# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  A Republic Not a Democracy

## Pat Buchanan Conservative

Yes we are a republic where we live by the law of the land not a democracy where the majority rules as the kids are being fed now. A republic is the government that lasts NOT a democracy that very soon breaks up and destroys itself. Look no further than the Athenian democracy to see the results of this "good" government.

----------


## FrankRep

*The American Form of Government: Republic*

YouTube - The American Form of Government

----------


## Pat Buchanan Conservative

Thank you.

----------


## virgil47

Actually we are supposed to be a representative Republic not just a Republic.

----------


## Pennsylvania

A republic is still organized democratically. No fundamental difference.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

A republic is a type of democracy.

----------


## BuddyRey

Goodness knows I'm not an expert on civic structure, or how to _organize_ government, but the difference between republicanism and democracy seems almost miniscule to me.

I know there's a distinction in the intended aims of the two, and in their respective emphasis on the majority and the individual; but don't the two systems both lead to the same situation where the political class becomes the ultimate arbiter of social and economic issues?

----------


## therepublic

There is a difference.  The video above is good, and explains something like this.
*Republic* 
the people elect officials to represent them.  We do not vote on every single issue.  We vote for a representative to make many decisions for us, but those representatives are governed by the Constitution which limits their power.

*Democracy*
The people vote on every decision, and the majority rules.  This was the rule of law in Greece, and the Founding Fathers did not like it because if the majority decided they wanted your land, they ruled.

Currently we have neither.  We now have rule by an Autocracy: rule by an elite group

----------


## FrankRep

> A republic is a type of democracy.


I just posted a video explaining the differences between a Democracy and a Republic.


YouTube - The American Form of Government

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## therepublic

> Actually we live in a world of Anarchy because people have free will and can choose to believe anything they want to believe.  People own their bodies when they come out of the womb but they don't own any of the earth.  As soon as a group of people adopt a majority belief in any given region on any part of the earth they can choose to act upon those beliefs and often do.  Things like democracies and republics are control concepts for people who are afraid of the fundamental truth of the world system of Anarchy.  They are interventions of Anarchy because people are afraid everyone does not come out of the womb with the equal ability to reason.
> 
> If you are going to believe in a control concept of democracy or republic realize you are believing an idea someone is selling you because they are afraid of how the world really is.  Also know that idea is worthless unless a majority of people in any given region also believe it.


Having paychecks docked to pay taxes sure does not equate free will to me.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Travlyr

> Actually we live in a world of Anarchy because people have free will and can choose to believe anything they want to believe.  People own their bodies when they come out of the womb but they don't own any of the earth.  As soon as a group of people adopt a majority belief in any given region on any part of the earth they can choose to act upon those beliefs and often do.  Things like democracies and republics are control concepts for people who are afraid of the fundamental truth of the world system of Anarchy.  They are interventions of Anarchy because people are afraid everyone does not come out of the womb with the equal ability to reason.
> 
> If you are going to believe in a control concept of democracy or republic realize you are believing an idea someone is selling you because they are afraid of how the world really is.  Also know that idea is worthless unless a majority of people in any given region also believe it.


Theft by government (monetary inflation) suggests we don't live in "Anarchy."

Words mean things.  Saying Democracy = Republic is like saying Tyranny = Anarchy.  They are not the same at all.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## therepublic

> Actually we live in a world of Anarchy because people have free will and can choose to believe anything they want to believe.  .


I do not agree that we actually live in a world were people have free will.  See what happens if you do not pay your taxes

We currently live in an autocracy.  Rule by the few

----------


## Travlyr

> democracies and republics are both control systems and interventions against the natural world system of anarchy.  you can accept self evident truths about the world or choose not to believe them.  doesn't mean they intervene in the same way.
> 
> Regarding your monetary inflation bs... yes you have a choice.  I am tired of hearing people dismiss self evident truths just because they don't like when someone threatens them.  Wah, wah, wah, someone is pointing a gun at me and demanding my wallet.  I don't want to give it to them but I must.  Therefore I don't have free will.... BS... you can always say no.  Just because saying no is not easy doesn't invalidate free will.  Once you are threatened there are no guarantees you will live if you hand over your wallet.  Unless you are the type of person to trust people who threaten you.


