Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Democracy

0 helpful
17 replies

by theboomanchu

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

There is something that has been bothering me for quite a while now, so I am throwing it out just to seewhere it goes. It is a matter of semantics for the most part, but I wonder sometimes if it doesn't affect people more deeply than being just a word.

I have read through the Constitution more than once, and have never once seen the word "Democracy". Now I have not taken any "political science" classes or the like, in fact I am probably somewhat ignorant on the subject, but from what I understand this country was originally established as a "Representative Republic". Bejamin Franklin said (source unknown)"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote".

I am interested in what other points of view there are on this!

17 replies

by timwalsh

The simple definition of democracy: form of government where the "people" (i.e. the citizenry) exercise political power.

The definition of a republic: system where the head of state is not selected on a hereditary basis.

There are two types of democracy: direct and representative.

In a direct democracy, every citizen has equal power in all matters of government; every citizen has a direct input in decision making; Simple majority rules; Benjamin Franklin was referring to this simplest form of democracy

In a representative democracy, the "people" elect representatives who hold the decision making power.

So most properly, you could say the US is a Democratic Republic.

In reality, pure democracy hasn't exist since probablyancient Greece.

by jardinier

Democracy derives from the Greek words "demos" the people, and "kratia" to rule.

Whilst a form of democracy was practised in some Greek city-states from the 6th century B.C., Aristotle's Constitution of Athens shows that in Athens, all CITIZENS, rich or poor, participated fully in government.

The catch is that about 90 per cent of the population, including minors, women, slaves and foreigners, were not classed as citizens.

by admin

Rule of the mediocre at best. At worst, you have the French Revolution again which was, if you study history, what happens in a "Pure" Democracy.

by hal 9000

Pre WW11 Germany where a then little known person who managed to involve Religion/Politics and predious into a coherant political form actually contested and eventually won power in a Democratic ellection. His name was Adlof Hitler and we all know where that led.

Now what checks and ballances are in place anywhere in the world to prevent that from happening again?

Just 1 last observation after WW11 finished Germany was divided roughly in half so they would never pose a threat to civilised society again, now that Germany has been reunited how long do you think it will take for them to build up into the major power that they once where?

by maxwell edison

You said, "Germany was divided roughly in half so they would never pose a threat to civilised society again." WRONG AGAIN, Colin.

It was divided in half because the huge American and British armies entering from the west were facing a HUGE sovietarmy entering from the east, and neither army (or government) was willing to give up any ground. Perhaps General Patton was right.

http://www.jeffsarchive.com/Jews%20and%20Communism/General%20Patton's%20Warning.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/1nn8

by generalist

A 'wrong' implementation of democracy is definitely dangerous and stupid. Of course, a 'wrong' implementation of any government can be the same.

With that in mind, consider the following quotes which are attributed to Winston Churchill.

'Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all others.'

'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.'

'A monarchy is a merchantman which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; a republic is a raft which willnever sink, but then your feet are always in the water.'

by thechas

The key is that the US is a Democratic Republic.

Most voting and elections in the US are done in a democratic manner. There are some exceptions such as 'supper' majority requirements for some issues.

The "key" to the US system is the checks and balances built into the 3 branches of the Federal Government.

Chas

by deadly ernest

As the others explained the USA is a democratically elected representative republic. A true democracy requires every citizen to be involved in the running of govt.

The last time a true democracy was established and working was on medium sized farms with about 30 to 70 workers. Any policy decision etc was made at a meeting of everyone, then they usually were on a majority rules basis. This cannot work with extremely large organisations or ones over a large geographic area as the communications lag would ensure too many decisions were way to late to be of any use. Thus the tendency to representatives who are, hopefully, knowledgeable enough to do the job.

BTW a true socialist/communist govt is supposed to work by everyone discussing issues until they have a full agreement/consensus of all its members. It has never been seen to work above two people.

by jardinier

It was in a science fiction movie that I saw a model for true democracy. All the citizens had access to a television network. They elected leaders, but any citizen could challenge any proposed new legislation.

