Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 1:42:53 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I'll add that a key difference is that democracy aims to create a better world

I dont agree with this, I think its ore a matter of legal definition and boils down to the individual versus the whole.



I don't know that much about your Republic, Real0ne, but from my limited understanding, it aims to protect the rights of the individual above all else. It follows that this will be at the expense of collective ideals, unlike democracy which, although aiming to balance civil liberties and responsibility to society, is underpinned by a collective ideal: the objective being to build a better society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I think the key thing to note here is:

Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.



There is far more to democracy than that, but I take your point that a defining characteristic of democracy is dictatorship of the majority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

A republic form of government on the other hand protects us from a democracy!!!



Fine. I can see the merit in that idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The problem of course with democracy is that it appeals to those who advocate "pre-emptive" thought policing style of government and rather than waiting untill someone is wronged, they pass laws "unconsitutional" in a "democratic" attempt to "feel" secure. 



I disagree. The principle Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of democracy.

Going back to your individual versus the whole point, both democracies and republics are underpinned by an idea of what constitutes freedom, and therein lies the fundamental difference.

A system built around the individual is underpinned by the idea that true freedom is the ability of an individual to choose as he/she sees fit i.e. no more than that, no collective ideal such as building a fair society, and no account for informed choice: freedom means choice in this system.

In contrast, a system built around the whole aims to change people; it aims to educate people and open their minds to what it means to be free from establishment and government dictat, and, ultimately, freedom of the mind is deemed to be freedom under this system, rather than the freedom to choose. Now, the principles of democracy blatantly include an element of coercion, and therein lies the flaw. The real attraction of democracy/the whole is that it gives people hope and meaning beyond their own existence, whereas a system built around the individual does not.

Ultimately, both systems are simply ideas for the arrangement of people. As much as you will say that only a Republic can guarantee individual liberty, I will say that your idea is masquerading as a fact in such a statement. There is no universal truth mapping out what constitutes liberty. The great minds in history have struggled with the notion of freedom and how best to arrange people, but, to date, there is no conclusion on the matter.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 8/27/2007 1:56:25 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 2:38:15 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		General point.

Individual liberty relies on collective responsibility and therein lies a paradox people have to wrestle with through whatever democratic system people find themselves in.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 2:53:28 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

General point.

Individual liberty relies on collective responsibility and therein lies a paradox people have to wrestle with through whatever democratic system people find themselves in.


'True enough, and it's far from easy to balance civil liberties with responsibility to society; for a kick off, many of us will disagree on what constitues freedom, liberty, society and responsibility, and possibly disagree on whether or not a human nature exists: no shared human nature = no one size fits all system.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 4:49:35 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Mob rule is something to be feared, and why the constitution tries to protect against it. It is also the reason that 1 of 12 on a jury is all that is needed to cause a mistrial. Individual liberties must be protected for the republic to flourish. The balance between the individual and the majority, is well balanced by the Bill of Rights, and is there as a check and balance of the majority trying to take away too much from an individual.

Also, someone stated that laws prevented you from doing things, and this is incorrect. The consequences may sway your decision to do something or not. Laws provide for punishment after the fact, just as police are not meant to protect, but to catch those that have already broken the law. The social compact, is the essence required to make any form of government work.

I agree there is a huge difference between the two, and a democracy focuses too much on what many within it will say is the good of the majority. Democracy unchecked, is just as bad or worse than a monarchy gone bad, or a dictatorship. When individual rights are removed, it does not matter who or what removed them.

The republic of the United States, as originally designed, tried to balance the people, the states and the ruling federal government, within the constitution, but Abe Lincoln shot some of that balance dead, and the monster of the federal government has been growing sense.


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 5:19:11 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		From where I'm standing, that's a very one-sided view; democracy has it's limitations, of course, but so does a system designed to ensure the individual is free to choose as he/she sees fit. For me, that system lacks meaning and purpose beyond an individual's existence. As said, some people marvel at wanting to build a society based on equal opportunity, harmony and a more humanist approach. The obvious flaw is that "better" is subjective, and who gets to decide. I struggle with the idea of coercion, which is undoubtedly an element of democracy, but, on balance, I would take the more humanist approach of the collective over the individual's freedom to chase every whim and desire.

This system built around the individual supposes, of course, that some sort of natural order will spontaneously manifest itself, and everyone will get a fair crack of the whip. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't work like that: the wealth gap increases, anti-social behaviour increases, nihilism and a sense of disorientation increases. The ability to choose as you see fit is a very, very narrow version of liberty: it has simply led to the large corporations becoming the kings and playing the tune for their subjects to dance. I'll add that it can be as tyrannical as any form of democracy as it's simply an idea which can be taken to extremes like any other: see US actions in Nicaragua, Brazil, Venezuala etc in the battle of ideas with the Communists.

