Democracy is DEAD!!!

#2
#2
democracy:

a society consisting of 3 wolves and two sheep who must now decide what's for dinner
 
#6
#6
Negateer said:
Thank goodness, then, that we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
Click to expand...

I would argue that we live in neither. Our current government is nothing more than an oligarchy and it could be argued that it has never been anything more than an oligarchy.

Republican ideals stress equality between the members of the governed community. Slaves were never equal; women were not equal for a long time; African-Americans were not equal until around the 1970s/80s (when red-lining was finally abolished); immigrants are not equal (they cannot hold office as President); etc.

Further, your interests are most likely represented by a U.S. Representative that also represents the interests of 900,000 others. I doubt that such a Representative even knows/understands what it is you desire; instead, he knows and understands what it is that the rich and powerful in his domain desire. That is not equal.
 
#8
#8
OrangeEmpire said:
Glen Beck?
Click to expand...

US Constitution?

We don't live in a democracy, never have.

If we did, we would have been able to vote on Obamacare.

Those are just facts, nothing to do with some random Fox news commentator.

therealUT said:
Our current government is nothing more than an oligarchy and it could be argued that it has never been anything more than an oligarchy.
Click to expand...

uh huh. :loco:

therealUT said:
Further, your interests are most likely represented by a U.S. Representative that also represents the interests of 900,000 others.
Click to expand...

Well, that's why we call them REPRESENTATIVES.

Single voters vote on Reps. Reps vote on Laws.

That's what a republic, basically, is.

One thing we can be sure of, that's MUCH BETTER than any 'democracy'.
 
#9
#9
Negateer said:
US Constitution?

We don't live in a democracy, never have.
Click to expand...

We also do not live in a Republic; never have.

Negateer said:
Well, that's why we call them REPRESENTATIVES.

Single voters vote on Reps. Reps vote on Laws.

That's what a republic, basically, is.
Click to expand...

That is not even close to defining a Republic. That is simply defining the 'representative' aspect of "Representative Republic"; a Republic is merely community in which the governed are all treated equally.

As one voice out of a million, you are not really being represented. If you can make your voice heard (e.g., through large donations), then you are being represented.

The Constitution explicitly states that one representative should represent no more than 30,000 Citizens. In 1929, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act, capping the number of representatives. Note, this is in direct violation of the Constitution; yet, there was not Constitutional Amendment.
 
#10
#10
therealUT said:
We also do not live in a Republic; never have.
Click to expand...

Of course we do.

therealUT said:
That is not even close to defining a Republic. That is simply defining the 'representative' aspect of "Representative Republic"; a Republic is merely community in which the governed are all treated equally..
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

A republic is simply where power lies with citizens (not 'the governed'), and exercised through reps.

That's it. It has nothing to do with 'the governed are all treated equally', except maybe on wikipedia somewhere. But not in the real world.

therealUT said:
The Constitution explicitly states that one representative should represent no more than 30,000 Citizens. In 1929, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act, capping the number of representatives. Note, this is in direct violation of the Constitution; yet, there was not Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...

You are simply describing an unconstitutional action (of course, without a link, I cannot stipulate that this is true). That has nothing to do with whether we're a 'REPUBLIC' or not.
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
Here you go:

Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

re·pub·lic

noun

1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. (oops, thats pretty much what I said...)

2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

4.
( initial capital letter ) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.

5.
( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.
 
#15
#15
Negateer said:
A republic is simply where power lies with citizens (not 'the governed'), and exercised through reps.

That's it. It has nothing to do with 'the governed are all treated equally', except maybe on wikipedia somewhere. But not in the real world.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read Cicero; or, maybe you should read any of the countless commentators, throughout the centuries, on republican values. The central republican value is equality amongst the governed.


Negateer said:
You are simply describing an unconstitutional action (of course, without a link, I cannot stipulate that this is true).
Click to expand...

I named the legislative act. You can do the work from there (read the act and read the Constitution; then, tell me how this act does not directly defy the Constitution).

Negateer said:
That has nothing to do with whether we're a 'REPUBLIC' or not.
Click to expand...

It certainly does. It diminishes equality (gives more political power to the wealthy and the aristocrats) and thus corrupts the republic.