I would never want to do any work for you because I would fear that you would not honor your word/contract.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Travlyr

> LOL.  
> 
> If I had concerns I would demand stipulations in the contract.  I might require you to be bonded to guarantee performance.  I might require a pre-agreed to arbitrator.  In any event I would not make an unfounded ridiculous claim.


LOL too!

Anarchy = no government... right?  How would any unenforceable contract have value?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Brian in Maryland

De jure republic, de facto oligarchic, plutocratic, kleptocracy.

For democracy, see the first line of my signature.

----------


## crushingstep7

Plus one for there being no fundamental difference between Republics and Democracies.  There are differences between Direct Democracy or Athenian type systems (not in favor of those) and Representative Democracy - but a Republic is just a system where citizens have power to influence public affairs...

anyway, I think that Live Free or Die is giving good insight here, when talking about the true nature of things... then again, democracies/republics and other various States arise into existence naturally, too.

And Brian, I think Winston Churchill said something like "Democracy sucks, but I'd like to see you come up with something better."

----------


## FrankRep

Listen to Ron Paul.

*A Republic, Not a Democracy*


*Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk*
December 11, 2000


Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. "I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.

The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.

In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?

Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."

Last week I introduced a resolution in Congress which reaffirms our nation's republican form of government. H.Con Res 443 serves as a response to recent calls for the abolition of the electoral college. The collectivist liberals want popular national elections (rather than the electoral college system) because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, pro-liberty states. Supporters of my resolution in Congress can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment.


*SOURCE:*
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm

----------


## crushingstep7

I don't mean to downplay the importance of liberty by any means.  Yes, the democratic and electoral processes can produce conditions not conducive to individual liberty - but truth is, we *do* elect Congressman (and Senators... thanks to the 17th) - constituting a democratic system.  

The Venerable Congressman Paul is reacting to the general public's assumption that the citizenry is subject to direct democracy (ie, Athenian democracy, "Mob Rule", %51/49 vote), not representative democracy.  And what else would you expect from them?  Today, the average American has a limited understanding of political theory, and when they think of their place in the Republic (having power in public affairs and such) they think of themselves as having direct influence.  lol They think their vote counts in the Presidential Election... and they'd like it that way, too!  So don't educate them, because when you do, they'll realize the true nature of the American Republic and soon after we'll have Electoral College abolished. Shhh!

----------


## Danke

We were a republic before the Civil War.

----------


## crushingstep7

YouTube - John Adams - Declaration of Independence

----------


## vrichins

YouTube - The Difference between a Democracy and a Republic

----------


## crushingstep7

Again, there is Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy...

----------


## DamianTV

Hmm, ya know, this whole thing about promoting democracy around the world, is what they are REALLY saying that they want every country that they want to put democracy in to be destroyed?

The idea of a Republic that every person is Soverign.  Their rights are derived from the fact that they exist.  The purpose of the government is to ensure that laws do not deprive one person of their prosperity in order to benefit someone else.

----------


## crushingstep7

Promoting democracy around the world is none of our business.  That would be Imperialism.  If the Founding Fathers are watching, they're probably spitting fire.  Our Republic is hardly defending the individual liberties and freedoms our Founding Fathers fought so hard for.  With this reconciliation garbage, I have to wonder if there's any respect for the foundation of law in this country - The Constitution.

What's the point of a Constitutional outline for voting if processes like this can trump them?

----------


## FrankRep

> Again, there is Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy...


A Republic, Not a Democracy - Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm


Ron Paul and the Founding Fathers were idiots. You know best.

