DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC[W:172]

[Master PO]

THIS DEBATE IS BEING MOVED OVER HERE FROM THE POLL SECTION, BECAUSE IT IS NOT ON TRACK, OF WHAT THE TOPIC IS THERE, ....THE DEBATE WAS BETWEEN MYSELF AND HAYMARKET, OF THE SUBJECT OF DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC.

TO RESEARCH THE DISCUSSION, BETWEEN HAYMARKET AND MYSELF ONE MUST START HERE, AT THIS POINT, POST 455 AND CONTINUED TO POST 483

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...nation-laws-protect-our-rights-w-85-a-46.html


here is the last posting from that thread discussing the subject of DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC, which was posted by haymarket.

You have not said where you got your definitions of the key words DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC from. I provided verifiable sources for mine.

I suspect you simply pulled them out of ...... thin air. You made them up. You reject the normal definitions in favor of your own homemade nonsense because the normal definitions show the the USA is a republic and that defeats your silly allegations.

So tell us Herr Barkmann - where did you get those definitions from?

So you say you posted verifiable sources?.

what are your verifiable sources, they are listed below:

Wikipedia

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dictionary.com

Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

since you have used Wikipedia, and claimed it is a verifiable source, then logic DEMANDS if i use it it must be a verifiable source ALSO.

OK here is my verifiable source from Wikipedia

Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which states what a mixed constitution is:

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

since the father of the constitution James Madison states clearly in federalist 40, by its title, and by the first sentence of the paper that the constitution is a mixed constitution, it has to be since Madison who is it father knows what kind of constitution it is, or do you haymarket believe Madison does not even know what kind of constitution he framed?


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

"THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution"

since the constitution is a mixed constitution, and haymarket, states Wikipedia is a verifiable source on the issued of mixed government, then the constitution creates a federal government composed of 3 elements.......... democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, and since the u.s. constitution states that our government is a republican form of government article 4 section 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

then it has been verified, according to haymarkket ,that Wikipedia is correct on mixed constitution, and the constitution itself says our government is republican, then a republican form of government is then a mixed government..........as confirmed by haymarket, , because of this support for Wikipedia.

since our government uses 3 separate elements ,meaning democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, then it cannot be a democracy, because democracy only controls only 1/3 of the government of the founders, and for democracy to be a government of the founders, that would have to make it a democratic form of government, and we know America is a republican form of government.

which Madison makes very clear in federalist 10 that there is republican government and there is democratic government, and America has again..republican form of government, ...here is Madison on the subject:

federalist -10 -The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

to repeat again, if our government is republican by Madison's own words, and according to haymarket verification, a mixed government by Wikipedia of must be correct, and federalist 40 by Madison states our Constitution is a mixed constitution, ....then it is impossible the government of the founders to be a democracy, of democratic government.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

since you have used Wikipedia, and claimed it is a verifiable source, then logic DEMANDS if i use it it must be a verifiable source ALSO.

I'm not taking sides in your debate, but I'm only pointing out that while Wikipedia itself can be edited by anyone, the wise debater will point to the references used in the Wikipedia, rather than the Wiki itself (which I'm as guilty of as anyone).

 

[Master PO]

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.

 

[Master PO]

I'm not taking sides in your debate, but I'm only pointing out that while Wikipedia itself can be edited by anyone, the wise debater will point to the references used in the Wikipedia, rather than the Wiki itself (which I'm as guilty of as anyone).

thanks i know.....BUT haymarket SAYS it is verifiable source....

 

[Master PO]

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.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Classical_definition_of_republic

 

[soot]

Most of the Founding Father brain trust was familiar with the work of both Polybius and Montesquieu in relation to mixed government and cited both frequently in correspondence related to the establishment of our government. Madison was particularly enamored of Montesquieu.

I don't think it's possible to know even a little something about our nation's founding and not get that we've got a mixed republican government that incorporates some aspects of democracy.

Good argument Barkmann, I agree with you pretty much 100%.

And I also give my librarians stamp of approval to the use of Wikipedia as a verified source for any debate that doesn't involve the conference of a graduate degree or a professional report that's going to have money riding on it. For the purposes of Internet chatter Wikipedia is more than sufficient documentation.

 

[Master PO]

Most of the Founding Father brain trust was familiar with the work of both Polybius and Montesquieu in relation to mixed government and cited both frequently in correspondence related to the establishment of our government. Madison was particularly enamored of Montesquieu.

I don't think it's possible to know even a little something about our nation's founding and not get that we've got a mixed republican government that incorporates some aspects of democracy.

Good argument Barkmann, I agree with you pretty much 100%.

And I also give my librarians stamp of approval to the use of Wikipedia as a verified source for any debate that doesn't involve the conference of a graduate degree or a professional report that's going to have money riding on it. For the purposes of Internet chatter Wikipedia is more than sufficient documentation.

Madison references Polybius in the federalist

 

[soot]

I think the problem haymarket is having in his discussion with you is that he seems to be isolating American republicanism, representative democracy, and mixed government as three distinct and mutually exclusive forms of government.

They're not.

They're three different concepts of how power can be held and exercised and the U.S. Constitution blended the three into a unique system of governance and government.

The United States is a republic AND a representative democracy AND and a mixed government.

Take away any of those and you've got something different than what the Founders settled on.

Likewise, you can call our system of government a republic OR a representative democracy OR and a mixed government and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong.

