Democracy vs. Republic - Do you know the difference?

[Chris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bqsIjnpZGA

We are not a democracy, we are not a democratic republic, we are a constitutional republic.

US Constitution Article IV Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...."

[truthmatters]

Russo is NOT a founding father hes a nut job

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Russo


Aaron Russo (February 14, 1943–August 24, 2007) was an American (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States) entertainment businessman, film producer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Film_producer) and director (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Film_director), and political activist (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Activism). He was best known for producing such movies as Trading Places (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Trading_Places), Wise Guys (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Wise_Guys_(1986_film)), and The Rose (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/The_Rose_(film)). Later in life, he created various Libertarian-leaning (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Libertarianism) political documentaries including Mad as Hell and America: Freedom to Fascism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism). After a six-year battle with bladder cancer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bladder_cancer), Russo died on August 24, 2007.

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson


Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates)) – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence) (1776) and the third President of the United States (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) (1801–1809). At the beginning of the American Revolution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/American_Revolution), he served in the Continental Congress (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Continental_Congress), representing Virginia and then served as a wartime Governor of Virginia (1779–1781). Just after the war ended, from mid-1784 Jefferson served as a diplomat, stationed in Paris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Paris). In May 1785, he became the United States Minister to France (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Minister_to_France). Jefferson was the first United States Secretary of State (1790–1793) serving under President George Washington (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/George_Washington). With his close friend James Madison (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/James_Madison) he organized the Democratic-Republican Party (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party), and subsequently resigned from Washington's cabinet. Elected Vice President in 1796, when he came in second to John Adams (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/John_Adams) of the Federalists (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Federalists), Jefferson opposed Adams and with Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions), which attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts).

[truthmatters]

The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

[truthmatters]

You can keep your creepy dead guy and Ill stick with My founder

[truthmatters]

noww why do you attempt to deny EVERY dictionary and encyclopedia in the world?


what do you gain ?

[truthmatters]

You gain the death of your party

[KC]

The Political Science Room is for serious discussion. Please stick to the thread topic.

[Chris]

From Republic? Democracy? What’s the Difference? (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/01/republic-democracy-whats-the-difference/):


...A republic is a government in which a restricted group of citizens form a political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which directs them to elect representatives who will govern the state. Republics, by their very nature, tend to be free polities, not because they are elected by the citizens of the polity, but because they are bound by charters, which limit the responsibilities and powers of the state. The fact that people vote for representatives has nothing to do with making anything free. The logical consistency and rationality of the charter, as well as the willingness of the people to live by it, is what keeps people free.

A democracy is government by the majority. There is still a restricted group of citizens in a democracy, but this group rules directly and personally runs the state. The group may delegate specific tasks to individuals, such as generalships and governorships, but there is no question that the ruling force in a democracy is not a charter (if there even is a charter), but the vote of the majority. Democracies are free only if the people know what freedom is and are consistent in their application of it. If they don’t know this, or more appropriately, if a majority of the people don’t know this, then a democracy could be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator (see Socrates’ forced suicide by the Athenian democracy.)

...In the long run though, a democracy will always become a tyranny, either by majority, or if the majority screw things up so badly and a tyrant seizes power from the ensuing chaos. The overriding characteristic of democracy is subjectivism and that is its fatal flaw. In other words, reason is irrelevant, whatever the majority wants, it gets and regardless of how unprincipled or objectionable it may be. Rights cannot exist in such a system in the long run because they can be voted away on a whim at any time. So if you’re interested in freedom at all you must cast away an ugly term like democracy and accept that freedom requires reason, objectivity, and law, which can only be satisfied by a republican government.

[Chris]

The guy who gave the tea parties its name...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVczH-Ss5os

[Mister D]

The distinction, IMO, is important but we've seen how political terminology gradually loses meaning as in the case of "fascism". In popular usage, democracy is used to refer to just about any form of government that gives citizen a say in their governance.

[truthmatters]

its definition has NOT changed in any of the dictionaries or encyclopedias.

YOU will not be allowed to rewrite facts to retain your historically failed ideas.

[Chris]

The distinction, IMO, is important but we've seen how political terminology gradually loses meaning as in the case of "fascism". In popular usage, democracy is used to refer to just about any form of government that gives citizen a say in their governance.

That is very true. Look too at the changing meaning of liberalism.

[Alif Qadr]

I prefer a republic form of government to a democracy. republican government is a limited government who are limited by written agreement or contract, such as the Constitution for the United States. In a democracy, it is the majority who have their will imposed upon all, including those who are not of their political leaning(s). From what I know of democracies, the only limitation on government is the whim of said majority which is tantamount to tyranny. I would like to suggest that people read the writings and words of James Madison on the subject of "The Tyranny of the Majority". He had plenty to say in regards to this concern and he made it known that the majority (democracy) , when it comes to laws and and the application would lead to. A prime example of this in American history is the Jim and Crow Era.

[truthmatters]

maybe you should face the fact that The US is a democracy

[truthmatters]

there is a differance between A Democracy and a thing called pure Democracy.

[GrassrootsConservative]

maybe you should face the fact that The US is a democracy

Maybe you should face that fact that the US government and politics has many different facets and when you single part of it out and only look at that you're going to show everyone just how ignorant you are.
Why don't you find me a source that says America is a democracy, and only a democracy, like you say it is.

