Democracy VS Republic
 

I had a conversation with an American business partner of mine who is seriously considering selling everything and moving out of the US.

He told me that it was because America is now a democracy and not a Republic which it was based on.

I was going to write a long message, but I was going to just see if Revscene members had an opinion of which was a better system?


"Sir, what have you given us?"

"A Republic ma'am, if you can keep it."

i suggest writing the long message to get your point threw

Democracy = Republic, no?
Obi-wan once said his ligeance is to the republic, to demoracy!! to Anakin,
and Anakin was like screw this and then padme cried and the volcanoes erupted

I am probably the least educated member of Revscene, I am curious to see if anyone knows or cares, what the differences between the two are. A lot of people don't seem to know what the differences are. I'm guessing ( since I only have a grade 9 education ) that they don't teach this in school?

Isn't the idea of a Republic normally associated with Democracy?

One of the key components for a Republic is an elected head of state, no?

republic = the people are governed by law
democracy = the people are governed by the majority

a republic is a nation lead by an ruler whos not hereditary ruler (king, queen)
democracy is where the people elect a ruler to lead a nation

a republic can or cannot be a democratic nation, but a democratic nation is always a republic.

Uh...

you guys have it wrong.

It's neoliberalism (republican) vs liberalism (democracy).

The definitions of those words follow the times.

I think you may have it incorrect, as from what I have read, Neoliberalism is not a form of government, unlike a Republic.

Incorrect

They rule abiding to those policies, is that not what defines a government? The policies that they act upon?

Voters vote on a belief. It so happens that republicans enjoy and employ the ideas neoliberalism and democrats enjoy and employ the ideas liberalism, in the broad scope of things.

This is the only statement that is remotely true in this entire thread so far.

Republic: From Latin res publica meaning "public matter". In this context, it is a country not ruled by a hereditary monarch. Most commonly a President or Chancellor.

Democracy: From Greek demokratia meaning "popular rule". In this context, a system by which leaders are elected by popular vote.

A country can be either both, one of each, or neither.

Examples:
A Republic, but NOT a Democracy: China, Vietnam, Belarus, Cuba, Congo

A Democracy but NOT a Republic: Canada, UK, Australia, The Netherlands, Japan

BOTH a Democracy and a Republic: United States, France, Germany

Neither (i.e an absolute Monarchy): Saudi Arabia, Kuwait

Jason, you and I have had our differences before, but I don't skimp on the facts. Everyone else here is retarded with their definitions, as is your American friend. Tell him that you agree with him that Obama is a secret Muslim Commie and then slowly back away.

/thread

Perhaps the better question is, what can a Republic do, that a democracy cannot?

Either you misheard, or I believe your American friend is equating Republicans and Democrats with Republic and Democracy respectively. This is not true. Both are parties within a democratic system of governement in a Republic.

Alphamale doesn't know what he's talking about

The idea of a Constitutional Republic is a far more noble idea than a pure democracy.


The founding fathers knew that a Constitutional Republic counted on aware and educated citizens. If the people were not protective of their Republic, as many of the founding fathers feared, the Republic could be taken from them.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson


If I may steal a quote I found:

"That is to say that the protection of personal freedom, both against foreign enemies and the encroachments of government, is something that each and every one of us must be fully aware of at all times and fight against. This is a constant power struggle, as men of lesser character always want to wrest more power from those they apparently serve. Over time, a distracted public can become slaves to their servant, the government."



In my time off from work, I have been reading a lot into the differences between a Republic, A democratic Republic, and pure democracy.

The current crisis and spending that is going on in Washington these days, seems to lead me to believe that the US is actually heading further towards an Oligarchy. Mob rule is quite apparent as the threatened 90% tax-grab of the AIG bonuses goes directly against the laws of the constitution.

Bill of Attainder: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing Bills of Attainder, laws that punish a single person or specific group of people without affording them a trial. Would a law that targeted AIG executives violate the prohibition on Bills of Attainder?


Habeas Corpus was already shredded by Bush, and Obama is/was ready to give a big middle finger to the constitution as well?

^I was under the same assumption as Jason's American friend in regards to the topic at hand. Now that you've introduced the broader aspect, I can see where the confusion is.

See my last post, bit by bit the constitution is being ignored by the last few governments in power in the US.

1989-1993 - President George Herbert Walker Bush
1993 - 2001 - President William Jefferson Clinton
2001 - 2009 - President George W. Bush
2009 - ???? - President Barack Obama(Clinton as SoS)
2016 Jeb Bush / Hillary Clinton?

^ Some may say the above is evidence of an Oligarchy

Then again, what do I know, I only have my grade 9. Maybe I should just get a job flipping burgers, vote NDP, and hope I get a free bus pass from the government.

err...what your describing is hereditary succession. An Oligarchy implies an elite group which rules. Something like a ruling class akin to Russia in the 90s.

But if you're going to use this thread as a vehicle for your non-sensical paranoid rants, don't ask for factual definitions and then ignore them!

Blaming things on the system is a cop out. They're similar enough and there's so much room to maneuver that it's only gonna be as good as the ppl in it: shit voters who elect shit leaders will end up with a big pile of shit. Period.

The system didn't make you make a bad decision. You made the bad decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...l_relationship

It's no surprise that some Presidents are directly related to previous ones. The very nature of the US political system requires large amounts of capital (a "war chest") to stage a successful campaign. Successful political families thus have a leg up in gunning for the top job. Call it Oligarchy if you will. Paranoid rant on...

Being non-sensical would require that my views would sound like an incoherent madman. I'm not standing on a soap box in a town square saying that a flying spaghetti monster is coming to get us. I'm simply pointing out the massive growth of the government and how it is slowly encroaching on people's rights. Also, it is beginning to become obvious to people that the power of the government does not really rest in the hands of the people anymore, but in the hands of a very few.


Please, take a look at the latest change in the, currently non-compulsory, volunteer program in the US that is being proposed:


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/text

( It is a huge, huge amount of text )


Now, before you click and read it, check this out:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, President-Elect Barack Obama's choice for chief of staff in his incoming administration, is co-author of a book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America, that calls for, among other things, compulsory service for all Americans ages 18 to 25. The following excerpt is from pages 61-62 of the 2006 book:


"It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs."



Ok, right now the GIVE act is NOT compulsory. Keep in mind Obama has been in office under 100 days, and this could change.


This is not the part that really makes me wonder, the following, however, is...



PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES - A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
(1) Attempting to influence legislation
(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing
(4) Impairing existing contracts or services or collective bargaining agreements.
(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office
(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
(8) Providing a direct benefit to --
(A) a business organized for profit;
(B) a labor organization;
(C) a partisan political organization;
(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and
(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7) unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.
(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.
(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit."



So, let's examine this for a moment. If you are in this government sponsored civilian service, you lose your right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate against government policy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment01/

This is a direct violation of the first amendment to the constitution.


Now, it's not a national draft, yet, but if it would come to that point, we would now officially have a version of Hitler's brownshirts on the streets of America.

To please Civic Blues, my next post will be on how Obama is a lizardman from Mars, and that Putin is actually a robot from the future with a 2 foot cock made of adamantium.

canada is a republic because we have a queen on our coins lol