• 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!

Do you get upset at the word democracy?

Does the word democracy upset you?

  • Total voters
    24
Apocalypse said:
Finally you agree. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
What some people use is left to some people to worry about.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Our form of democracy prevents the tyranny of the majority, which democracies without such protections can be prone to.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Our form of democracy prevents the tyranny of the majority, which democracies without such protections can be prone to.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's why the process was made in a circular and convoluted fashion.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct.

But when all comes down to the bone, the form of regime you are managing is a democratic one.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Our form of democracy prevents the tyranny of the majority, which democracies without such protections can be prone to.
Click to expand...
Nearly all democracies have rules that prevent the tyranny of majority.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Apocalypse said:
Absolutely correct.

But when all comes down to the bone, the form of regime you are managing is a democratic one.
Click to expand...
Maybe the very core tenets, it's kind of one of those "almost but not exactly" situations.
 
Apocalypse said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...
And yet a government has to be democratic before it can even be considered as the most moral regime.

When I'm saying that democracy is the most moral of the available regimes, I mean that a democratic-based state would be the most moral one.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Maybe the very core tenets, it's kind of one of those "almost but not exactly" situations.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Apocalypse said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, you do agree that the US is what is described by political terms as "a full democracy", right?
 
Apocalypse said:
Well, you do agree that the US is what is described by political terms as "a full democracy", right?
Click to expand...
No, moderate usage of democratic elements but not a full democracy.
 
Apocalypse said:
Well, you do agree that the US is what is described by political terms as "a full democracy", right?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. I'd think a "full democracy" would refer to direct democracy, where citizens vote on every single issue; or possibly a representative democracy where a simple majority sufficies for any issue, such as whether to allow ginger-people to be legally raped, to illustrate with absurdity.

A limited government, such as the US Republic, puts deliberate limits on democracy: ie the Constitution, the BoR, the Electoral College, and previously the State appointement of Senators.
 
Goshin said:
Not exactly. I'd think a "full democracy" would refer to direct democracy
Click to expand...
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.
 
Apocalypse said:
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.
Click to expand...


Semantics.

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".

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.
 
Goshin said:
Semantics.
Click to expand...
Not at all.
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".
Click to expand...
Again, what some people believe is left to some people to worry about, why should I care about people making mistakes?
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Apocalypse said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Goshin said:
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:
Click to expand...
Quoted for truth.
 
megaprogman said:
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?
Click to expand...

I get annoyed by it because a lot of people use it to justify laws and beliefs.
It doesn't matter if a majority wants something, it matters whether it is right or wrong.

Probably the most used logical fallacy.
 
megaprogman said:
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?
Click to expand...

I get more upset at how people use "republic" as shorthand for representative democracy than for any non-monarchical system of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom