9 votes

Republic vs Democracy

Our founders abhorred democracy and the evils attributed to a democratic form of government. This video does a good job of explaining the difference between a democracy and a republic.

http://youtu.be/qIdOv0A8cvE

I'd be curious to hear any additional thoughts DPers might have- including discrepancies.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Whenever I hear a big deal

Whenever I hear a big deal made about absurd distinctions between authoritarians ruling using a democracy or republic I feel like I am just listening to people bitch about not being in power.

In nature, majority rules. Yes, mother nature is a real bitch like that and no one is changing it anytime soon no matter how great of a system man devises. Good thing most people magically believe murder is wrong. Now, if they can be convinced killing people while dressed in a clown suit with a badge is murder ...

It's a narrow semantic argument.

Yes the US form of government is that of a Republic.

Yes a PURE DEMOCRACY is not what it is. By the connotative definition in the minds of most Americans, it is a democracy. It doesnt do much good to point out the difference between a republic and a democracy.

Why?

I think that one reason WHY is that actually in practice most government in the United States is in the form of an OLIGARCHY, the rule by an ELITE FEW.

*

Q. Which Stripe on the flag do you like the best?

A. Go point that friggin' thing somewhere else.

Video is ok except in it's

Video is ok except in it's Glenn Beck style gratuitous attack on anarchy.
Just neglect to bring it up if you don't want people to think about it. But lies in your presentation undermine it. Disagree or not, but anarchist believe the violence in society results from violence of the state. Violence begets violence.
That said I would be most pleased, as an ancap, for the Constitution to be legalized once more. Had the Constitution never been abrogated, I would never have had cause to bother to think about anything else.

"And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

I teach my students early in the year about the pledge...and when we get to "republic" that is when I hammer away that we live in a republic and not a democracy.

Well, that is the way it is supposed to be, anyway.

Would this video be

Would this video be acceptable material to show to students?

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

Cyril's picture

Another way to debunk the fallacy of the US "democracy"

For what it's worth, if it helps, another way to debunk the deceptive fallacy or downright lie of America as a democracy:

Democracy, noun.

Republic, noun.

Democratic, ADJECTIVE.

Both democracy AND republic make use of DEMOCRATIC processes - in the case of the latter, to purposely limited extents.

However:

HAVING THE PROPERTY OF democratic process DOES NOT IMPLY in any way EITHER being in a democracy NOR in a republic.

The argument's corner stone condition:

(C) this is necessary BUT NOT SUFFICIENT - IN EITHER CASES.

Stating otherwise than (C) pertains to APPROXIMATE and fallacious logic - EITHER BY GROSS IGNORANCE OR BY DECEPTION PLAN - betrayal against ideas through the abuse of language, and thus, against honest, rational LOGIC ITSELF.

Analogy - especially enjoyable by the geeky students, albeit accessible to anybody, I think:

A computer contains mechanical parts AND electronic components - e.g., mechanical : the hard drive; electronic : the memory and CPU, GPU components, buses.

Do the mechanical parts make the ENTIRE computer AN EXCLUSIVELY MECHANICAL DEVICE - e.g., such as the first typewriters a hundred years ago?

APPROXIMATE. WRONG. FALSE. LIE. FRAUD.

Nope, the computer DOES NOT pertain SOLELY to the ontology of "mechanics" (noun) - only because to its hard drive.

Indeed, a computer isn't as "raw" as a 100 year old typewriter - in their respective whole.

BINGO !

Hence:

THE LIE USED BY SOME LIBERALS - identifying "democratic" with "democracy" TO ERASE the notion of republic (and hoping nobody will notice) - HAS JUST BEEN DEBUNKED.

THOSE ARE BUSTED.

Note it's just as deceptive as another CURRENT RHETORIC TRICK - arrogantly openly defended by King ObaMARX himself in one of his "books" - THE TRAITOR:

seeing the Constitution as a living document - subject to TIME-VARYING interpretations by whatever political agenda(s) - instead of one which ought to keep a literal interpretation - FROZEN IN TIME (1776 to 1787) - only.

That is, another UTTERLY HARMFUL ABUSE OF LANGUAGE DONE IN PLAIN VIEW that we MUST fight against, FIERCELY - to restore liberty.

Makes sense?

'HTH,

P.S.
Engineer here. Who ALSO cares about the proper usage of NATURAL LANGUAGE. In French AND English.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Thank you for your standing FOR THE TRUTH.

Thank you for your standing FOR THE TRUTH.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

BUMP. This is an absolutely EXCELLENT video.

BUMP. This is an absolutely EXCELLENT video.

It definitely deserves to be spread far and wide.

Thank you for posting.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

But our particular form of a

But our particular form of a republic is highly democratic.

Original Intent

I think the intent of the founders was to create a Republic, rule by the rule of law, intended for maximum freedom. Yes, there is a democratic process to certain aspects of the Republic, but if we are to follow the Law, The Constitution, then the majority cannot take rights from the minority.

In other words, in a Democracy it is very easy for 51% to take away the rights of the 49%, they just have to vote as a majority to change the law. The US Constitution amendment process is not that simple. i.e. If there was a majority who decided to take away your 1st amendment right, they could not so easily make a change. That type of change would have to go through a constitutional convention, and then be ratified by a 2/3 of the states.

The processes involved in a free-Republic make it much more difficult for an inrush of tyranny. Obviously The Constitution is not perfect. As we can see, our free-Republic has been eroding for some time under this constitution. I wonder how, if we had to, we could write a better constitution which is much more restrictive on federal powers.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

If I may

It seems to me that the root of this argument is a design known as divide and conquer. The root of that is monopoly power which is the concept of a few people dominating many people, and the idea there is to collectivize all the power into the hands of a few, which means to remove the power from the hands of the many.

The minority, in other words, dominate the majority, and they do so by dividing up the majority into minor groups and those minor groups are set against each other in perpetual turmoil while the most powerful (but minority) pick up the pieces.

It is also called the Hegelian Dialectic.

If someone else can show an example of a democracy, compared to the one shown by a fellow forum member, whereby Athens Greece exemplifies a government based upon the concept of Democracy, then someone else can show such a thing having actually existed, and then anyone can set about knowing what democracy, as a form of government means.

Unfortunately that won't happen, so far as my experience goes, because this Topic is merely another way that the minority sets the majority against each other, so as to render the majority powerless against the minority.

This is the tried and true Left versus Right argument that cannot be resolved, on purpose, because the argument is nonsense on purpose.

Proven wrong and merely dictating wrongness are two different things, such as someone, anyone showing an example of democracy that did exist, Athens Greece is one, and no one even capable of showing democracy at all, other than by parroting the often repeated nonsense phrased as "majority rules".

Where majority rules, that can be shown as a fact, not a form of government, if it happens, it happens, if not, then not, so again: anyone up to the challenge could, if it exists, show where it exists. Failing to demonstrate any case where the majority rules, demonstrates that exact failure: no one, in any case, can actually demonstrate this phantom because it does not exist, at least not until it does exist, and then it is, in fact, demonstrated, and then it will be demonstrable, in fact, by the majority.

I can ask Mr. Majority.

Hey, did you make a rule today?

Silence every time.

It can't happen, other than as a statistical abstract, which is an abstract measure, as there is no such actual being, that can be held responsible, or accountable, for "majority rules", since each individual is the only possible measure of responsibility and accountability, until demonstrated otherwise in fact.

This tactic, invented by individuals, or used by individuals who discover the tactic from previous examples, is for the perpetrator to point somewhere else and shout "Thief" as the actual perpetrator then steals something while all the potential victims are looking for a phantom thief.

The same is true for a Republic, as none exist, until such time as someone may demonstrate one in existence, or one having existed.