Thanks for the dictionary.com definition. I will stick with the OED.

republic, n.

1. The state, the community; the common good.

2. A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; spec. a state without a monarchy.

3. Any community of people, animals, etc., esp. one considered to have equality between its members.
Click to expand...

The first definition gives us nothing; the second definition is broad enough to include democracy which would make your statement, "we are a republic not a democracy" analytically absurd; yet, the third definition would give us something to work with in this discussion.

The Constitution was written to ensure the preservation of the 'republic' (insofar as there was equality between white, land-owning males); however, since the community of the governed included slaves, women, non land-owners, etc., the government was never a republic.
 
#16
#16
Negateer said:
A republic is simply where power lies with citizens (not 'the governed'), and exercised through reps.

That's it. It has nothing to do with 'the governed are all treated equally', except maybe on wikipedia somewhere. But not in the real world.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read Cicero; or, maybe you should read any of the countless commentators, throughout the centuries, on republican values. The central republican value is equality amongst the governed.


Negateer said:
You are simply describing an unconstitutional action (of course, without a link, I cannot stipulate that this is true).
Click to expand...

I named the legislative act. You can do the work from there (read the act and read the Constitution; then, tell me how this act does not directly defy the Constitution).

Negateer said:
That has nothing to do with whether we're a 'REPUBLIC' or not.
Click to expand...

It certainly does. It diminishes equality (gives more political power to the wealthy and the aristocrats) and thus corrupts the republic.

Thanks for the dictionary.com definition. I will stick with the OED.

republic, n.

1. The state, the community; the common good.

2. A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; spec. a state without a monarchy.

3. Any community of people, animals, etc., esp. one considered to have equality between its members.
Click to expand...

The first definition gives us nothing; the second definition is broad enough to include democracy which would make your statement, "we are a republic not a democracy" analytically absurd; yet, the third definition would give us something to work with in this discussion.

The Constitution was written to ensure the preservation of the 'republic' (insofar as there was equality between white, land-owning males); however, since the community of the governed included slaves, women, non land-owners, etc., the government was never a republic.
 
#18
#18
Negateer said:
US Constitution?

We don't live in a democracy, never have.

If we did, we would have been able to vote on Obamacare.

Those are just facts, nothing to do with some random Fox news commentator.



uh huh. :loco:



Well, that's why we call them REPRESENTATIVES.

Single voters vote on Reps. Reps vote on Laws the lobbyists tell them too..

That's what a republic, basically, is.

One thing we can be sure of, that's MUCH BETTER than any 'democracy'.
Click to expand...

fyp
 
#19
#19
OrangeEmpire said:
So basically you push Glen Beck talking points?
Click to expand...

Tell us again how we're a 'democracy'.

I need a good laugh.

Please, continue...

therealUT said:
Maybe you should read Cicero; .
Click to expand...

No thanks, I'll stick with a modern day dictionary. Your little leftist ploy of redefining longstanding definitions won't work with me.

So please, continue with your Daily Kosian 'oligarchy' talk. You and the other Obama voter make a fine Laurel and Hardy.

lol
 
#20
#20
Again, you have no basis for argument and refer to Glen Beck talking points.

So, do you have any thoughts of yoyr own?
 
#21
#21
Negateer said:
No thanks, I'll stick with a modern day dictionary.
Click to expand...

That makes sense since the Constitution was written over two-hundred years ago. Do you think Locke had any influence on the Founding Fathers? Do you think that Locke's protege, Lord Anthony-Ashley Cooper the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, had any influence on the Founding Fathers? Do you think that what Shaftesbury wrote regarding Cicero and republican virtues is relevant (maybe more relevant than some ridiculous definition from a non-accredited, non-peer-reviewed dictionary)?

Negateer said:
Your little leftist ploy of redefining longstanding definitions won't work with me.
Click to expand...

"Longstanding definition" from a modern dictionary?

Be wary, there are a lot of us small-government, free-market leftists out there...

Negateer said:
So please, continue with your Daily Kosian 'oligarchy' talk. You and the other Obama voter make a fine Laurel and Hardy. lol
Click to expand...

I am an Obama voter? Good to know; I could have sworn that I voted for my biological father in 2008; I was also under the impression that I would be doing the same again this election.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top