Many people in the United States think we are a democracy. Those people are wrong. Our Founding Fathers were very familiar with history, and they knew the dangers inherent in a democracy.

Alexander Fraser Tyler said:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, followed always by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

If we aren't a democracy, then what are we? Our first clue comes from the pledge of allegiance and word 16, "And to the republic for which it stands"

Article 4 section 4 of the constitution states: "The united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government"

So what is the difference if any between a democracy and a republic? I hear many arguments from people that they are the same thing, usually having to do with roman and greek words.

I am not willing to accept this explanation because the founding fathers had such low opinions of democracies. They would not explicitly establish a republic if it were doomed to the same inevitable failures as history's great democracies.

Yes, both systems allow voting and the election of officials. The signifigance lies in that in a republic you cannot vote on rights and property.

Assume you and I are landowners, and that I have been attempting to buy your land because it has a nice water source on it that I want. You reject my offers for some reason. At the next community meeting I make a proposal that will divide your land evenly between members of the community and myself. In a democracy because the "majority rules" you could lose by a landslide (no pun intended).

In a republic however, such a vote is meaningless and has no force of law. In a republic that land is YOUR land and cannot be taken away by the will of the majority. Therefore in a republic rights and property of the minority are protected from the collective will of the more powerful majority. Simply put, there are certain things you cannot vote on in a republic.

I've engaged in countless debates over whether there are significant differences between a republic and democracy. However, a society can either vote on a person's property or it can't. I call the first situation a democracy and the second a republic. If you want to change the rules and play semantics with the meanings of words feel free to do so. However, if you try to take my guns, or vote on the validity of my rights, you better bring a lunch because I will veto your conclusion.

The only purpose of the constitution is to protect your rights. Now if all rights come from property (self) ownership, then it follows the purpose of the constitution is to protect said rights.

The end result of the american revolution was that everyday citizens could now own property instead of living by the will of the king. That is why we were made a republic by the Founding Fathers.

__________________
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~Thomas Paine

Agreed that we are not a pure democracy. But neither are we a pure republic.

Case in point. Eminent domain is precisely a public, involuntary taking of private land.

And there are plenty of laws that place restrictions on private property, from zoning laws to making it illegal to own nuclear weapons or heavy artillery, or needing a license to handle prescription medications or toxic bacteria or large amounts of explosives.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

We're somewhere between a democracy and a republic.

The "dynamic tension" between these approaches is embodied in the Constitution.

IMO that's part of the genius of the Founding Fathers, in terms of how they tried to set this thing up.

Today's "Democrats" and "Republicans" have nothing do to with either of the "philosophies" suggested by those terms. Case in point: today's "Neo-Con" Republicans lean towards a "majority rules" philosophy, which strictly speaking is more "democratic" than "republican".

Wrong.

The Democrats and Republicans live up to their names.

The Democrats are trying to gain power through votes (more Illegal Aliens, dead people, convicts included). This is also why Democrats are such a big tent Party, even though all their special interest groups conflict with one another's agenda almost all the time.

The Republican Party are for Republican principles, states rights and the Constitution. If Republicans fail to institute any reforms, its because Democrats obstruct it. The Democrats are the evil ones don't forget it. They burned down the Reichstag and blamed the Communists.

It gets tiring having to point this out every week:

By the current dictionary definiton of the word, yes, we are a Democracy. Even if we did not start out as a democracy, we are a democracy NOW.

We are also a Republic, by definition. Every couple weeks someone comes on this forum trying to sound smart by claiming a distinction between the two words, as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not. We fit the definitions for both.

The dictionary does not recognize the definition of democracy that is commonly assumed by liberals (that is, a direct-vote system). That is a fabrication of the left. There is no such thing as a "pure" democracy, because that definition is subjective.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Your much-beloved Republicans have held control of all three branches of government for over a decade. Your accusations of Democratic obstructionism are a bunch of empty hype, as the Democrats don't have enough votes to obstruct anything! If your beloved Republican leaders haven't instituted their promised reforms, it is because they lied to you! You have obvious problems with the truth!

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University, 1993

I've heard all this crap many times before, and always from people who have no understanding of what the hell they are saying. For starters, those who think we are a democracy were taught the distinction between direct democracy and indirect, or representative, democracy. Those who think this country is a democracy know that it is a representative democracy. Since a representative democracy is the same (*)(*)(*)(*) thing as a republic, you are really adding no new information, just quibbling over a difference in nomenclature. NEXT!!!

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University, 1993

I actually support movement towards pure democracy, which sets me apart from most libertarians, I daresay.

I have no problem with the government taking land for certain purposes as long as full compensation is given.

Those should be abolished.

Those laws are definitely necessary.

Such regulations on prescriptions and medicine in general should be relaxed, though not fully abolished.

Those do need to be tightly restricted.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I think not.

Democracy implies everything is up for a vote and it's not. As stated a republic places certain things out of the question for voting on. You may play sematics with words all you want, but the reality is we are a republic, not a democracy.

I answered this here:

However, a society can either vote on a person's property or it can't. I call the first situation a democracy and the second a republic. If you want to change the rules and play semantics with the meanings of words feel free to do so.

and here:

So what is the difference if any between a democracy and a republic? I hear many arguments from people that they are the same thing, usually having to do with roman and greek words.

I am not willing to accept this explanation because the founding fathers had such low opinions of democracies. They would not explicitly establish a republic if it were doomed to the same inevitable failures as history's great democracies.

Obviously a democracy and a republic are not the same thing.

__________________
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~Thomas Paine

Says who? On what are you basing that opinion?

The dictionary does not list that as a requirement for democracy. All that is required for a democracy is that all political power originates from the common people.

By that definition (which is not the dictionary definition btw) we are not a Republic. There is no law under our system that cannot be changed. None.

Um...you were the one bringing up semantics, remember? If you dont remember, just read the title of your own (*)(*)(*)(*) thread to refresh your memory, heh heh

Says who?

I didnt say they were...only that we fit the definitions of both. Please pay attention.

Emphasis mine. You can call it whatever you want...that doesnt mean you get to define what the word means. Sorry.

The dictionary is relevant because it shows what the current uses of various words in our language are.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page