"...It's a Republic."
How meaningful is this statement, really? When someone says "We live in a democracy," does anyone ever mistake that to mean "We live under a form of government where every citizen gets to vote on every decision, individually"? When a president talks about bringing democracy to some poor third-world nation, does anyone ever mistake that to mean that he wants every citizen of that nation to vote on every issue that they face?
And while we're on the subject, has there ever been a real honest-to-goodness democracy? Even the Athenians didn't have a true democracy, because they didn't let women or slaves vote. If I got really technical and nitpicky I could argue that we don't have a real republic, because we don't let everybody vote for our politicians. (Children and criminals aren't allowed for understandable reasons, but still...)
I understand everyone has their pet peeves, but this seems to be right up there with a grammar nazi who replies "I don't know, can you?" after someone asks "Can I have another, please?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its usually pretty meaningful when a majority decide that they don't want a minority to have their full rights.
We're a limited democracy, rather than an absolute democracy, would work just as well for that though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand everyone has their pet peeves, but this seems to be right up there with a grammar nazi who replies "I don't know, can you?" after someone asks "Can I have another, please?"
Your point being...?
There are a lot of these knee jerk political reactions that drive me nuts.
Such as:
"If you don't like, leave the country" has always driven me insane. We already did that, and I thought the point was that we then founded a country where, if we didn't like it, we could try to change it.
As much as I dislike George W. Bush, the "not my president" t shirts always annoyed me. Just because you don't like home doesn't invalidate 200+ years of accepted electoral process. (As an aside, I always wanted to have "not my president" shirts made up with martin sheens face, but then people stopped wearing the shirts and I lost the opportunity).
Who do you think would win in a fight: Aaron Burr or Benedict Arnold?
Who do you think would win in a fight: Aaron Burr or Benedict Arnold?
Celebrity Shoot-Out: Aaron Burr vs. John Wilkes Booth vs. Charles Guiteau vs. Leon Czolgosz vs. Lee Harvey Oswald! Boston Corbett and Jack Ruby are standing as referees.
Yay!!
I don't know who Boston Corbett was.
I don't know who Boston Corbett was.
Union soldier who tracked down Booth, and ultimately shot him dead.
Paizo's messageboards are so informative!
Presidential Assassinations: The Musical Interlude
And it's not by Sondheim.
|
Its usually pretty meaningful when a majority decide that they don't want a minority to have their full rights.
We're a limited democracy, rather than an absolute democracy, would work just as well for that though.
Its also a Tyranny when the few Govern the Many without their consent and denying them the right (and obligation) to represent themselves.
And yes it has been a legally binding obligation to represent yourself in Parliament and for Government to seek the consent of the whole populace in pretty much every Commonwealth Nation - The US seems Iffy but likely had it back when George W. decided to not pay his taxes and raise a terrorist army.
The Obligation is defined singularly in the Law defining Sedition.
Any act causing Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in hatred and or contempt is a Seditious Act. That by the scope of its potential would include Acts of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign causing Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in hatred and or contempt a seditious Act - meaning you require the consent of the whole populace to legitimize.
The Big Earner is Treason which defines any Act deemed an assault on the State an Act of Treason - thus failing to seek the consent of the whole populace is an Act of Treason.
In the end - objectors are traitors.
Who do you think would win in a fight: Aaron Burr or Benedict Arnold?
*mouth full of peanut butter* Aaon Buh...Aaoun Bah...Aalon Bul...Ah!
Its usually pretty meaningful when a majority decide that they don't want a minority to have their full rights.
We're a limited democracy, rather than an absolute democracy, would work just as well for that though.
I don't quite follow you.
I understand everyone has their pet peeves, but this seems to be right up there with a grammar nazi who replies "I don't know, can you?" after someone asks "Can I have another, please?"Your point being...?
*Facepalm* You're one of those, aren't you?
When a player says "My character goal is to gain immortality," do you look at him funny because he failed to specify "...with eternal youth"?
"If you don't like, leave the country" has always driven me insane. We already did that, and I thought the point was that we then founded a country where, if we didn't like it, we could try to change it.
Oh, I'm right there with you!
All I can think is "Yeah, I'll just say goodbye to my entire family after getting a permanent visa. Because foreign embassies hand those out like candy. And then I'll just emigrate to one of those better countries. Because they want immigrants any more than we do." /sarcasm
(Didn't get your Charlie Sheen idea, but then I didn't follow that whole fiasco.)
I don't quite follow you.
Say for example that a majority of people don't want anyone with blond hair to be able to vote. You can't do that because all citizens have rights in our system, even if the majority tries to take it away from them.
So, because the masses are ignorant of the difference between what our government is and what a democracy actually is people should dumb down their dialog to be less accurate?
I think I'm with Citizen Sunrise on this one. I'm pretty sure, in this day and age, when people say "we are a democracy" they're using shorthand for "democratic republic."
I, of course, think we're living underneath the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, to further muddle our terminology.
Vive le Galt!
Indeed, Doodle, the bourgeoisie are to blame, focus your efforts on them...
(Seriously though, it's worth asking if people are educated in the difference between democracy and democratic republic these days.)
Well, Lord Dice, I'm sure you feel all snobby looking down on the hoi polloi, who don't know their Montesquieu from their Maximillian Robespierre. Which reminds me...
Vive le Galt!
Honestly, that was me feeling all snobby looking down on the current state of education, rather than the hoi polloi.* Every american history teacher a I had went to great lengths to point out that the founding fathers were rather terrified of classical greek democracy.
*Though, the other day my major-domo did run into my audience chamber shouting, "My lord, my lord, the peasants are revolting!"
Said I: "Finally, something we agree on."
I would say Hee hee!, but I don't want to encourage you, Stooge of the Plutocracy (TM).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still waiting for my 6' cut of Rich Guy. I bet it will be tasty with a side of Fava Beans.
I would say Hee hee!, but I don't want to encourage you, Stooge of the Plutocracy (TM).
Stooge? Look, I'm just a Plutocrat, there's a difference. In fact, my friend Dicey will explain it to you.
Since "democracy" is used as an excuse to do a lot of undemocratic things, I find it very reasonable to point out that it is in fact not a democracy.
I think I'm with Citizen Sunrise on this one. I'm pretty sure, in this day and age, when people say "we are a democracy" they're using shorthand for "democratic republic."
Couldn't have said it better myself. :)
I, of course, think we're living underneath the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, to further muddle our terminology.
"Dictatorship" is a bit dramatic for our current political-economic situation, but it is clear that our nation is becoming more and more stratified. After a certain point, we might as well be living under lords and kings. (Don't know when we'll reach that point though.)
Say for example that a majority of people don't want anyone with blond hair to be able to vote. You can't do that because all citizens have rights in our system, even if the majority tries to take it away from them.I don't quite follow you.
Okay, I understand what you're saying but...I guess I don't see your point?
So, because the masses are ignorant of the difference between what our government is and what a democracy actually is people should dumb down their dialog to be less accurate?
'Dumbed down' is another one of those conversational red flags.
Like I said, everyone has their pet peeves. Myself, I can't stand to hear people say "I could care less" because what they actually mean is "I couldn't care less." But do I walk around correcting people and writing snippy letters to writers who use the former? No.*
Words and language change as a result of common usage. Call it 'dumbing down' all you want, but evolving terminology is a fact of life. In a way, refusing to acknowledge common terminology is you dumbing yourself down, because it frees you of the onus of integrating terminology into your own thoughts.
*Well, only occasionally.
When people tell me they like Shakespeare's tragedies, I get all huffy and tell them "Shakespeare didn't write any goat songs, dummy."
Say for example that a majority of people don't want anyone with blond hair to be able to vote. You can't do that because all citizens have rights in our system, even if the majority tries to take it away from them.
Okay, I understand what you're saying but...I guess I don't see your point?
In a democracy you could do that. You cannot do that in our system.
As much as I dislike George W. Bush, the "not my president" t shirts always annoyed me. Just because you don't like home doesn't invalidate 200+ years of accepted electoral process. (As an aside, I always wanted to have "not my president" shirts made up with martin sheens face, but then people stopped wearing the shirts and I lost the opportunity).
Then again, Bush's politics and rhetoric made it very clear that in terms of policy-making he was the president only of the people who voted for him, while whenever he wanted to use his election to prove the validity of his actions, he claimed a "mandate" from "the People," implying every single American, rather than those who voted for him. Very convenient for him. But worth noting that many pundits from the other side, as well as notable comedians and a few respected analysts, actually stated on-air that he seemed to give no thought to the fact that he was supposed to be president for all of us - not just his cronies and supporters.
So, as ugly as those shirts and bumper stickers were, probably no president in history has done more to earn them.
I refer you all to "iron law of oligarcy".
I'd personally argue that the Western "representative democracies" are neither representative, nor democracies....and closer to a form of nominated oligarchy. "you can have x or y... Sorry, w,z,A, B or C is out of the questiom..."
After all, you have to be a member of a very limited group to get elected to power.
Also, is true democracy an ideal form of governance ? Before you say "yes" let me point you to TV shows such as ' Britains got talent ' which gave us "jedward".
I'm with Winston Churchill on it ..., what we have is better than most of the other goverment systems invented. we're pretty lucky with the forms of govt we've got , in the western world, generally speaking.
Doesnt mean they cant be much improved, of course...
Say for example that a majority of people don't want anyone with blond hair to be able to vote. You can't do that because all citizens have rights in our system, even if the majority tries to take it away from them.
Okay, I understand what you're saying but...I guess I don't see your point?
In a democracy you could do that. You cannot do that in our system.
No, in our system a minority can do that instead! YAAAAY.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again, Bush's politics and rhetoric made it very clear that in terms of policy-making he was the president only of the people who voted for him,
Hah! See, he is for minority rights.
That was actually funny!
I miss Paul Wellstone.
Just because you don't like home doesn't invalidate 200+ years of accepted electoral process.
No, I think the SCOTUS did that in December 2000.
So here's the thing, in the last several hundred years the term democracy has come to mean any government ruled by the people. The US was the first one of these to stick around. In fact, the terms democracy and republic are basically interchangeable in the common vernacular until about, oh, 1980 or so, when it became right-wing rhetoric. You know, associating republic with Republican. The whole stuff about in a "real" democracy we could vote away peoples rights, etc.
Yes, well, in a true republic, we wouldn't (necessarily) get to vote for our representatives. So there's that.
The US was the first one of these to stick around.
Icecland called. They want their title back. I think. Either that or its something about a rubber ducky. I actually can't understand word of it.
The Tynwald on the Isle of Man is pretty old as well. Originally it was more of a hereditary parliament system, so not exactly a democracy. There are some claims and some evidence that it dates back as far as 979, but earliest verifiable documentation is around the 13th century. Unlike Iceland's version though, it has never been dissolved during its history.
San Marino claims that its governmental process dates back to 301. It's current constitution was established in 1600, making it the oldest surviving constitutional republic in the world.