I'll wait.

[Chris]

maybe you should face the fact that The US is a democracy

Define what you personally mean by a political democracy and how the US is one. Address too the constitutionality of that when the supreme law of the kand guarantees a republic.

[truthmatters]

I use the real definitions which are very plain.

[truthmatters]

Maybe you should face that fact that the US government and politics has many different facets and when you single part of it out and only look at that you're going to show everyone just how ignorant you are.
Why don't you find me a source that says America is a democracy, and only a democracy, like you say it is.

I'll wait.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


de·moc·ra·cy

noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
pluralde·moc·ra·cies




Definition of DEMOCRACY

1
a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested (http://thepoliticalforums.com/vest[1]) in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (http://thepoliticalforums.com/election)

[truthmatters]

you people have been HAD by your right wing handlers and your mad at me for it?

[truthmatters]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Democracy#Forms_of_democracy

Forms of democracy
Forms of government
Part of the Politics series



List of forms of government

Anarchism
Aristocracy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Aristocracy)
Authoritarianism
Autocracy
Communist state
Democracy
Direct democracyRepresentative democracy

Despotism
Dictatorship
Fascism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Fascism)
Feudalism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Feudalism)
Hierocracy
Kleptocracy
Kritarchy
Krytocracy
Meritocracy
Monarchy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Monarchy)
Absolute monarchyConstitutional monarchy

Ochlocracy
Oligarchy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Oligarchy)
Plutocracy
Republic (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Republic)
Mixed governmentConstitutional republicParliamentary republicSocialist republicCapitalist republic

Single-party state
Thalassocracy
Theocracy
Timocracy
Totalitarianism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Totalitarianism)
Tyranny



Politics Portal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Portal:Politics)


There are many variations on the forms of government that put ultimate rule in the citizens of a state:
Representative democracyRepresentative democracy involves the selection of the legislature and executive by a popular election. Representatives are to make make decisions on behalf of those they represent. They retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment. Their constituents can communicate with them on important issues and choose a new representative in the next election if they are dissatisfied.
There are a number of systems of varying degrees of complexity for choosing representatives. They may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many proportional systems.
Liberal democracyClassical liberal democracy is normally a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name "liberal") of speech, assembly, religion, and property.
Since the 1960s the term "liberal" has been used, often pejoratively, towards those legislatures that are liberal with state money and redistribute it to create a welfare state. However, this would be an illiberal democracy in classical terms, because it does not protect the property its citizens acquire.
Direct democracyDirect democracy is a political system in which the citizens vote on major policy decisions and laws. Issues are resolved by popular vote, or referenda. Many people think direct democracy is the purest form of democracy. Direct democracies function better in small communities or in areas where people have a high degree of independence and self-sufficiency. Switzerland is a direct democracy where new laws often need a referendum in order to be passed. As it is a very stable and prosperous country, few people see any urgent need for change and so few new laws are passed. The system is also very decentralized, with few policies decided on a national level. This means that the French, Italian, and Romance language speaking minorities can order their affairs the way they choose and the large Swiss-German-speaking majority cannot over rule the local level, even if it wanted to.
Socialist democracySocialism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Socialism), where the state economy is shaped by the government, has some forms that are based on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat are some examples of names applied to the ideal of a socialist democracy. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of welfare state and workplace democracy produced by legislation by a representative democracy.
Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and other "orthodox Marxists" generally promote democratic centralism, but they have never formed actual societies which were not ruled by elites who had acquired government power. Libertarian socialists generally believe in direct democracy and Libertarian Marxists often believe in a consociational state that combines consensus democracy with representative democracy. Such consensus democracy has existed in local-level community groups in rural communist (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Communism) China.
Anarchist democracyThe only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy, which historically discriminates against minorities. However, some anarchists oppose direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[18] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-17) However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[19] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-18) and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.
SortitionSortition (or allotment) has formed the basis of systems randomly selecting officers from the population. A much noted classical example would be the ancient Athenian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Athens) democracy. Drawing by lot from a pool of qualified people elected by the citizens would be a democratic variation on sortition. Such a process would reduce the ability of wealthy contributors or election rigging to guarantee an outcome, and the problems associated with incumbent advantages would be eliminated.
Tribal and consensus democracyCertain ethnic tribes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/entry/Tribe) organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy.[20] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-19) However, these are generally face-to-face communities, and it is difficult to develop consensus in a large impersonal modern bureaucratic state. Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy seek consensus among the people.[21] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-20)

[truthmatters]

Every dictionary and every encyclopedia says we are a democracy

[truthmatters]

and you Just keep denying whats in the books like it dosent exsist.

[Dr. Who]

There is no working model of the type of republic that those of the Tea Party/Libertarian persuasion point to as the perfect form of government, simply because it is unworkable on a large scale. Even the 18th century proponents of such a system, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu felt that beyond a certain nominal population size, it would not work because it would be impossible to govern. Rousseau described the perfect republics as small self-governing city-states and Montesquieu felt that a limited monarchy was better suited to a large nation. The reason it is unworkable on a large scale is because the citizens of the republic are expected to place the welfare of the whole above their own private welfare as individuals. On a large scale people have no particular sense of community, so it becomes difficult for people to see their fates as being conjoined - the good of the many vs the good of the the few. The expected outcome of any such situation in a large nation is either some form of democracy or some form of dictatorship.

[truthmatters]

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/information-currency-democracy-quotation


Information is the currency of democracy (Quotation)
Quotation: "Information is the currency of democracy."
Variations:

"Information is the currency of democracies."
Sources consulted: Searching on the phrase "currency of democracy"

Monticello website (http://www.monticello.org/)
Ford's Works of Thomas Jefferson (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1734)
L&B (http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/short-title-list) (CD-ROM version)
UVA EText Jefferson Digital Archive (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/#jeffersoncollections): Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Texts by or to Thomas Jefferson from the Modern English Collection
Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/)
Thomas Jefferson Retirement Papers
Quotable Jefferson (http://tjportal.monticello.org/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=17056) (searching in the index under "information")
Bartleby.com: Quotations (http://www.bartleby.com/)

[truthmatters]

How do you reason with people who refuse the dictionary definitions of the very words to describe our own government?

[Chris]

Post 23 is interesting. Never knew just how AMBIGUOUS the word democracy is. To say something is a democracy is like throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks. Lol

Could you point out in what you posted where, as you claim, it says the US is a democracy?

[truthmatters]

They have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the powers which wish to distory our country.


They are stupid and or traitorous

[truthmatters]

the cant even UNDERSTAND the dictionary

[Chris]

How do you reason with people who refuse the dictionary definitions of the very words to describe our own government?

Because we're not talking common usage but political science.

[truthmatters]

how does any country run while trying to please the stupid and dishonest minority?

[Agravan]

how does any country run while trying to please the stupid and dishonest minority?
They elect socialists like obama.

[Mister D]

There is no working model of the type of republic that those of the Tea Party/Libertarian persuasion point to as the perfect form of government, simply because it is unworkable on a large scale. Even the 18th century proponents of such a system, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu felt that beyond a certain nominal population size, it would not work because it would be impossible to govern. Rousseau described the perfect republics as small self-governing city-states and Montesquieu felt that a limited monarchy was better suited to a large nation. The reason it is unworkable on a large scale is because the citizens of the republic are expected to place the welfare of the whole above their own private welfare as individuals. On a large scale people have no particular sense of community, so it becomes difficult for people to see their fates as being conjoined - the good of the many vs the good of the the few. The expected outcome of any such situation in a large nation is either some form of democracy or some form of dictatorship.

And yet whether you are left with a democracy or a dictatorship there is still no sense of community or the common good. The most obvious example is the USA. That said, is this simply a matter of geography? Or something else?

[Mister D]

Post 23 is interesting. Never knew just how AMBIGUOUS the word democracy is. To say something is a democracy is like throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks. Lol

Could you point out in what you posted where, as you claim, it says the US is a democracy?

Matters has posted 16 or 17 times on this thread. It's a shame one has to wade through this garbage.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Matters has posted 16 or 17 times on this thread. It's a shame one has to wade through this garbage.

No shit. I even tried to just ask for a source but instead they posted the definition of democracy and some other trash nobody gives a fuck about. I'm mad. I just want to discuss things properly.

[Captain Obvious]

Truthmatters has been banned from this thread, please do not respond to his/her posts.

[Dr. Who]

And yet whether you are left with a democracy or a dictatorship there is still no sense of community or the common good. The most obvious example is the USA. That said, is this simply a matter of geography? Or something else?

IMO geography has no bearing on the subject. It rests with the priorities of people in general. Entitlement has been ingrained deliberately by advertising agencies since the 50's. To achieve the society that you want, the idea that responsibility extends beyond the gratification of self would have to be taught. Wants would have to be subordinate to need. Currently you have a society of rampant consumerism which values wants above any rational needs. Sense of community has been lost to the pursuit of acquisition. People's identities currently have more to do with what they have materialistically, than who they are as a people. The definition of success is currently how much you have acquired as opposed to your contribution to the health, welfare and happiness of your family or society in general.

[Mister D]

IMO geography has no bearing on the subject. It rests with the priorities of people in general. Entitlement has been ingrained deliberately by advertising agencies since the 50's. To achieve the society that you want, the idea that responsibility extends beyond the gratification of self would have to be taught. Wants would have to be subordinate to need. Currently you have a society of rampant consumerism which values wants above any rational needs. Sense of community has been lost to the pursuit of acquisition. People's identities currently have more to do with what they have materialistically, than who they are as a people. The definition of success is currently how much you have acquired as opposed to your contribution to the health, welfare and happiness of your family or society in general.

What then does?


On a large scale people have no particular sense of community, so it becomes difficult for people to see their fates as being conjoined - the good of the many vs the good of the the few. The expected outcome of any such situation in a large nation is either some form of democracy or some form of dictatorship.

I agree about consumerism and identity but the former is a much more recent phenomenon that would not have been of concern to Jean Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu. Nor could it be the basis of a general theory of the viability of republican politics for the very same reason.

[Chris]

There is no working model of the type of republic that those of the Tea Party/Libertarian persuasion point to as the perfect form of government, simply because it is unworkable on a large scale. Even the 18th century proponents of such a system, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu felt that beyond a certain nominal population size, it would not work because it would be impossible to govern. Rousseau described the perfect republics as small self-governing city-states and Montesquieu felt that a limited monarchy was better suited to a large nation. The reason it is unworkable on a large scale is because the citizens of the republic are expected to place the welfare of the whole above their own private welfare as individuals. On a large scale people have no particular sense of community, so it becomes difficult for people to see their fates as being conjoined - the good of the many vs the good of the the few. The expected outcome of any such situation in a large nation is either some form of democracy or some form of dictatorship.


There is no working model of the type of republic that those of the Tea Party/Libertarian persuasion point to as the perfect form of government, simply because it is unworkable on a large scale.

A constitutional republic as framed in the Constitution is what is desired, not because it is perfect, but because it works. As a guardian of individual liberty it has worked a good long time and allowed America to become great. It is beginning to fail because government has exceeded its constitutional limits.

As for workable on a large scale it is workable because it is large scale. See Federalist 10.

The rest of your post confuses French Enlightenment liberalism with that adopted by the founders, namely Scottish/English Enlightenment principles. The OP video nals this distinction.

[Chris]

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
~Thomas Jefferson

[Dr. Who]

Even in the 18th century, large masses of people lacked compassion for each other. Life was a much more difficult proposition in and around urban centers then than it is now, given the lack of any social safety nets (other than the occasional munificence of the wealthy), the existence of debtors prisons, workhouses, feudelism and a pervasive class system that entrenched the concept of place in society, and specifically regard for your betters. People then were effectively brainwashed to the notion that you were born to your class and there you must stay. So if you were part of the poorest element in society, that was your fate. Christian ideals aside, this did not leave much room for altruism amongst the masses. The only demonstrable cohesiveness that has been shown to exist among the masses is distain for the ruling classes, culminating in such events as the French and American Revolution. In the 21st century we have no such impediments to altruism, however we do have a different societal paradigm, which did not exist in the 18th century.

[Mister D]

Even in the 18th century, large masses of people lacked compassion for each other. Life was a much more difficult proposition in and around urban centers then than it is now, given the lack of any social safety nets (other than the occasional munificence of the wealthy), the existence of debtors prisons, workhouses, feudelism and a pervasive class system that entrenched the concept of place in society, and specifically regard for your betters. People then were effectively brainwashed to the notion that you were born to your class and there you must stay. So if you were part of the poorest element in society, that was your fate. Christian ideals aside, this did not leave much room for altruism amongst the masses. The only demonstrable cohesiveness that has been shown to exist among the masses is distain for the ruling classes, culminating in such events as the French and American Revolution. In the 21st century we have no such impediments to altruism, however we do have a different societal paradigm, which did not exist in the 18th century.

I disagree. It was the breakdown of feudalism and therefore of social obligations that led to the breakdown of community that you describe. It was precisely the liberation from social class and tradition that slowly eroded social bonds. People were no longer obligated to one another by custom or law.

On the contrary, traditional societies are relatively cohesive which is kind of where I'm going with this. I think we have tremendous impediments to altruism in societies like the US.

Anyway, I'm just curious as to what precisely makes republican government theoretically impossible in a large state.

[Dr. Who]

I disagree. It was the breakdown of feudalism and therefore of social obligations that led to the breakdown of community that you describe. It was precisely the liberation from social class and tradition that slowly eroded social bonds. People were no longer obligated to one another by custom or law.

On the contrary, traditional societies are relatively cohesive which is kind of where I'm going with this. I think we have tremendous impediments to altruism in societies like the US.

Anyway, I'm just curious as to what precisely makes republican government theoretically impossible in a large state.

It is not theoretically impossible, but requires a huge shift in human value system.

[GrumpyDog]

Adaptive Democratic Anarchy

Maintaining civilized behaviour by using CPU chip inplanted in human brains, to adjust emotional responses to the situational chaos of interaction among humans in an Anarchist society.

[Dr. Who]

I disagree. It was the breakdown of feudalism and therefore of social obligations that led to the breakdown of community that you describe. It was precisely the liberation from social class and tradition that slowly eroded social bonds. People were no longer obligated to one another by custom or law.

On the contrary, traditional societies are relatively cohesive which is kind of where I'm going with this. I think we have tremendous impediments to altruism in societies like the US.

Anyway, I'm just curious as to what precisely makes republican government theoretically impossible in a large state.

Are you then advocating a return to feudalistic state and a return to an overt class system? You will find few willing participants in such an unenlightened state.

[Mister D]

Are you then advocating a return to feudalistic state and a return to an overt class system? You will find few willing participants in such an unenlightened state.

I'm simply stating a fact. Traditional societies are relatively cohesive. Feudalism, like it or not, was a check on the anomie you lament. Secondly, is modern society so enlightened? What about the shallowness and self-centeredness you referred to earlier? IS an enlightened society in need of a huge paradigm shift?

[Mister D]

It is not theoretically impossible, but requires a huge shift in human value system.

So it's not theoretically impossible. OK. Just wanted some clarification.

[Dr. Who]

I'm simply stating a fact. Traditional societies are relatively cohesive. Feudalism, like it or not, was a check on the anomie you lament. Secondly, is modern society so enlightened? What about the shallowness and self-centeredness you referred to earlier? IS an enlightened society in need of a huge paradigm shift?

Part of the price of a free society is that both good and bad ideas can flourish. The concept of teaching societal values seems to have fallen into disfavor and the vacuum has been filled with lessons in how to be a success, how to beat out your fellow man to a bigger share of the pie. Parents frequently enrol their children in team sports to teach them how to win. "Winning isn't everthing, it's the only thing" is the new mantra. The problem with this new ideology is that it leaves very little room for the notion of community or even family values. There are only "winners" and "losers" in this paradigm.

If you want people to embrace more noble ideals, it has to be taught, both in the schools and at home.

[Mister D]

Part of the price of a free society is that both good and bad ideas can flourish. The concept of teaching societal values seems to have fallen into disfavor and the vacuum has been filled with lessons in how to be a success, how to beat out your fellow man to a bigger share of the pie. Parents frequently enrol their children in team sports to teach them how to win. "Winning isn't everthing, it's the only thing" is the new mantra. The problem with this new ideology is that it leaves very little room for the notion of community or even family values. There are only "winners" and "losers" in this paradigm.

If you want people to embrace more noble ideals, it has to be taught, both in the schools and at home.

I would think that good and bad ideas circulate in unfree societies as well (whatever we may mean by unfree). Alternatively, perhaps this "free" society is predicated on bad ideas or at least ideas that have led logically to the anomie you object to.

[Dr. Who]

I would think that good and bad ideas circulate in unfree societies as well (whatever we may mean by unfree). Alternatively, perhaps this "free" society is predicated on bad ideas or at least ideas that have led logically to the anomie you object to.

In an free society, the determination of a good idea or a bad idea would be objective, based on the relative benefit or harm that results from that idea. In an unfree society, a good idea or bad idea would be determined subjectively, based on the agenda of the controlling regime, for example restricting access to the internet in Iran or China. Western ideas are deemed bad as they encourage free thinking or behaviors unsanctioned by the ruling regime, thus they are banned proactively, not reactively.

[Mister D]

In an free society, the determination of a good idea or a bad idea would be objective, based on the relative benefit or harm that results from that idea. In an unfree society, a good idea or bad idea would be determined subjectively, based on the agenda of the controlling regime, for example restricting access to the internet in Iran or China. Western ideas are deemed bad as they encourage free thinking or behaviors unsanctioned by the ruling regime, thus they are banned proactively, not reactively.

The value of all ideas is determined subjectively regardless of the nature of a society. That you consider one society "free" and another "unfree" is itself a subjective distinction and a curious one in this context one. Obviously, consumerism and it's concomitant value system has been to someone's advantage or it would not have come to pervade western society. Whose? Surely those in power derive some benefit. But this is a "free" society, right?

[Dr. Who]

The value of all ideas is determined subjectively regardless of the nature of a society. That you consider one society "free" and another "unfree" is itself a subjective distinction and a curious one in this context one. Obviously, consumerism and it's concomitant value system has been to someone's advantage or it would not have come to pervade western society. Whose? Surely those in power derive some benefit. But this is a "free" society, right?

I understand what you are saying, but in a free society, such as it is, the individual has the choice/right whether or not to espouse either a good or bad idea, irrespective of the relative consequences and who may profit. In an unfree society, the ruling regime works at preventing the dissemination of so called bad ideas. So while in the free society the determination of the merits of ideas may be subjective on a personal level, it would be objective on a societal level. Conversely, in a restricted society, ideas are subject to censorship before they can be considered on an individual basis. The difference is a philosophical one. Is the individual more free when they can make decisions based on ideas that are potentially detrimental to society, or are they more free when they are denied the opportunity, through censorship, to espouse ideas that are not sactioned by the ruling regime? In the case of the latter, it would depend on how rational the regime and whether the best interests of the people are the primary focus. In the case of the former, it would depend on the values and mores of the particular society. I don't think that there are any absolutes when it comes to people. Either scenario can be good or bad.

[Deadwood]

I'm simply stating a fact. Traditional societies are relatively cohesive. Feudalism, like it or not, was a check on the anomie you lament. Secondly, is modern society so enlightened? What about the shallowness and self-centeredness you referred to earlier? IS an enlightened society in need of a huge paradigm shift?


With all due respect Mr. D, and I mean that sincerely, you may be romanticizing the feudal system. You have to remember that human life was the cheapest commodity then, a time when lords owned the people and warred amongst each other for sport.

It was also, even by middle age standards, corrupt, but then when compared to today's standards we are merely arguing a matter of degree.

Having said that, what the founding father set out upon this land was a republic, one party system where the common man was actually denied a vote for anything but a congressman. It was Jefferson, at war with the concept of democracy, who ironically issued it in in a pique formed a second party after having had the presidency stolen from him by John Adams cronies on the electoral college.

Today, the US would still be defined as a republic in political science terms, but is in operation a two party oligarchy. The electorate has the appearance of a direct vote, but in fact are mere consumers being manipulated like greedy little Walmart shoppers on 11 foot hot dog Tuesdays.

[Deadwood]

I understand what you are saying, but in a free society, such as it is, the individual has the choice/right whether or not to espouse either a good or bad idea, irrespective of the relative consequences and who may profit. In an unfree society, the ruling regime works at preventing the dissemination of so called bad ideas. So while in the free society the determination of the merits of ideas may be subjective on a personal level, it would be objective on a societal level. Conversely, in a restricted society, ideas are subject to censorship before they can be considered on an individual basis. The difference is a philosophical one. Is the individual more free when they can make decisions based on ideas that are potentially detrimental to society, or are they more free when they are denied the opportunity, through censorship, to espouse ideas that are not sactioned by the ruling regime? In the case of the latter, it would depend on how rational the regime and whether the best interests of the people are the primary focus. In the case of the former, it would depend on the values and mores of the particular society. I don't think that there are any absolutes when it comes to people. Either scenario can be good or bad.



It might be a mistake to reduce the concept of freedom to relativism. In fact what was considered a 'free society' by the founding fathers might not be recognizable in some ways to us, and certainly the founding fathers would have a very hard time with the TSA and, for that matter, the Patriot Act.

Also, the concept becomes even more vague in societies where freedom is not a valued concept and, in fact, is objectionable. Much of China is like that where 400 generations have existed under one form of totalitarian rule or another.

And all of us are subject to the laws of nature and economics. It is one thing to say "Live Free" but quite another to have an expectation someone else should pay for it

[Peter1469]

It might be a mistake to reduce the concept of freedom to relativism. In fact what was considered a 'free society' by the founding fathers might not be recognizable in some ways to us, and certainly the founding fathers would have a very hard time with the TSA and, for that matter, the Patriot Act.

Also, the concept becomes even more vague in societies where freedom is not a valued concept and, in fact, is objectionable. Much of China is like that where 400 generations have existed under one form of totalitarian rule or another.

And all of us are subject to the laws of nature and economics. It is one thing to say "Live Free" but quite another to have an expectation someone else should pay for it

The Founders would also have been puzzled with the prospect of a nuclear war that could destroy humanity.

[Dr. Who]

It might be a mistake to reduce the concept of freedom to relativism. In fact what was considered a 'free society' by the founding fathers might not be recognizable in some ways to us, and certainly the founding fathers would have a very hard time with the TSA and, for that matter, the Patriot Act.

Also, the concept becomes even more vague in societies where freedom is not a valued concept and, in fact, is objectionable. Much of China is like that where 400 generations have existed under one form of totalitarian rule or another.

And all of us are subject to the laws of nature and economics. It is one thing to say "Live Free" but quite another to have an expectation someone else should pay for it

So how do we address the original question, Chris states: We are not a democracy, we are not a democratic republic, we are a constitutional republic. Does a constitutional republic exclude the concept of democracy, keeping in mind that the Constitution and all of the Amendments were arrived at in a democratic fashion?

[Chris]

So how do we address the original question, Chris states: We are not a democracy, we are not a democratic republic, we are a constitutional republic. Does a constitutional republic exclude the concept of democracy, keeping in mind that the Constitution and all of the Amendments were arrived at in a democratic fashion?

They weren't arrived at in a democratic fashion. The people at the time did not all voice their opinions and vote on them, instead each state sent representatives who, btw, went beyond their mandate of revising the Articles of Confederation.

[Alif Qadr]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


de·moc·ra·cy

noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
pluralde·moc·ra·cies




Definition of DEMOCRACY

1
a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested (http://thepoliticalforums.com/vest[1]) in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (http://thepoliticalforums.com/election)

truthmatters,
It is odd to state that the republic of the United States is a democracy when government is limited to and infinitely tied to the Constitution for the United States. No where can you find in the official legal document of this republic, and reference to democracy nor democratic rule. Even James Madison stated the the majority does not work:
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.". Read this: http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/majorityrule.htm
Jefferson on the other hand stated that the majority vote is law as well as other statements that he made:

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."
Jefferson also stated:

"This... [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law."

This is the main reason why the Electoral College exists, so that there will be a balance; the president is not directly elected by the popular vote. This would automatically grant larger states, majority rule over all seats of power. This is why the Senate used to be chosen by the Legislatures of the various states until they were then elected through direct voting. The limit of Senators from the states still remains at two, which is another bulwark against majority rule.
To blatantly state that the Republic of the United States, now unfortunately an empire, is a democracy belies the facts of who government is established to thwart the "tyranny of the majority" as Mr. Madison so intelligently described such a situation of majority rule. Majority rule only comes into play with the House of Representatives and state Legislatures, which is why the Supreme Court of the United States exists.

See, I told you and others than I know the purpose of the government of the United States and how it is actually supposed to operate, but I digress.

[Mister D]

I understand what you are saying, but in a free society, such as it is, the individual has the choice/right whether or not to espouse either a good or bad idea, irrespective of the relative consequences and who may profit. In an unfree society, the ruling regime works at preventing the dissemination of so called bad ideas. So while in the free society the determination of the merits of ideas may be subjective on a personal level, it would be objective on a societal level. Conversely, in a restricted society, ideas are subject to censorship before they can be considered on an individual basis. The difference is a philosophical one. Is the individual more free when they can make decisions based on ideas that are potentially detrimental to society, or are they more free when they are denied the opportunity, through censorship, to espouse ideas that are not sactioned by the ruling regime? In the case of the latter, it would depend on how rational the regime and whether the best interests of the people are the primary focus. In the case of the former, it would depend on the values and mores of the particular society. I don't think that there are any absolutes when it comes to people. Either scenario can be good or bad.

