| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 07/09/2006 8:00 AM |
|
What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? I looked at some dictionaries online but could not find a good definition. Also I don't ever remember being taught the definition in public schools. I recently watched a video called "Overview of America" done by the John Birch Society. This video properly showed the differences between the various forms of government and how they really turn into just two, a republic and an oligarchy (rule by a few).
So what then is the difference between a democracy and republic? A democracy is rule by the majority. If 51% want something, they get it despite any laws protecting it. Under a republic the law protects property. The law gets in the way of scheming politicians. In the US the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This protects us from those who seek to take away our liberties. So the difference is rule by law vs rule by the majority.
Here is another good explanation.
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm |
|
|
|
|
nonleft
Posts:123
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 07/10/2006 11:25 PM |
|
I agree with you!
In Utah alone, I would have to say that we are getting more like a democracy. Just look at how Cache County likes to go against private property!
Sad! |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 03/16/2007 5:59 PM |
|
Posted By mulhollandj on 07/09/2006 8:00 AM
...I don't ever remember being taught the definition in public schools...
I went to the same public schools that you did, and I remember being taught at great length about the different forms of government, especially democracy and republic (republics produce at a higher rate than most other forms, but experience some corruption and cannot increase its production over 80% in any category).
I generally agree with the observation that governments tend towards forms that concentrate power into the hands of relatively few. As far as that goes, I think that the federal government has done fairly well at keeping power distributed.
As for the rule of law issue, this is a bunch of sour grapes. I won't say that the government doesn't break the law because I know that it happens, but when the government does break the law it is held at least as accountable as any citizen. The problem here isn't that the government is doing wrong, but that people are unhappy with the things that the government is rightfully able to do.
Ultimately, our society has decided that, in order to function, we cannot allow the level of libertarian anarchy in terms of property rights that I've read about people advocating recently. No one has unlimited rights to use their property as they wish because the rights of their neighbors must also be protected. If I put up a floodlight on a 100' tower, I'd impact my neighbors' ability to sleep. If I turned my house into a nightclub, then my neighbors would be forced to deal with the extra traffic, noise, litter, and so forth. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and so the right question is not "why are our rights being curtailed?" but "where should we cut off one set of rights in order to protect another?"
|
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:47
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 03/16/2007 9:06 PM |
|
The real difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a democracy, the people vote directly for each law that is presented; in a republic, the people act through elected representatives. Neither form provides any checks on government power to take away private property other than those inherent in any system that allows its citizens to vote (i.e. if enough people dislike the action the government has taken, they can vote to change it). In either case, citizens are subject to the will of the majority and if the majority decides to deprive people of private property, they can do so.
The real defense of private property in the United States lies in the Constitution. "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Without this language in the Constitution, there is nothing stopping the majority of Americans from arbitrarily taking property from a minority group (or individual).
It is not the form of government that protects us, but the Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
nonleft
Posts:123
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 03/17/2007 9:56 AM |
|
A republic guarantees individuals personal sovereignty and rights. A democracy only guarantees sovereignty and rights collectively. Big difference to me! The Constitution does protect us but I would have to say that recognizing the form of government intended by the founders, (a republic) helps protect the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:47
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 03/17/2007 10:58 AM |
|
Nonleft, I don't think I understand your first point. While I agree that a democracy only guarantees anything collectively, I do not see how a republic is any different in terms of guarantees. It appears to me that the only difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic, the people vote for representatives instead of voting directly on legislation. In either case, personal liberty is subject to majority rule.
Our government is different in that it is a constitutional republic. The Constitution outlines the powers of government, the individual rights protected and the institutions of government designed to best protect those rights. Some of those protections have been developed since the founding (direct election of the president, judicial review, etc.) but they are protections that exist because of the Constitution.
While a any system of government that has a constitution is more likely to protect individuals if they have a vote, it is not the republican form of government that protects individual rights, but the Constitutional limits on the powers of that government.
|
|
|
|
|
Code101
Posts:68
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 03/18/2007 10:49 PM |
|
| Welcome Debator! It would seem to me that both the Constitution and correct form of government to be very important. Many of the founders stressed the importance of our being a Republic. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:47
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 03/19/2007 12:32 PM |
|
Thank you for the friendly welcome, Code101! I've enjoyed reading the discussions in this forum and am excited to join.
You've pointed out an important fact: the founders did stress the importance of our being a republic. They did so because, as I explained above, a constitution is only effective in a system where the government acts within the limits it sets. This is more likely to happen in a republic because people can vote their leaders out of office when they stop respecting the limits in the constitution (in despotism, the constitution is only as powerful as the despot wants it to be). However, even in a republic, without a constitution, the majority still has just as much power to overrun the minority as in a democracy. In their purest forms, the only difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic, the people vote for representatives who then vote on laws; in a democracy, the people vote directly on laws. In either case, there is no other limit on the power of government than the will of the majority. For example, in a republic, if the majority votes for people who do not respect property rights, then property rights disappear. It is only when the majority elects representatives that respect property rights that those rights are protected.
Returning to the fact that the founders did stress the importance of having a republic, they did so for a number of reasons. Not only is it important for the people to have a vote, but they also wanted to create a system where the people are governed by more educated, wealthier (,male) citizens. They feared the masses and hoped that putting a buffer between the people and the government would help to hold back their fickleness. That's part of why they set up the Senate the way they did - it would be superior to the lower (more republican) House of Representatives (i.e. older members, fewer members, larger geographic representation, more formality, basically they wanted it to look like the House of Lords). So, in that sense, ours is not a true republic, but a modified republic.
Our government is not a true republic in another sense: our government has three branches of government with checks and balances between them. Once again, this is designed to curb the power of government, but is not a feature of a pure republic. A pure republic would have just one branch of government - a house of representatives. Any agency or court that they created could also be destroyed by a simple vote. It is only because we have a constitution that sets up branches of government and limits their power to destroy each other that those institutions remain intact. (How many times has the president or Congress wished they could just get rid of the Supreme Court?)
To sum up, a republic has no inherent limits on the power of the majority. While the Founders had their own ideas about why a republican form of government was important, they knew that unless they created the Constitution to go with it, the limits on that government would go right out the window as soon as it got in majority's way.
I don't want to get off topic. My comments about the Founders are just to put into perspective the differences between our government and a true republic as well as the differences between a government with a constitution and one without. My main point is that the difference between a democracy and a republic is representatives -- either form is still subject to majority rule. The "difference between rule of law and rule by the majority" is a constitution because without a constitution, the law is only what the majority wants. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 04/22/2007 8:43 PM |
|
Also, welcome. I enjoy your comments. I have a couple questions for you.
Why did our founders fear a democracy?
Why did they separate powers?
Why did they separate power bases? As in the senate, house, president, court were all elected by different groups.
And as to Fiery Darts explanation, I think he is getting a little confused with his Civ games he used to play. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 04/22/2007 8:58 PM |
|
So here is an interesting question, why have the definitions changed over the last 200 years, or more accurately since WWI?
The founders saw democracy as a terrible and dangerous thing but now we promote democracy as a good thing around the world. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 04/24/2007 9:35 PM |
|
...why have the definitions changed...?
I don't know why the common usage of these words have changed. It could be because our culture has grown more accepting of linguistic changes since that time. As a result, a lot of words have lost the precision of meaning that they once held, at least as far as public usage is concerned. As is often the case, the words may still retain their original meanings or some other highly specific meanings when used by some specific group (for example, to political scientists, the words "democratic," "Democratic," "republican," and "Republican" each have a distinct meaning and no competent writer in that field would use one of them when they meant another).
Everything that I have noticed indicates that when people are trying to promote "democracy" now, they are actually promoting a republic. This is especially reinforced by the fact that there are only a small handful of countries left in the world that are small enough to try to operate as a pure democracy. Representative governments are universally present wherever anyone would describe a modern nation as a "democracy." These may be called a "representative democracy."
An important distinction can be made between a republic and a democracy. In a democracy, people can exert some control over the political process by voting (these votes are either cast directly on each law or for representatives, making the government also a republic). In a republic, people are represented by some leaders, but those leaders need not be chosen by the people. For example, in the Soviet Union, the political divisions were called republics, but they were not chosen by any democratic method.
It's likely that the trend towards using the term "democracy" to describe representative democracies was driven by a desire to make a clearer distinction between the Soviet Socialist Republics and the US Republic which is more democratic in nature. I find it especially interesting that the political battle was always pitted as communism vs. democracy, when the former is primarily an economic philosophy (turning political as far as is required to control the market, which usually turns out to be a lot of politics) and the latter is strictly political (except as far as it can be applied to the other aspects of a society).
Anyway, it is apparent that you're trying to force the meaning onto the term "democracy" that the Founding Fathers had intended (that being a pure democracy where all citizens vote directly on all political issues) when most modern speakers mean something different. You'll probably have a better time of it if you stop picking battles over semantics where there is no battle to be had. People use the word "democracy" today to mean something different than what was meant in the Federalist Papers.
On the other hand, it appears that the real issue in this thread is about what kind of distribution/limitation of government powers best serve the people. I would find a discussion of the relative merits of a single tier government versus a multi-tier government (e.g. federal, city, and state) fascinating. A discussion of separation of powers at any of the levels would be interesting as well. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 04/25/2007 8:39 AM |
|
Actually the phrase "making the world safe for democracy" comes from WWI. Pure democracy is not the only thing to be feared. I believe what the founders feared was a government where the majority could override the rights of the minority. For example, if 51% of the people in my neighborhood thing I have too many cars they have no right to take one of them and give them to somebody in need because I have a right to private property. Socrates was killed through a democratic process and the Mormons were persecuted the same way while in Missouri and Illinois. Unfortunately our country is heading that direction. Prominent people in Cache County feel that the government owns all of the land and we are just paying rent through property taxes. The respect for private property is diminishing. Just look at the New London CT eminent domain case. And according to Ezra Taft Benson and many others, private property is essential for freedom.
Discussing multi-tiered government would be fun. Create the topic somewhere and we can discuss. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:690
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 04/25/2007 9:44 AM |
|
Debator; In the Keo decision the words "public use" were changed to "public interest". Therefore none of our property is protected since someone can always make the case that a higher use can be achieved with someones property. The weakest link (which some of the founders recognized) with our system is the courts. There you have a small minority and in the case of the Federal system (for life) who can make the most absurd rulings and unless they are taken to the supreme court (which cannot happen very often) they stand. Even if they go to the Supreme Court many very convoluted and non squirter rulings occur.
Also there is extensive evidence of people in government acting illegally without consequences. The act of perjury is rarely punished if you are acting under color of authority, even if it leads to homicide. The most blatant example is what happened at Mount Carmel or Ruby Ridge. The two ATF agents who were fired after Waco we later reinstated with back pay. Ron Horiuchi was never punished for the murder of Vicki Weaver even though Idaho tried, but were frustrated in their efforts. Do any of you know about how abused the commerece clause has become? It is used to justify the Federal gov. intrusion into areas which the constitution stricly forbids. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:690
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 04/25/2007 10:03 AM |
|
I came upon a great op ed piece which addresses this issue quite well.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah042007.php3?printer_friendly
It is worth a read. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 04/25/2007 8:30 PM |
|
Posted By mulhollandj on 04/25/2007 8:39 AM
Actually the phrase "making the world safe for democracy" comes from WWI.
That the term "democracy" had taken on a broader meaning than the founders had intended by the 1910s doesn't change my point. Your nitpicking about the choice of words is still irrelevant. All of your other arguments apply just as well to any republic where the leaders are elected to represent a constituency, and it is made worse when the same group of people is able to elect several representatives (due to the fact that each representative reflects the majority will of that group instead of being divided proportionally according to the population's attitudes). As Debator has pointed out, the only thing that keeps the will of the majority from trumping the will of the minority is the rule of law. Within the laws of the land though, the people vote democratically to influence the behavior of the government. As Debator said in his first post in this thread, "It is not the form of government that protects us, but the Constitution."
Your point that "prominent people" are leading the way toward dissolving land rights in Cache County is actually an argument that Cache County is turning into an oligarchy, where a few people are deciding on and enforcing the rules, without input from the voters. This is not democracy. Moreover, your real issue is about the question of what rights do people have to "own" land. That question isn't answered as easily as you would like it to be, but it is the question that, from your comments, it seems you want to address. Ultimately here as well, the rule of law will be your ally. Your neighbors may wish to take your land, but you must be compensated for it (although that compensation may be based on your property tax assessment value, so if you've been ripping off the government, you may lose out on potential compensation). They may want to take your car, but they have to have a fair and impartial method to determine who's cars get taken (although you don't get the final decision about what is "fair and impartial"). If you disagree with these decisions, you may challenge them in court (you could probably get the ACLU to represent you!). Despite what you think, you would probably win these cases, at least if you can find a defensible argument in your favor.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 04/25/2007 8:47 PM |
|
That's an amusing article. After all, do we really want to trust the running of our country to the Jaywalking All-Stars (think Leno)? I find it interesting that sometimes a majority is interpreted as "the will of the people" and sometimes it is the "uneducated/brainwashed/mislead masses."
I was reading yesterday in Wikipedia and found the list of arguments for and against direct democracy (a.k.a. pure democracy) to be quite interesting (click here and scroll down to "Arguments for direct democracy"). I find the (ill-named) point about insufficient sample size to be especially intriguing. It states even though most individuals are hopelessly wrong when trying to predict the future, large groups of people, when averaged out, tend to predict the future with surprising accuracy. It gives some hope for a world where anybody can vote, regardless of how well they understand the issues that they are voting for. (It also gives weight to the argument that people with better hair are better at governing.) The arguments against direct democracy are essentially the same arguments that have been made here, although they have been written a little bit clearer there.
Anyway, just some thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:47
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 04/27/2007 10:29 AM |
|
No matter how you look at it, it is the rule of law that separates a society where people can take what they want willy-nilly and a society where private property and other rights are respected. I agree that different types of government have more or less ability to do so and at the end of the day it is the people's respect for that government/laws that makes the system work. A very oppressive dictatorship or oligarchy could still protect private property from the arbitrary will of the majority (but will most likely not protect property against the government's own attempts to take it). However, in our country, it is the Constitution and people's respect for it that protects our property, not the fact that we have a republic or a democracy.
As to Gunrights' points, you raise some important questions. First, I assume that you mean the "Kelo" decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain power could be used to seize private property for public use and then resold to private developers in the name of economic revival. I've read the Kelo decision, and it doesn't appear to me to leave all private property vulnerable to the arbitrary will of the majority. There are several important limits: 1) the taking must be to solve a severe crisis in the community (in this case, the city was a "distressed municipality" in dire need of change; other cases involving similar takings reflect this sentiment); 2) Under the test adopted by the majority, takings that are purely to benefit a private party are not permissible - the public must get some benefit; 3) state constitutions can provide more protection than the Federal Constitution in this case. In the wake of this case, many states passed either laws or amendments to their constitutions that essentially reversed the effect of this case in their own borders.
As to your point about many in the government acting illegally and without consequences: This is not a fault of the government itself, but of the judicial process. Our system is one where many people, including private citizens, who commit crimes may go unpunished. That's just how it is. It's not perfect, but it's the best in the world. The Supreme Court may not always get it right, but because it is set up (and has developed to become) the way it is, it is the last, best bulwark against unfettered majority power. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|