This was then open to debate, monitored by a computer which was able to distinguish between emotive and rational responses. At the conclusion of the debate, everyone voted electronically and the majority opinion, after suggesting ammendments if necessary, accepted or rejected the proposed legislation.

With the rapid advance of IT, I can see that such a system could be viable even in my own lifetime: at least in developed countries.

by john_wills

Then perhaps we'd always be so involved in politics that we'd do no actual work... The advantage of representative democracy is that we have someone else doing the debating for us; in many states, including California, there is a kind of political superego via referenda, but everyone is so bored half the people don't bother to vote. Without government our homes would not be safe; with government we are too concerned with our homes to be bothered with government.

by theboomanchu

"The advantage of representative democracy is that we have someone else doing the debating for us;"

You are correct in that statement, however there are also disadvantages. One being, when our representatives do not represent us accurately, but choose to vote based on their own agendas. Yes it is up to us to vote someone else in next term, but as you also said:

"half the people don't bother to vote"

"Without government our homes would not be safe;"

It is not the Governments' (Federal, State, or Local) role to keep us safe in our own homes.(there is absolutely no law compelling law enforcement officers to respond to any call we make to them)(they cannot be sued for failing to do their "duty") It is our own responsibility to keep ourselves secure, hence the 2nd Amendment. I do not intend to call the cops first thing if I wake up with some stranger sneaking around my house in the middle of the night (or day for that matter). I will immediately do what is neccessary and my responsibility to protect my family. Then I'll call the cops and sort everything out.

by admin

The episode: "Free For All" in the Television series: "The Prisoner"

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own... I am not a number. I am a free man."

~Be Seeing You! :)

by hal 9000

Of putting his foot in his mouth when he was away from his beloved tanks and did cause his superior officers quite a lot of trouble by his coments.

But what I said was correct there was an agreement between the US & British forces on one side andthe Russian forces on the other side {the Russian forces incidently had Americian troops as well but not all that many} and all of these forces where Allies as they fought together with aid from each other America sent quite a lot of weapons ect to Russia in case you forgot and even more Russians than Jews where killed by the invasion of Russia. I think it was in the order of somewhere near 20,000,000 Russian people killed or died as a direct result of the German invasion. I'm sure you'll look that one up and come up with a different number but I will settle for a Bloody Lot more Russian than Jews died as a result of the German invasion. Of course this is not all that important as it is the Jews who suffered as a result of Hilters Ego but he felt the same way about the Russians as everyone else and they where only slightly better than the Jews who where at the bottomof the pile.

But what is the funny thing here is it was a German Jew in WW1 who discovered a way of getting Nitrogenfrom the air to use to make explosives this caused the British blocade of the superfosfaite to be ineffective durring WW1. But Hilter hatted the Jews and they are the ones who are remembered as suffering under his rule and as the Russians had by then become the enemy their suffering was not considered as important.

by hal 9000

I stand by what I said previously Germany was roughly devided in half bla bla bla and if you actually took the time to read the postings that you so kindly provided us all with namely

http://tinyurl.com/1nn8

You would be aware that it was aPolitical Decission to devide Germany and not a miletary decission.

Maybe Paton was correct but it was not his place to call the matter he was under ORDERS to do as his political Masters decreeded and they insisted that he hold his troops at a certain point and wait for the Russians to meet him there. After this occurred the politions then set about dividing up Germany in a fashion that suited themselves.

by john_wills

The purpose of government is precisely to secure such God-given rights as those to life, to liberty and to property. As a human institution, government sometimes fails, but that is a somewhat different question. In the absence of government we wouldhave to do our own best to secure our rights, and our right to do so remains unchanged in a state of government. As mere humans we would fail by ourselves and we still fail with government, but not so badly.
As for the Second Amendment, please don't be stupid: you know as well as I do that lack of gun control is dangerous to human rights. Think of the USSR under Stalin; compare the U.S. to Canada. I am not saying that the Second Amendment is the sole cause of the high U.S. crime rate - prosecutorial immunity is surely more important - but it is contributory.

This discussion is closed to new replies.