Paying lip service to an idea is one thing. To genuinely espouse that idea is quite another. For example, few Soviet citizens actually believed in Marxism by the 1950s but their public face would often belie their disillusionment. Similarly, American attitudes toward immigration, race, and multiculturalism are in private often a far cry from what they are in public. In some respects, American liberties are only an illusion. Step out of line and you will be driven from the public square, smeared, and have your character assassinated. Mind you, I'm not making any specific point about immigration etc. It was the example that came most readily to mind since I have experienced this to some extent myself. As for consumerism and our market culture, it's hard to imagine that anyone decided on it consciously. Moreover, we are under constant bombardment by advertisers and the like. There is a great deal of effort spent upon controlling attitudes in liberal democracies. That's an important point to remember.

A ruling regime can work as hard as it likes but it cannot ultimately stop the spread of ideas. It can only hope to influence the reception of those ideas by the public.




Take, for example, the anomie you referred to earlier. Do you suppose this was decided on consciously? Look Even in a "free" society human beings are constantly manipulated be it by advertising,

[Mister D]

With all due respect Mr. D, and I mean that sincerely, you may be romanticizing the feudal system. You have to remember that human life was the cheapest commodity then, a time when lords owned the people and warred amongst each other for sport.

It was also, even by middle age standards, corrupt, but then when compared to today's standards we are merely arguing a matter of degree.

Having said that, what the founding father set out upon this land was a republic, one party system where the common man was actually denied a vote for anything but a congressman. It was Jefferson, at war with the concept of democracy, who ironically issued it in in a pique formed a second party after having had the presidency stolen from him by John Adams cronies on the electoral college.

Today, the US would still be defined as a republic in political science terms, but is in operation a two party oligarchy. The electorate has the appearance of a direct vote, but in fact are mere consumers being manipulated like greedy little Walmart shoppers on 11 foot hot dog Tuesdays.

On the contrary, human life has come much cheaper in our day. Was the 12th Century really as barbaric as the 20th? I think if we could detach ourselves from our context (a difficult thing to do) the answer would be clear.

I'm not applauding feudalism. I'm just making a point about traditional societies.

[Dr. Who]

Paying lip service to an idea is one thing. To genuinely espouse that idea is quite another. For example, few Soviet citizens actually believed in Marxism by the 1950s but their public face would often belie their disillusionment. Similarly, American attitudes toward immigration, race, and multiculturalism are in private often a far cry from what they are in public. In some respects, American liberties are only an illusion. Step out of line and you will be driven from the public square, smeared, and have your character assassinated. Mind you, I'm not making any specific point about immigration etc. It was the example that came most readily to mind since I have experienced this to some extent myself. As for consumerism and our market culture, it's hard to imagine that anyone decided on it consciously. Moreover, we are under constant bombardment by advertisers and the like. There is a great deal of effort spent upon controlling attitudes in liberal democracies. That's an important point to remember.

A ruling regime can work as hard as it likes but it cannot ultimately stop the spread of ideas. It can only hope to influence the reception of those ideas by the public.




Take, for example, the anomie you referred to earlier. Do you suppose this was decided on consciously? Look Even in a "free" society human beings are constantly manipulated be it by advertising,

Not to advocate for any one form of society over another, it would seem that the real impediment to freedom is the idea of ownership. If you own nothing, you don't worry about losing what you don't have. You don't need much, other than basic food, clothing and adequate shelter. You have no worldly distractions, so you are more apt to to develop a sense of spirituality, espouse compassion and have a community spirit. If you live in a community of like minded individuals, everyone would work toward the common good. This has worked on a tribal level in the past, and arguably in the hippy communes of the sixties, although in the case of the latter, these ideals ultimately went by the wayside. In a sense it worked that way in rural America in the past and perhaps still does in the Amish, Mennonite and Quaker communities. Russian Communism and/or Marxism did not work because it was ultimately a corrupt oligarchy pretending to be Communism. A truly large scale functional version does not currently exist on the planet, though fiction postulates such an ideal, sophisticated and educated society - remember Star Trek? In such a society, people work toward the greater good, and while there are measures of achievement, they are not predicated on monetary reward. People enrich their minds with education, and ultimately find their place in society where their particular talents will do the most good, while at the same time satisfying their own personal aspirations. It's a lovely dream. Humankind, is, for the most part, a million miles away from that ideal.


The Declaration of Independence states that people have certain God given rights and yet for the most part, these rights are unattainable because the structure of society actually denies them. You're quite right when you say freedom in America is an illusion, as it is in the rest of the world. We all wear invisible shackles, whether they obvious ones like mortgages, taxes, debt, discrimination, unemployment, zenophobia, environmental degradation, lack of healthcare or even less obvious shackles such as the need to accumulate wealth and property and defend it from those want to take it away.

