• 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!

Democracy V Republic

Napoleon said:
Rome never had a written Constitution. In fact, it didn’t have any written laws at all for the first 300 years after its founding - which is part of what ignited the Conflict of the Orders.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter to Into The Night

He will state black is white and white is black.

Then after you argue with him for a day or two and request any kind of evidence for his nonsensical claims, he'll state he gave you all the proof you needed way back in the thread....



You are right of course, ancient Rome was a republic up to the time of Caesar's War with Pompey. And it never had a written Constitution. It was more like an established set of traditions and understandings.
 
Napoleon said:
Rome never had a written Constitution. In fact, it didn’t have any written laws at all for the first 300 years after its founding - which is part of what ignited the Conflict of the Orders.
Click to expand...

Yes it did.
 
Rich2018 said:
That doesn't matter to Into The Night

He will state black is white and white is black.

Then after you argue with him for a day or two and request any kind of evidence for his nonsensical claims, he'll state he gave you all the proof you needed way back in the thread....



You are right of course, ancient Rome was a republic up to the time of Caesar's War with Pompey. And it never had a written Constitution. It was more like an established set of traditions and understandings.
Click to expand...

The constitution of Rome was written down. That document existed from 449BC to 337BC. Only small fragments of it exist today. We don't know what the original text actually was, but it DID act as the constitution of the republic.
 
Into the Night said:
The constitution of Rome was written down. That document existed from 449BC to 337BC. Only small fragments of it exist today. We don't know what the original text actually was, but it DID act as the constitution of the republic.
Click to expand...

What is your source for this? Citations please.
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, well despite claims to inspiration from the Roman Republic - our founders created a government and a Constitution that doesn’t even remotely resemble it.
Click to expand...

Our constitution is indeed much different from the one Rome used. The United States is organized as a federated republic, not a simple republic that Rome was during that time. The ideals used in our constitution are different too.
 
Into the Night said:
...Yes it did.



The constitution of Rome was written down. That document existed from 449BC to 337BC. Only small fragments of it exist today. We don't know what the original text actually was, but it DID act as the constitution of the republic.
Click to expand...


Source ?
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, well despite claims to inspiration from the Roman Republic - our founders created a government and a Constitution that doesn’t even remotely resemble it.
Click to expand...

Yes

The Roman Republic was really an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

The USA merely borrowed some labels like Senate and President.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes

The Roman Republic was really an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

The USA merely borrowed some labels like Senate and President.
Click to expand...

For much of the time of Rome, that was true. Another large portion of its time was as a dictatorship.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes

The Roman Republic was really an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

The USA merely borrowed some labels like Senate and President.
Click to expand...

It’s difficult to say what the Roman Republic was. The most that can be said with certainty is that it was guided by the overarching principle that power should always be shared but between whom and how was always in a state of flux in practice. It’s a pity that not much survives beyond retrospect from very few authors in the imperial period.
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
Roman law did allow for the election of a dictator in times of extreme crisis - though only for a set period.
Click to expand...

These 'dictatosr' weren't.No 'dictator' was given full authority over Rome. These executive officers were extremely limited in scope and authority.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes

The Roman Republic was really an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

The USA merely borrowed some labels like Senate and President.
Click to expand...

As I bloom into a fully mature cynic, I have arrived at the conclusion that, in the end, ALL governments are oligarchies. The similarities seem to consistently outweigh the differences.

They'll call it something else, and maybe money's not the only way to become an oligarch in some systems, or they even start with the very best of intentions, but in the all governments devolve into a protection racket for the well connected elite, and they call the shots.
 
gfm7175 said:
No, it isn't.


No, it is not. A republic is rule of law, a democracy is rule of men.


A republic and a democracy are two completely separate forms of government.


False. A republic means that there is a constitution (rule of law).


Yes it does. That makes the US a republic. The US also happens to have several layers of republics, so the USA is a federated republic.


I am not familiar with how the Netherlands government works, so I will refrain from commenting on this.


False. A republic is not a democracy. They are two completely different things, as I have described above.


There is nothing nonsensical about that. The USA can't be both a democracy and a republic; they are completely different things... You are arguing a paradox here...


Democracy is mob rule. That is NOT what the USA is... Democrats want the USA to become that, but that is not what the USA is. The USA is a federated republic.


"we the people" does not make the USA a democracy or a "democratic republic" (there is no such thing). Establishing the congress does not make the USA a democracy. It actually supports the position that I am asserting.
Click to expand...

That is all nonsense. Every democratically elected government on earth is a democratic republic in that they all have constitutions of some sort and a rule of law. There is no nation on earth where you have a democracy without a rule of law.

