use is left to some people to worry about.
In the case of our particular "democracy" the rule of law and the checks and balances are there to insure that the democratic process is upheld, even though the particular democratic elements are a bit watered down.
Yep, that's why the process was made in a circular and convoluted fashion.Our form of democracy prevents the tyranny of the majority, which democracies without such protections can be prone to.
Absolutely correct.Right, the intent of the thread. However, the two terms are not interchangeable. For instance, appeal to democracy in the form of direct democracy is an appeal to majority, which is fine in a direct democracy. However, we are a representative republic based on a democratic election process, so appeal to majority is irrelevant in that we elect representatives who, in theory should be listening to the will of the people, but since appeal to majority is a potential loophole, we wrote a constitution specifically limiting what the majority could have or impose.
In the case of our particular "democracy" the rule of law and the checks and balances are there to insure that the democratic process is upheld, even though the particular democratic elements are a bit watered down.
Nearly all democracies have rules that prevent the tyranny of majority.Our form of democracy prevents the tyranny of the majority, which democracies without such protections can be prone to.
However, America as a constitutional republic -> a Democracy.I've always known that. My quarrel with you is your lack of specificity. A democracy is not necessarily a constitutional republic.
A constitutional republic > a democracy.
Maybe the very core tenets, it's kind of one of those "almost but not exactly" situations.Absolutely correct.
But when all comes down to the bone, the form of regime you are managing is a democratic one.
However, America as a constitutional republic -> a Democracy.
Your initial disagreement with me was with the statement that Democracy is the most moral regime there is.
That statement still holds truth.
And yet a government has to be democratic before it can even be considered as the most moral regime.A limited government is the most moral "regime". Democracy does not automatically imply limited government.
A democracy with unlimited governmental power is perfectly capable of being as immoral, oppressive and murderous as any autocracy.
Limited government is the key to moral government. Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applies to democracies as much as to autocracies.
The US is a democracy, that's not even a question.Maybe the very core tenets, it's kind of one of those "almost but not exactly" situations.
I'm not of the moralistic arguments TBH, I'm arguing that democracy and democratic republic aren't compatible terms. There are some core similarities, but glaring differences.The US is a democracy, that's not even a question.
What you guys argue about is what form of democracy is the most moral of them all, while I'm simply stating that democracy itself is the most moral form of regime.
Well, you do agree that the US is what is described by political terms as "a full democracy", right?I'm not of the moralistic arguments TBH, I'm arguing that democracy and democratic republic aren't compatible terms. There are some core similarities, but glaring differences.
No, moderate usage of democratic elements but not a full democracy.Well, you do agree that the US is what is described by political terms as "a full democracy", right?
Well, you do agree that the US is what is described by political terms as "a full democracy", right?
Well:No, moderate usage of democratic elements but not a full democracy.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index]Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]#18 United States 8.22 Full democracy
Then I'm afraid you're wrong Goshin.Not exactly. I'd think a "full democracy" would refer to direct democracy
The methodologies seem to point to the condition overall of the democracy and not the practical policies. In effect, the truest forms of a democracy are limited here, much of our political system can be traced all the way back to Greece and the works found in Plato's "Republic".
Then I'm afraid you're wrong Goshin.
A direct democracy does not imply a stronger democracy.
The only form of direct democracy that exists in our present world is in the referendums most common in Switzerland.
All democratic regimes on planet earth are pretty much types of representative democracies, e.g. the US.
Not at all.Semantics.
Again, what some people believe is left to some people to worry about, why should I care about people making mistakes?The fact remains that a distressingly large number of people ignorantly think that anything "democratic" is automatically moral, and that "democratic" always means "majority rules".
Democracy is still the most moral of the forms of regimes that exist, Goshin.This misuse and misunderstanding of the term is why I have issues with the way "Democracy" is freely slung about with wild abandon but little comprehension.
Again, what some people believe is left to some people to worry about, why should I care about people making mistakes?
Democracy is still the most moral of the forms of regimes that exist, Goshin.
That a Democracy can become oppressive is one thing, that Democracy in general is the most moral of them all is another.
Quoted for truth.I reiterate that Democracy and Limited Government are not necessarily synonymous.
Furthermore you should care that large numbers of people make this mistake about "democracy".... because the ignorant buggers vote! :mrgreen:
From Wikipedia:
To me it seems that most of the time when people use the word democracy, they are using it as shorthand for representative democracy and not direct democracy. However, they will always draw a correction from someone.
My question is, are people simply mistaken about the word democracy and automatically assume that people speak of direct democracy or is something else going on?
From Wikipedia:
To me it seems that most of the time when people use the word democracy, they are using it as shorthand for representative democracy and not direct democracy. However, they will always draw a correction from someone.
My question is, are people simply mistaken about the word democracy and automatically assume that people speak of direct democracy or is something else going on?