Your "mob rule" comment: with all due respect, I don't think that's a fair reflection of the ideals of democracy, and is simply pandering to sensationalist rhetoric.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 5:59:05 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

It is so apt that Churchill takes credit for WW2 rather than the hundreds of thousands of young lads who lost their lives. That's him in a nutshell: a power crazy blaggard.


You misspelt 'corrupted'. 


True enough, but one swallow doesn't make a summer.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 6:40:56 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

When individual rights are removed, it does not matter who or what removed them.



Often what removes rights in a democratic society are people not willing to do their duty towards the collective.

We hear a lot about rights but very little about how people earn and maintain those rights. In my humble opinion, to protect my rights as an individual, I need to protect the rights of the collective.

OK Collective is a loaded term in American speak so I will say the majority.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 6:50:28 AM   
GhitaAmati


Posts: 3263
Joined: 5/30/2007
Status: offline 		darn..I thought I was on a borg ship for a second....

_____________________________

I said I was a submissive, I never said I was a GOOD submissive.


Sex without love is a meaningless experience, but as far as meaningless experiences go its pretty damn good.
~Woody Allen

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 7:22:09 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I don't know that much about your Republic, Real0ne, but from my limited understanding, it aims to protect the rights of the individual above all else. It follows that this will be at the expense of collective ideals


Both the collective and each individual of the collective within the body politic whch "always" falls back on teh body of "inalienable" rights.   (constitution)   Beyond that no.

WHat is it "supposed" to do  is give us this authority:

Using that gun example:  If my immediate community makes laws, or even on a federal level that violates my inalienable rights, such as telling me that I cannot shoot a weapon into the air in a mall, then I as an individual can go to court and my rights should be protected and uphels based on "not infringing" on anothers rights, (no damage no crime, nothing to sue for), which is how this country as a country full of soveriegns were designed to operate.

Now if the mall were not used for public enterprise and is solely private property therefore not part of the public domain then the owner of that property would have the right to request that you check your weapon before entering on to his property.  You then as an individual have the choice to either enter the property or not, contray in a democracy to to bad so sad no guns period cuz we said so, regardless if you are infringing on someone elses rights or not!.

Thus the constitution is meant to secure rights of the individual which would be not only me but you too and has been written in its lowest common denominator form to do so.

Now in the case where a community wants no weapons in the community and everyone signs a contract with the community that they "agree" not to have weapons in that community and abide by that democratic ordinance set forth by the community at large, (which would be considered a corporation and corporations have no "constitutional" rights, they are granted privileges by the people), under those circumstances you would have signed away your right to fire of your weapon in the whole community, not only the mall.

It forces individials to contract and agree rather than some oligarchy or national body politic to make the rules for "everyone", and if the body politic gets out of line the "individual" can go to court and sue for their "inalienable" rights to be upheld.   In a democratic society it is to bad so sad thats the way it put up and shut up, which is basically what we have become because people, especially "public school" educated people which is managed by the government have never been taught the difference.  Most people in this country are public school educated.

So that only works with educated people and a doj and government that is "not" corrupt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I disagree. The principle Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of democracy.

Well that wasnt to be taken as an assuption of guilt, it was meant moreso as crime prevention by saying we dont want crime in this city and therefore no one is allowed to go on public thouroughfare which of course is unconstitutional.

Its people who want to ban guns because they are afraid of shooting themselves, or democracy out of the bounds of the constitution to protect rights not afforded to the individual.

In other words we do not have the right to make ignorant laws based on fear, that is constitutionally anyway.

BAsically one must infringe on anothers right in this country or anything with exception to public domain and interstate commerce goes.

That is the difference.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 7:35:30 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Often what removes rights in a democratic society are people not willing to do their duty towards the collective.

We hear a lot about rights but very little about how people earn and maintain those rights. In my humble opinion, to protect my rights as an individual, I need to protect the rights of the collective.

OK Collective is a loaded term in American speak so I will say the majority.


That is precisely correct.

One person does not see the line and steps over it onto anothers rights. 

It gets interesting because I have the right to paint my house flourecent purple if I wanted to, however everyone elses property values will surely go down.

Sort of a problem and I do have that right, thats no joke that is real life.  There is nothing they could do about it with exception to making some kind of unconstitutional ruling aganst me.  but I respect the community and would not do that.