If someone points to the time period between 1776 and 1788 in America as an Example of a Republic then they would be pointing at a Democratic Federated Republic where there is a combination of the concepts of democracy and voluntary cooperative defensive power collected into a single power used for defense. That design was particularly demonstrable as a voluntary and competitive free market government system, proven as it did work when it worked, in such cases as Shays's Rebellion.

If someone points to the time period after 1788 in America as a Republic then that is again false by accurate measure, as even those at the time correctly pointing out that it was not a Republic it was a Consolidated Government, basically an extortion racket, well known to be one, by those who spoke out against it.

So where is this democracy thing?

Where is this republic thing?

If someone were to point one out, then both would be more than a phantom created by thieves whose marks, that means you guys, are arguing over those phantoms incessantly. I guess this reply by me could be considered as an interruption - demonstrated as such or not.

Here is the closest thing I've ever seen, and it is half theory and half proven to be "business as usual" (in forms such as Put Option/Derivatives/No bid war for profit contracts/etc.) for anyone caring to see an example of what may actually be this fearsome boogie man called "democracy":

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm

One other thing to consider, if you will, while I'm interrupting the fun here, if that is even remotely possible, is a similar type of process eluded to in the following link, and I can find the relevant quote and quote from the link.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/35

"The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community.” --- 1 Hume, Appendix, 1."

Argue at will; as you please.

Joe

If I understand you

If I understand you correctly, your version of a Republic is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism. Am I correct?

As far as your example of Shays, I am not saying Shays was right or wrong, or that there was no reason for the taxation of the people. There will be some taxes. Human beings are not ready for an anarcho-capitalistic society. Shays was the example used as a means of strengthening the central government, possibly similar to 1860s secession was used as a reason to further strengthen the central government, similarly 9/11 was used as a reason to strengthen the central government. Perhaps we are destined to have leaders who want more power as an answer to the societal problems.

I'm not sure how the video tries to pin minority against majority. It seems to me the video makes the case for smallest possibly government as the best form of government. Could you clarify this? Maybe I misunderstood you.

I guess I am also curious to know what you think is the best form of taxation for maximum freedom. I realize no taxation is maximum freedom. However, as long as we have a government, even if small, then somehow, the government has to get funded, right?

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

Credit is earned, not stolen.

"If I understand you correctly, your version of a Republic is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism. Am I correct?"

I have yet to meet a capitalist, and I've met and spoken to Walter Block and Hans Hermann Hoppe; they are people.

I have my own ideas as to what is or is not capitalism, and I get my ideas from people like Carl Menger, Murray Rothbard, and Gary North.

I do not credit capitalism with anything, not a republic, since there is no connection. I think that the free market exists with, or without capitalism, and to me socialism (if I get to define it) and capitalism (if I get to define it) are ideas that exist in the free market, so your question does not appear to me as having much to do with my way of thinking.

"If I understand you correctly, your version of a Republic is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism. Am I correct?"

I think a Republic of an involuntary nature such as the one known to have existed in Roman times is criminal because it is involuntary to so many targets targeted by Romans claiming to have authority.

I think a Democracy of an involuntary nature such as the one know to have existed in Athens Greece is criminal because it is involuntary to so many targets targeted by Greeks claiming to have authority.

If the Democratic Federated Republic was as voluntary as the evidence suggests to me, in that time period between 1776 and 1788, then it is a Democracy (having sortition working) and a Republic (having a strictly defensive collective power and therefore socialistic) and it existed in a free market (having a capitalistic market price option) so in that way I guess I can say yes to your question.

If I understand your question, which is entirely to vague, and/or ambiguous, then that could only be attributable to much guess work on my part.

"There will be some taxes. Human beings are not ready for an anarcho-capitalistic society."

So, as far as I know, you agree with Machiavelli and a host of other, what is the word?

Involuntary association types?

Is it OK if I water down the terminology so that my words don't offend so much - on the surface?