Jacque Fresco proposes an alternative - see link. http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[Peter1469]

Not to advocate for any one form of society over another, it would seem that the real impediment to freedom is the idea of ownership. If you own nothing, you don't worry about losing what you don't have. You don't need much, other than basic food, clothing and adequate shelter. You have no worldly distractions, so you are more apt to to develop a sense of spirituality, espouse compassion and have a community spirit. If you live in a community of like minded individuals, everyone would work toward the common good. This has worked on a tribal level in the past, and arguably in the hippy communes of the sixties, although in the case of the latter, these ideals ultimately went by the wayside. In a sense it worked that way in rural America in the past and perhaps still does in the Amish, Mennonite and Quaker communities. Russian Communism and/or Marxism did not work because it was ultimately a corrupt oligarchy pretending to be Communism. A truly large scale functional version does not currently exist on the planet, though fiction postulates such an ideal, sophisticated and educated society - remember Star Trek? In such a society, people work toward the greater good, and while there are measures of achievement, they are not predicated on monetary reward. People enrich their minds with education, and ultimately find their place in society where their particular talents will do the most good, while at the same time satisfying their own personal aspirations. It's a lovely dream. Humankind, is, for the most part, a million miles away from that ideal.


The Declaration of Independence states that people have certain God given rights and yet for the most part, these rights are unattainable because the structure of society actually denies them. You're quite right when you say freedom in America is an illusion, as it is in the rest of the world. We all wear invisible shackles, whether they obvious ones like mortgages, taxes, debt, discrimination, unemployment, zenophobia, environmental degradation, lack of healthcare or even less obvious shackles such as the need to accumulate wealth and property and defend it from those want to take it away.

Jacque Fresco proposes an alternative - see link. http://www.thevenusproject.com/

A truly large scale functional version does not currently exist on the planet, though fiction postulates such an ideal, sophisticated and educated society - remember Star Trek? In such a society, people work toward the greater good, and while there are measures of achievement, they are not predicated on monetary reward. People enrich their minds with education, and ultimately find their place in society where their particular talents will do the most good, while at the same time satisfying their own personal aspirations. It's a lovely dream. Humankind, is, for the most part, a million miles away from that ideal.

The replicator allowed that to be possible. When resources are no longer limited....

[Chris]

The Declaration of Independence states that people have certain God given rights...

Actually in the language and arguments of the day what it says is man has natural rights, whether by Nature's Law or Nature's God is left open.


...these rights are unattainable because the structure of society actually denies them.

You're contradicting the first half of your sentence. Now if you meant to say society denies the exercise of those rights, I might agree, though I would argue the mass of men pays lip service to liberty they care not one bit for and prefer to be told what to do instead--this is the argument of Nock's closing pages of Memoirs of a Superfluous Man. He argues, and I tend to agree, that history is a cycle beginning in anarchy where man does care about liberty but that gradually drifts toward the apathy of collectivism, a cycle never lasting much more than 500 years.

[Dr. Who]

A truly large scale functional version does not currently exist on the planet, though fiction postulates such an ideal, sophisticated and educated society - remember Star Trek? In such a society, people work toward the greater good, and while there are measures of achievement, they are not predicated on monetary reward. People enrich their minds with education, and ultimately find their place in society where their particular talents will do the most good, while at the same time satisfying their own personal aspirations. It's a lovely dream. Humankind, is, for the most part, a million miles away from that ideal.

The replicator allowed that to be possible. When resources are no longer limited....

In our current paradigm, the replicator, even if invented, would not be permitted. The forces in society (rather like the Ferengi) who believe in profit above all else, would ensure any such invention, would not see the light of day.

[Peter1469]

In our current paradigm, the replicator, even if invented, would not be permitted. The forces in society (rather like the Ferengi) who believe in profit above all else, would ensure any such invention, would not see the light of day.

Disagree. The replicator would make markets obsolete. Since we don't have replicators, free markets are necessary.

[Dr. Who]

Actually in the language and arguments of the day what it says is man has natural rights, whether by Nature's Law or Nature's God is left open.



You're contradicting the first half of your sentence. Now if you meant to say society denies the exercise of those rights, I might agree, though I would argue the mass of men pays lip service to liberty they care not one bit for and prefer to be told what to do instead--this is the argument of Nock's closing pages of Memoirs of a Superfluous Man. He argues, and I tend to agree, that history is a cycle beginning in anarchy where man does care about liberty but that gradually drifts toward the apathy of collectivism, a cycle never lasting much more than 500 years.

Actually, I mean that the construction of society prevents the realization of those rights, if you don't have the requisite financial capacity. You could of course, live in a tent in some remote area and circumvent that construction, but if you don't want to be evicted as a squatter, you would have to buy the land, bringing you back into the realm of the same social construction. If you live in a place where all land is owned, then you cannot live where you want, you can only live where you can afford to live. Thus begins the paradigm. In order to live anywhere you must have money, although I expect that somewhere in the world there may be free land, there is no such possibility that I know of in the US. If you must have money, you must earn money OR be dependent on the state. The moment when an individual's life depends on earning or receiving money, they are no longer free.

[Dr. Who]

A truly large scale functional version does not currently exist on the planet, though fiction postulates such an ideal, sophisticated and educated society - remember Star Trek? In such a society, people work toward the greater good, and while there are measures of achievement, they are not predicated on monetary reward. People enrich their minds with education, and ultimately find their place in society where their particular talents will do the most good, while at the same time satisfying their own personal aspirations. It's a lovely dream. Humankind, is, for the most part, a million miles away from that ideal.

The replicator allowed that to be possible. When resources are no longer limited....

http://us.searchboth.net/blog/Nikola%20Tesla/8/

[Peter1469]

http://us.searchboth.net/blog/Nikola Tesla/8/
true!