Now if I did paint it purple the local court "should" uphold my right to do so if there is nothing in the city charter that i agreed with stating I cannot.  (which city in the us has you agree to a charter) ever?  nack dont happen!  But that is the way it was set up to work otherwise you are being forced into what is called an implied contract which is always contestable as you were never made aware of it contents.  anyway.

If the local court did not uphold your rights you would appeal till you hit the supreme court, (it would never get that far in a functioning sytem), and the supreme court would have to grant you that right under the constitution.  Hence the difference between civil (democratic) and common (constitutional) law.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 7:43:12 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		Getting back to this gun thing.

Here is the dillema.

So you have this community where all the people signed away their rigts to have or shoot a weapon in town.  Now a stranger walks up and says hey I have a right to have and fire my weapon in town as it is public domain!!!!!!!!!!

and he is correct!

Now what?    LOL

It comes down to any law that violates our constitutional rights is basically invalid anyway you want to cut it.


Of course in a democracy its suck it up!   to bad so sad,  we said so - so abide by it or we throw you in jail., that is the definition of privilege and surfdom in a fuedal system where the sovereign, usually the king, (or a democratic body politic, same dif),  grants you the "priveldge" to do something,  Not a right in a republican system, as we have that piece of paper that says another soveriegn stepped over the line and has no "right" to grant me a priveldge, (except as specified in the constitution), as I too am a sovereign and have my own "rights" thus the saying.

A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.




< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/27/2007 7:56:23 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 7:54:46 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

It is so apt that Churchill takes credit for WW2 rather than the hundreds of thousands of young lads who lost their lives. That's him in a nutshell: a power crazy blaggard.


You misspelt 'corrupted'. 


True enough, but one swallow doesn't make a summer.



Very good point.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 7:57:54 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

darn..I thought I was on a borg ship for a second....


With Cap'n Bush in charge, you are.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to GhitaAmati)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 8:12:01 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

darn..I thought I was on a borg ship for a second....


With Cap'n Bush in charge, you are.


Techinically since 1 minute after they all signed it!  LOL  But it took a bad turn with the 16th 100 years ago and again during the second world war where our federal government has usurped our rights by small slices as a amtter of convenience and to to destroy soveriegnity we have to work toward a one world gov.  We are really a sharp stick in the eye toward that end.

from my other thread:  http://www.collarchat.com/m_1235642/tm.htm

"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most
significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it's perceptions."
-- Henry Kissenger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel , April 19th 1994

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power--Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical."
--U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater from his 1964 book "No Apologies"

note the date on goldwater, it goes much farther back than that however

the moral of the story of course is that there really is a master plan that we as a nation are "EXPECTED" to follow, contrary to popular belief and when people understand this, then the actions of the govbernment are no longer "stupid" and become quite clear.





< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/27/2007 8:17:26 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 9:10:57 AM   
baldjeanfriede


Posts: 12
Joined: 4/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Isn't the German Federal government far weaker than the American Federal government, with the German states being having far more power than their American counterparts?

But point taken about stopping listening.

I think it is rather the opposite. Take for example laws. It would simply not be possible in Germany to have as extremely different laws in different states as it is in the USA. There are certainly differences, but they are minor; the general rule is "Federal law breaks state law". Take an issue like capital punishment (which is forbidden by the German constitution, but there have always been attempts to introduce it into German law, so let's for example's sake assume it would be possible in Germany). This would definitely be a matter of federal law and not of state law. The school system is currently different from state to state, but their is an ongoing debate to standardize it.
Where the states have power is in the "Bundesrat". It is not the single state who has power there though, it is a majority of the representatives of the states. Since for about the last 20 or more years the situation in Germany has been that the Bundestag is being controlled by the governmental parties and the Bundesrat by the opposition; most laws that have to pass the Bundesrat are usually being blocked just because of political games, a situation not foreseen by the fathers of the German constitution.
It has also become a political game to call in the Constitutional Court or at least to threaten with it whenever a major law is about to be passed.

< Message edited by baldjeanfriede -- 8/27/2007 9:14:04 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 9:37:09 AM   
ChainsandFreedom


Posts: 222
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		 
can someone tell me if my understanding of this specific argument is flawed or simply so popular it's uninteresting to debate?

quote:

The terms are not opposed to each other.at all. Germany is a republic and has parliamentary democracy as form of government. I (Friede) remember having a discussion with an American about the laws of the Bush administration after 9/11 and uttering that certain things should not be possible in a democracy and got the idiotic answer: "But we are not a democracy, we are a republic". After that answer I stopped discussion.


baldjeanfriede:

Wouldn't this persons point have been that in a democracy the majority not only elect our officials but theoretically ratify all laws (as in the califonia ballot proposition system?).