 

[haymarket]

The USA in 2014 keeps to the Constitutional order to provide a republican form of government.

Case closed.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The USA in 2014 keeps to the Constitutional order to provide a republican form of government.

Case closed.

Bull****, we've come a long way from a Constitutional Republic and have become a Social Democracy.

 

[haymarket]

Barkmann: does the USA today have a republican form of government?

 

[Master PO]

I think the problem haymarket is having in his discussion with you is that he seems to be isolating American republicanism, representative democracy, and mixed government as three distinct and mutually exclusive forms of government.

They're not.

They're three different concepts of how power can be held and exercised and the U.S. Constitution blended the three into a unique system of governance and government.

The United States is a republic AND a representative democracy AND and a mixed government.

Take away any of those and you've got something different than what the Founders settled on.

Likewise, you can call our system of government a republic OR a representative democracy OR and a mixed government and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong.

our republican form of government OF THE FOUNDERS..Is a mixed government consisting of 3 different elements, which balance themselves against each other so no single one, can cease all power and become tyrannical.

the senate [pre17th] was created the be a check on the collectivist capacity [democracy] of the people of the house.

if the founders have wanted a representative democracy for America, they would NOT have created the electoral college, or senators elected by state legislature.


FEDERALIST 48--An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

 

[Master PO]

barkmann has still not told us where he obtained his particular definitions of republic and democracy.

i guess you cannot see either......

Look again

 

[haymarket]

Bull****, we've come a long way from a Constitutional Republic and have become a Social Democracy.

What are your definitions of a REPUBLIC and of a DEMOCRACY?

 

[haymarket]

i guess you cannot see either......

Look again

I did. All the BS about Madison and mixed government kept getting in the way of a simple definition of a REPUBLIC and of a DEMOCRACY.

Screw Madison.
Screw Mixed government.
Screw the Federalist Papers.

What are the definitions you are using for DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC and where are you getting these?

 

[Master PO]

barkmann: Does the usa today have a republican form of government?

that's debatable........

Do both chambers of congress, which a now both elements of democracy...since they are directly elected by the people, .........and the electoral college, still make it a republican form of government?

Our government of the founders has definitely mover closer to democracy because of the 17th amendment.

Instead of the 3 elements of mixed government, we are down to only 2 elements now.

 

[Master PO]

i did. All the bs about madison and mixed government kept getting in the way of a simple definition of a republic and of a democracy.

Screw madison.
Screw mixed government.
Screw the federalist papers.

What are the definitions you are using for democracy and republic and where are you getting these?

i gave you a definition, i guess you passed over it.

OH !!!....SCREW MIXED GOVERNMENT!!!!!......which is from Wikipedia.......which you stated was a verifiable source?????????:lamo:lamo:screwy

 

[haymarket]

that's debatable........

Do both chambers of congress, which a now both elements of democracy...since they are directly elected by the people, .........and the electoral college, still make it a republican form of government?

Our government of the founders has definitely mover closer to democracy because of the 17th amendment.

Instead of the 3 elements of mixed government, we are down to only 2 elements now.

It is only debatable once you have paid out the definitions so you have a standard or rubric.

Where is yours?

What is the definition you are using for REPUBLIC and DEMOCRACY.

 

[haymarket]

i gave you a definition, i guess you passed over it.

When you get tired of playing the kiddie game hide and seek - let us all know.

 

[Master PO]

When you get tired of playing the kiddie game hide and seek - let us all know.

go back and read, instead of just passing over what i posted!..and acting as if you didn't see it.

 

[haymarket]

i gave you a definition, i guess you passed over it.

OH !!!....SCREW MIXED GOVERNMENT!!!!!......which is from Wikipedia.......which you stated was a verifiable source?????????:lamo:lamo:screwy

Your MIXED GOVERNMENT is not the term DEMOCRACY.
Your MIXED GOVERNMENT is not the term REPUBLIC.

You have not defined either one so far in this silly thread.

This was the material I kept challenging you on in the other thread

your statement Herr Barkmann

POWER IS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, MEANING THE LEGISLATURE OF STATES............THIS MAKES IT REPUBLICAN.

UNDER DEMOCRACY THE POWER IS HELD BY ONLY BY THE PEOPLE, THRU THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.

I ask you for about the 20th time now - where are you getting these statements from?

 

[Master PO]

Your MIXED GOVERNMENT is not the term DEMOCRACY.
Your MIXED GOVERNMENT is not the term REPUBLIC.

You have not defined either one so far in this silly thread.

it amazing that a person like you states Wikipedia.........is a verified source , and then states the federalist papers are manure, and are not important.:mrgreen::lol:

 

[Master PO]

I ask you for about the 20th time now - where are you getting these statements from?

[POWER IS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, MEANING THE LEGISLATURE OF STATES............THIS MAKES IT REPUBLICAN.

UNDER DEMOCRACY THE POWER IS HELD BY ONLY BY THE PEOPLE, THRU THEIR REPRESENTATIVES]






federalist 62 and 63 as stated to you before!



An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

 

[haymarket]

it amazing that a person like you states Wikipedia.........is a verified source , and then states the federalist papers are manure, and are not important.:mrgreen::lol:

Why is that? I have repeatedly told you that the opinion of one person does not change the document given to the nation. That is a hard cold fact of history.

Where are your definitions of DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC?

 

[Master PO]

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

Classical definition of republic - Definition | WordIQ.com