What differentiates the United States from many other democratic nations is that in most democracies, representation is completely proportional. Here it isn't. Example, Wyoming has 2 senators and California has 2, despite the fact that California has 77 times the population of Wyoming. That doesn't give us a completely different form of government though, it just means that our legislative branch is not completely proportional (the House more or less is, the Senate isn't).
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is all nonsense. Every democratically elected government on earth is a democratic republic in that they all have constitutions of some sort and a rule of law. There is no nation on earth where you have a democracy without a rule of law.

What differentiates the United States from many other democratic nations is that in most democracies, representation is completely proportional. Here it isn't. Example, Wyoming has 2 senators and California has 2, despite the fact that California has 77 times the population of Wyoming. That doesn't give us a completely different form of government though, it just means that our legislative branch is not completely proportional (the House more or less is, the Senate isn't).
Click to expand...

Why are you leaving the House of Representatives? You know the part of congress that is based on a state's population.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Why are you leaving the House of Representatives? You know the part of congress that is based on a state's population.
Click to expand...

I wrote in the post:

"That doesn't give us a completely different form of government though, it just means that our legislative branch is not completely proportional (the House more or less is, the Senate isn't)"
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I wrote in the post:

"That doesn't give us a completely different form of government though, it just means that our legislative branch is not completely proportional (the House more or less is, the Senate isn't)"
Click to expand...

My bad.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is all nonsense. Every democratically elected government on earth is a democratic republic in that they all have constitutions of some sort and a rule of law. There is no nation on earth where you have a democracy without a rule of law.
Click to expand...
"Democratically elected" and "Democracy" are not the same thing... And there is no nation on Earth that even IS a Democracy. All Democracies fall apart and turn into (typically) either Oligarchies or Dictatorships...

SouthernDemocrat said:
What differentiates the United States from many other democratic nations is that in most democracies, representation is completely proportional. Here it isn't. Example, Wyoming has 2 senators and California has 2, despite the fact that California has 77 times the population of Wyoming. That doesn't give us a completely different form of government though, it just means that our legislative branch is not completely proportional (the House more or less is, the Senate isn't).
Click to expand...
Democracy is mob rule. No nation currently exists that operates under that system. WY has 2 senators just like CA has 2 senators because that allows each state to be equally represented at the federal level. Senators were supposed to be owned by the states and represent their state's interests before that got changed over to popular vote. Now, senators aren't really any different than representatives... both are owned by people now, instead of one being owned by the state and one being owned by people. The House of Representatives represents the people of that particular state. That's why CA gets many more representatives than WY... CA has a much larger population than WY does... Yet, none of these people "rule" anything... not even the President... not even the Supreme Court... The Constitution (of the nation and of each state, county, etc.) is what rules... That makes the USA a federated republic... NOT a Democracy... a federated republic.
 
Rich2018 said:
How else is anyone to take your comments about 3rd world people in the USA ?
Click to expand...

You take what I say at face value. You don't add your own spin to it.

Racial Identity Politics is just as despicable as Traditional Racism. Aside from the microscopic number of White Supremacist the only real Racists in America today call themselves Progressive or Liberal.

Exploiting race from the opposite direction is still racism.

Stop being a RACIST!
 
Napoleon said:
It’s difficult to say what the Roman Republic was. The most that can be said with certainty is that it was guided by the overarching principle that power should always be shared but between whom and how was always in a state of flux in practice. It’s a pity that not much survives beyond retrospect from very few authors in the imperial period.
Click to expand...

It elected it's head of head...therefore it was a republic.

That's the only real criteria you need for a republic.
 
Into the Night said:
These 'dictatosr' weren't.No 'dictator' was given full authority over Rome. These executive officers were extremely limited in scope and authority.
Click to expand...

"...A dictator was a magistrate of the Roman Republic, entrusted with the full authority of the state to deal with a military emergency or to undertake a specific duty. All other magistrates were subordinate to his imperium, and the right of the plebeian tribunes to veto his actions or of the people to appeal from them was extremely limited. However, in order to prevent the dictatorship from threatening the state itself, severe limitations were placed upon its powers: a dictator could only act within his intended sphere of authority; and he was obliged to resign his office once his appointed task had been accomplished, or at the expiration of six months..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
 
WillyPete said:
As I bloom into a fully mature cynic, I have arrived at the conclusion that, in the end, ALL governments are oligarchies....
Click to expand...

In a way yes.

The difference between a true oligarchy - like a military junta or Soviet Politburo, is that a Representative Democracy changes the members of its government and legislature at regular intervals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom