America - Democracy or Republic?
- Auteur de la discussion JustinNed
- Date de début
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
Affirmatory
Elfe Mécanique
- Inscrit
- 29/12/08
- Messages
- 354
It's a Democratic Republic.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
restin, I think you should have a look at the wikipage i posted above.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
I found it hard to describe, but after thinking about it a bit more it boils down to this:
Only some republics are democratic, so a republic isn't a version of democracy. At the same time a republic can in principle be a direct democracy or an indirect (representative) democracy.
Only some republics are democratic, so a republic isn't a version of democracy. At the same time a republic can in principle be a direct democracy or an indirect (representative) democracy.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
LoL
just a question, do you want to talk about the official definition of republic and democracy or our own perception of democracy? Because if is the first, any discussion is futile, as the wikipedia article shows but I personally see it differently.
A democracy is where the people reign, where the people decide, what the state does. Therefore the division between people and government is minimized. According to this definition, the purest democracy is anarchism/libertarianism, as then there is no government resp. they are united, the next one is the direct democracy, where the people vote for a minimal representation of the population (e.g. president) but through the vote, the representation becomes the voice of the population and the next one would be the republic, where people vote for many representatives that all make the business of politics which brings up the dualism of government and individual. Nonetheless, it is still the people that decide (in the ideal case), what the government does.
A democracy is where the people reign, where the people decide, what the state does. Therefore the division between people and government is minimized. According to this definition, the purest democracy is anarchism/libertarianism, as then there is no government resp. they are united, the next one is the direct democracy, where the people vote for a minimal representation of the population (e.g. president) but through the vote, the representation becomes the voice of the population and the next one would be the republic, where people vote for many representatives that all make the business of politics which brings up the dualism of government and individual. Nonetheless, it is still the people that decide (in the ideal case), what the government does.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
It is interesting to discuss, but I think we need to be clear. According to your own definition of a republic the people's republic of China is not a republic. I think in a democracy there is always room for dissent, while in some republics this is not the case.
ok but then you accept that a country that calls itself a republic is indeed a republic, for example the Democratic Republic of Congo and other african countries, or, as you say it, China. You're right about the dissent, some republics are quite repressive, which is IMHO caused by the discrepancy between government and people - the government has its own goals. From what I heard, which is of course not much, the people in China are mostly happy with the government so, on the other hand, the government is indeed voted for by the population.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
What do you understand by a republic then?
„Est igitur res publica res populi, populus autem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus.“ - Cicero.
"It is therefore an entity of the public, the entity of the people, the people are nonetheless not every union of people that were thrown together but the union of a mass that was connected because of a concord of the Rights and Unity because of Profit."
It is therefore a form of democracy that uses representatives for the people that unite them and represent the people as a nation. A democracy, according to Cicero a union of people that were thrown together - where everyone represents his own interests and the unity of these interests is democracy.
"It is therefore an entity of the public, the entity of the people, the people are nonetheless not every union of people that were thrown together but the union of a mass that was connected because of a concord of the Rights and Unity because of Profit."
It is therefore a form of democracy that uses representatives for the people that unite them and represent the people as a nation. A democracy, according to Cicero a union of people that were thrown together - where everyone represents his own interests and the unity of these interests is democracy.
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14/1/06
- Messages
- 14 944
Its all a con , who gives a fuck about the definitions of diferent forms of political trickery ? Arrest the fuckers , give them a fair trial and execute them and then introduce democracy .
No kings , no popes , no profesional politicians , no slaves just you and me decideing our own lives .
No kings , no popes , no profesional politicians , no slaves just you and me decideing our own lives .
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
The cicero quote can still be interpreted as validating aristocracy, as it did in his age or even majority rule.
I think there is only one way to be democratic and that is direct democracy. Right now, we got that option through the development of technology, but we need to find a way to implement it that can be trusted.
I think there is only one way to be democratic and that is direct democracy. Right now, we got that option through the development of technology, but we need to find a way to implement it that can be trusted.
GOD: chill out, have some fun. Of course, if you mirror the first question with reality, you realize that the USA is neither. But I think politics is interesting, even though it now seems to be a dicksizegame.
Yes, the quote may be interpreted in different ways, but I guess you got what I meant with it. I agree with you, I would even go further to anarchy... But, for example take Russia - a huge country that is spread on two continents, that contains multiple cultures. A direct democracy is - well I'd say - impossible. Remember, the first democracy in Athens was only one city large. Already now in Switzerland we have a half-direct democracy and the votes are often like 48/51%, a vote of 35/65% is already counted as a very clear vote - although every third person is against this vote. Direct democracy - as it is now - does hold a lot of problems. That's why I think that a Republic, in an optimistic case is indeed a solution and can be valid as a democracy, as long as the people have the power over the government.
Yes, the quote may be interpreted in different ways, but I guess you got what I meant with it. I agree with you, I would even go further to anarchy... But, for example take Russia - a huge country that is spread on two continents, that contains multiple cultures. A direct democracy is - well I'd say - impossible. Remember, the first democracy in Athens was only one city large. Already now in Switzerland we have a half-direct democracy and the votes are often like 48/51%, a vote of 35/65% is already counted as a very clear vote - although every third person is against this vote. Direct democracy - as it is now - does hold a lot of problems. That's why I think that a Republic, in an optimistic case is indeed a solution and can be valid as a democracy, as long as the people have the power over the government.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
I agree that direct democracy doesn't work in nation states and that it would only work if we abolish all borders and probably restrict the force of the law created by direct democracy to those within the association that decides these laws and their property. This allows for local government (on the level of a city), where everyone is free to not be part of it, while at the same time respecting the laws others set for themselves. It comes down to a respectful anarchism in which noone can be told what to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
One of the problems in this case would of course be environmental. Our actions necessarily influence others, and when it comes to polution, it is probably for the worse. Do you have any solutions, restin?
One of the problems in this case would of course be environmental. Our actions necessarily influence others, and when it comes to polution, it is probably for the worse. Do you have any solutions, restin?
I really love your type of government. That would be great.
The different government-cities, I think we agree on that, will then not live in a concurrence between each other but in a global, lawless, human agreement ergo a non-competitive society. Because if people start to think competitive, this will have no upper boundary - that means that it would go over to a global war of competition, which once again destroys the harmony. The capitalistic, competitive philosophy therefore cannot be applied to this system you propose, as this would result in a striving for being the strongest city, taking over others, manipulating,..., therefore there needs to be a balance between these cities.
What does that mean? As the government is then made by its people, the balance must come from the people themselves. Therefore, the people must make a mind-revolution, away from competitive thinking to "social" thinking - say - replacing the ego with the others OR, to formulate it differently, they must agree, that each person is equal ergo each city is equal and no one is better or worse. Do you see any other solutions? Maybe there are.
Whatever, to come back to your question of environment, I think with the people that understand their boundaries, the non-competitive thinking, they will also be able to set limits in technology that is needed instead of how it is today and will therefore not exploit nature at all costs. It may be dreaming, but people that are in balance with themselves and society will also be at balance with nature.
I surely see the problematics in this proposed image of humanity...progress will cease of course or rather progress of technology. I don't think that this system would cease all progress - for example art is not made out of competition, neither is philosophy or, say, the formation of the human mind. I don't believe in social darwinism.
The different government-cities, I think we agree on that, will then not live in a concurrence between each other but in a global, lawless, human agreement ergo a non-competitive society. Because if people start to think competitive, this will have no upper boundary - that means that it would go over to a global war of competition, which once again destroys the harmony. The capitalistic, competitive philosophy therefore cannot be applied to this system you propose, as this would result in a striving for being the strongest city, taking over others, manipulating,..., therefore there needs to be a balance between these cities.
What does that mean? As the government is then made by its people, the balance must come from the people themselves. Therefore, the people must make a mind-revolution, away from competitive thinking to "social" thinking - say - replacing the ego with the others OR, to formulate it differently, they must agree, that each person is equal ergo each city is equal and no one is better or worse. Do you see any other solutions? Maybe there are.
Whatever, to come back to your question of environment, I think with the people that understand their boundaries, the non-competitive thinking, they will also be able to set limits in technology that is needed instead of how it is today and will therefore not exploit nature at all costs. It may be dreaming, but people that are in balance with themselves and society will also be at balance with nature.
I surely see the problematics in this proposed image of humanity...progress will cease of course or rather progress of technology. I don't think that this system would cease all progress - for example art is not made out of competition, neither is philosophy or, say, the formation of the human mind. I don't believe in social darwinism.