As far as Shays's Rebellion is concerned the Slaves could still vote with their feet without having "The Federal Government" conscript an army of slaves to enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws.

You can share your opinion with other involuntary association types, and have a laugh, or whatever you guys share in that type of club. I'm not in the Club.

"Perhaps we are destined to have leaders who want more power as an answer to the societal problems."

My kids teach me a lot about leadership, and that my be something their kids teach them too. I don't know, I may not be around. If you and your type call crime made legal "leadership" then I suppose there is a good reason for you doing that, I don't. I'm not in The Club.

"I'm not sure how the video tries to pin minority against majority. It seems to me the video makes the case for smallest possibly government as the best form of government. Could you clarify this? Maybe I misunderstood you."

I did not watch the video. I was speaking about the Left versus Right, or Socialism versus Capitalism, or whatever color of authority is up against whatever color of authority these days, it is a working example of The Hegelian Dialectic.

Thesis - Antithesis = Synthesis.

It is more complicated since many battles are started not just two and three is often used for effect, there is a harmony to the number 3 as explained (albeit indirect?) in 1984 by Orwell.

I was speaking about the title Republic versus Democracy. There is no such thing as a democracy, other than an abstract concept of power, or if there was such a THING as a democracy, to be compared against a Republic of any kind, then one could demonstrate such a thing. I can look at the video, but why would I? Is it not going to be more of the same Hegelian Dialectic: argument for the sake of argument?

A Dog chasing his tail on command?

A flea circus?

I can look to see if I am wrong and get back with a request for forgiveness for my error, sure, but I'm not putting much money on that unlikely event - long odds.

If I don't bet, and I lose, I win, so why bet? I will look at the video.

"I'm not sure how the video tries to pin minority against majority. It seems to me the video makes the case for smallest possibly government as the best form of government. Could you clarify this?"

So as not to be guilty of evading the question, so as to be more specific, the fight between a democracy (whatever that means) and a republic is nonsense, the fight is always between criminals and victims; why call it government if the idea is to perpetute victimization of innocent victims?

What is involuntary taxation? Am I asking someone in The Club?

Those who argue, from the perspective of someone in The Club, these involuntary taxation proponents, are just so many criminals or victims fighting over access to each others throats, and more often then not the arguments are for show, they mean nothing, they are scripted events, like the flea circus.

Look what the fleas can do, under the right training?

They argue incessantly over nonsense while their power is spirited away by those people over there, and that is the cue to ask, who, who is spiriting away all that power?

No, there is no part in the scrip for following the money.

I guess the idea is that a Republic saves the day, since a Democracy is not paying off so well? I can watch the video, but after I finish this response.

Where is this Democracy?

Where is this Republic?

Was I not clear in the offer of relevant questions?

______________________________________
I guess I am also curious to know what you think is the best form of taxation for maximum freedom. I realize no taxation is maximum freedom. However, as long as we have a government, even if small, then somehow, the government has to get funded, right?

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.
______________________________________

Hamilton was a despot, so maybe that is not the most competitive word, but your question is followed by what appears to me to be an error. What do you consider to be "The founders"?

You can excuse any involuntary association any way you wish, but I'm not in The Club, so your question is meaningless to me.

I think that Shays's Rebellion proves the point as to how well a Democratic Federated Voluntary Government did work, as taxes were demonstrably voluntary and the arrangement was self regulating as tax payers could, legally, migrate away from despots and spend their way, taxing themselves, to less despotic people. Which government would have won over time in such a well designed voluntary arrangement?

EDIT:

I started the video but I can't stand it. Actually my early self teaching including a time when I joined The John Birch Society. I stopped paying dues because it was dictatorial, having only one way communication. I tried to point out the bait and switch job done on Americans with The Constitution Usurpation: few people care to know the truth.

Some do.

I look for those people.

Joe

We

have the flu at our house. This video does mention Athens. What happened to Greece?

The way this video explains government, economics, and morality is the way I have understood things.

I wonder, since founders said the constitution would only work for a moral people...how then will the people be moral?

Is it not the immorality of the people from which our representation comes that has been the immorality of our representation?

I can't discuss much as we have the flu.

An excuse to stay in bed?

http://oakdaleacademy.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/The_L...

I sill have some fluid trying to get out of my lungs and coughing is overrated.

That link is one of many doors opened by that link you found on John Taylor Gatto.

Here, or next, below, are two lists I copied from the information offered by Gatto.

One is the "democracy versus republic left right argument for the sake of argument clap trap dialectic" stuffed inside a box of darkness where people are handed a script to read with a flashlight and low battery power. The other is a free market competitive productive better over worse type open source logical reasonable workable voluntary association arrangement; or government if you please.

1. A theory of human nature (as embodied in history, philosophy, theology, literature and law) [human motivation].
2. Skill in the active literacies (writing, public speaking).
3. Insight into the major institutional forms (courts, corporations, military, education).
4. Repeated exercises in the forms of good manners and politeness; based on the truth that politeness and civility are the foundation of all future relationships, all future alliances, and access to places that you might want to go.
5. Independent work.
6. Energetic physical sports are not a luxury, or a way to “blow off steam,” but they are absolutely the only way to confer grace on the human presence, and that that grace translates into power and money later on. Also, sports teach you practice in handling pain, and in dealing with emergencies.
7. A complete theory of access to any place and any person.
8. Responsibility as an utterly essential part of the curriculum; always to grab responsibility when it is offered and always to deliver more than is asked for.
9. Arrival at a personal code of standards (in production, behavior and morality).
10. To have a familiarity with, and to be at ease with, the fine arts. (cultural capital)
11. The power of accurate observation and recording. For example, sharpen the perception by being able to draw accurately.
12. The ability to deal with challenges of all sorts.
13. A habit of caution in reasoning to conclusions.
14. The constant development and testing of prior judgements: you make judgements, you discriminate value, and then you follow up and “keep an eye” on your predictions to see how far skewed, or how consistent, your predictions were.

1.
The Adjsutive or Adaptive Function: Establishment of fixed habits of reaction to authority.
2.
The Integrating (Conformity) Function: Develop like-mindedness, unity of thoughts and habits.
3.
The Diagnostic and Directive Function: Label children to mark them in the class structure.
4.
The Differentiating Function: Divide-and-Conquer strategy to immobilize in social structure.
5. (Second Creepiest of all)
The Selective Function: Preservation of the "Favoured" Races (See Darwin)
6. (Creepiest of all)
The Propaedeutic Function: Grooming of those in higher classes to manage the lower classes

So which is in the Left Versus Right Lock Box, and which is outside of that box by any accurate measure perceived by friends in liberty, if you will, when you get well - please?

Joe

I must not be well

because all of that is over my head and I don't want to wrap my head around it.

Actually I have already been in bed 2 days. Better today but still weak. We have the stomach flu here. Poor Jeff is the latest victim.

Can you take Mucinex? It is over the counter suppposed to loosen congestion, but I don't know if it is OK for you with other meds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucinex

We had that kind of flu last year. It was rough. Worse than stomach flu.

Granger seems to think that Farrakhan should be the Liberty Movement speaker. I am not so sure he is a Friend of Liberty. http://www.dailypaul.com/275610/louis-farrakhan-the-liberty-...

...

Get well

Soon

Joe

Thank you

While I am working on replies to you can you tell me what you think about Farrakhan. You know, I see red at times and I want to see from your perspective. You don't have to make it long or in depth, just your thoughts and I will try not to ask a bunch of questions so as to start another topic since we are talking about other things in your Liberty Day Challenge. I'm up and doing laundry and not as tired as yesterday, so that is good.

No.7's picture

bump. +1

.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

JD

I'm glad you found this video. I was wondering recently if you'd seen it. I think it's the best video to describe what it means to be a Republic.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.