In  a republic, we meerly elect OFFICALS, and these officals dictate law through a negotiation process independant of the majority. Further, our laws are over-ridden or validated through the supreme court, which is not democratically elected but rather appointed.

My reading of the argument would be: in a democracy, since the majority of americans are against some post-9/11 measures and the majority of citizens would rule them unconstitutional once passed, the measures would never be passed.

In a Republic, elected officals are free to institute these laws, and their only regaurd is that they do nothing so extremly polarizing on any one issue that people would vote for other elected officals in the future who would repeal them. A Court system instituted by republic would be able to enjoy similar disreagaurd for popular opion.

(in reply to baldjeanfriede)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 9:51:32 AM   
ChainsandFreedom


Posts: 222
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		Heres my understanding of the reason the US is officially termed a "democratic republic".

A republic protects individual rights, which most all Americans are in favor of.
However: the more people depend on community and shared resources, the more majority mandates have to fly in the face of individual rights. A draft, or zoning laws in densely populated areas, or 'fair use' and stewardship of public natural areas, are issues which cannot be dictated by purely republican issues alone.

The colonial founders who wanted to set up homesteads beyond the Appilachian mountains, for instance, would have depended on a non-republic, democratic law system of property and timber aquistion so that the majority could have a fair shot at aquiring and maintaining these resources-otherwise a few people would own all the resources, become tyrants impeading the rights to property of their fellow citizens, and logged all the timber prematurely.

At the same time, a democratic capitalism would be functionally impossible-one person gaining wealth at the expense of others labor is inherantly unequal and negitive for the majority. Too much of capitialism is dependant on the individual right to property and resources rather than the democratic right of mob decree.


(in reply to ChainsandFreedom)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 12:35:53 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		toemato.  tomato. hmm

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 2:05:34 PM   
baldjeanfriede


Posts: 12
Joined: 4/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainsandFreedom


can someone tell me if my understanding of this specific argument is flawed or simply so popular it's uninteresting to debate?

quote:

The terms are not opposed to each other.at all. Germany is a republic and has parliamentary democracy as form of government. I (Friede) remember having a discussion with an American about the laws of the Bush administration after 9/11 and uttering that certain things should not be possible in a democracy and got the idiotic answer: "But we are not a democracy, we are a republic". After that answer I stopped discussion.


baldjeanfriede:

Wouldn't this persons point have been that in a democracy the majority not only elect our officials but theoretically ratify all laws (as in the califonia ballot proposition system?).

In  a republic, we meerly elect OFFICALS, and these officals dictate law through a negotiation process independant of the majority. Further, our laws are over-ridden or validated through the supreme court, which is not democratically elected but rather appointed.

My reading of the argument would be: in a democracy, since the majority of americans are against some post-9/11 measures and the majority of citizens would rule them unconstitutional once passed, the measures would never be passed.

In a Republic, elected officals are free to institute these laws, and their only regaurd is that they do nothing so extremly polarizing on any one issue that people would vote for other elected officals in the future who would repeal them. A Court system instituted by republic would be able to enjoy similar disreagaurd for popular opion.

That's not what a democracy is about; it wasn't even in the earliest democracies of the ancient Greek. Representatives have been elected from the very beginning of demovracies, and the principle of electing them is in no way conttadictionary to the principles of a democracy.
I'll just post the ductionary definitions of "democracy" and "republic"; you will see that these terms aee by far not mutually exclusive.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source de·moc·ra·cy      /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -cies. 1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4.political or social equality; democratic spirit. 5.the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
[Origin: 1525–35; < MF démocratie < LL démocratia < Gk démokratía popular government, equiv. to démo- demo- + -kratia -cracy] Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source re·pub·lic      /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-puhb-lik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2.any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3.a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. 4.(initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic. 5.(initial capital letter, italics) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.
[Origin: 1595–1605; < F république, MF < L rés pūblica, equiv. to rés thing, entity + pūblica public]


(in reply to ChainsandFreedom)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY - 8/27/2007 3:54:22 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Tho' democracy may have a dictionary definition in practical terms it is meaningless
As a simple mechanic I cant knock a square peg into a round hole, linguistically I most definately can.

(in reply to baldjeanfriede)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094