----------


## crushingstep7

I'm taking a half hour out of my day to explain this.
I hope you'll actually read this and consider what I have to say.

And by the way, I read that article the first time you posted it.

----------


## crushingstep7

> A Republic, Not a Democracy - Ron Paul
> http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm
> 
> 
> Ron Paul and the Founding Fathers were idiots. You know best.


*Whoa, relax...*

You're assuming way too much, here. Like I said before, *I don't disagree* with the fundamental principles we're discussing.

But I have to ask you, FrankRep - what are your intentions in the grand scheme of things?

If you have any inclination to educate and inform the public, you need to understand the terms and language they use. Unfortunately, we Jeffersonian Republicans are almost ALWAYS the minority. Meaning - the common people don't relate. And the significant factor in that is the misuse of reactionary language... for example, *terminologies that are 223 years old.*
The reason I'm on here debating terms with you all is because I actually go out and discuss things and I know the language you use will not bring light to today's situation. I engage the common person constantly - at school, work, and everywhere else I am. When you start ranting about this country being "a Republic and not a Democracy" no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  And anyone who's actually interested, if they haven't already dismissed you as a lunatic who can't handle the reality of things (gold mine!), they'll ask you what the difference is. 

And you tell them... what?

----------


## LibertyEagle

We were established as a republic; NOT a democracy.

*Republics and Democracies*   <------------------  *READ THIS*
by Robert Welch
http://www.potowmack.org/robwelch.html

---------------





> If you have any inclination to educate and inform the public, you need to understand the terms and language they use. Unfortunately, we Jeffersonian Republicans are almost ALWAYS the minority. Meaning - the common people don't relate. And the significant factor in that is the misuse of reactionary language... for example, terminologies that are 223 years old.
> [/SIZE]The reason I'm on here debating terms with you all is because I actually go out and discuss things and I know the language you use will not bring light to today's situation. I engage the common person constantly - at school, work, and everywhere else I am. When you start ranting about this country being "a Republic and not a Democracy" no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  And anyone who's actually interested, if they haven't already dismissed you as a lunatic who can't handle the reality of things (gold mine!), they'll ask you what the difference is. 
> 
> And you tell them... what?


It's pretty darn easy to explain to people the difference between the two.  That democracies are akin to mob rule, where the majority can decide to whack you over the head and take everything you, as an individual, have.  And in a democracy, that is A-Ok.  Whereas, our Founders established for us a constitutional republic, where the rights of the minority, or one, were to be protected from the force of the majority.  So, even if the majority wanted everything you have, too bad.  The Rule of Law applied to all.

----------


## crushingstep7

Liberty Eagle, I'm not trying to debate that.  Please read what I wrote.  The big paragraph in the middle highlights my points.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I did.  You seem to be arguing that we were established as a democracy and that simply is not true.

I am missing something in your writing?

----------


## Travlyr

> I hope you'll actually read this and consider what I have to say.


One of the most important "control" concepts to understand is the "re-definition" of words.  Many words are redefined, ask yourself why?

Dollar, Inflation, Capitalism, Insurance, Treason, Democracy, Republic, Grand Jury, Fossil Fuels and others.

I do not accept the new definition of any of the above. *Etymology Dictionary*

----------


## crushingstep7

Entry for "Republic" from the above website: 
1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," 

Entry for "Democracy" from the above website:
1570s, from M.Fr. democratie, from M.L. democratia (13c.), from Gk. demokratia, from demos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength" (see -cracy)... in other words Rule of the Common People.

Huh, the two sound similar.

----------


## crushingstep7

Liberty Eagle, the mechanisms that brought this country into being (voting) are democratic.  

The votes of the Founding Fathers (yes, they participated in democracy...) ratified the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  We elect members to the House of Representatives and the Senate.  We do not have a Monarch or King. 

Therefore we have both a Representative Democracy and a Constitutionally Limited, Republican and Federal Government.  

Sheesh.  There's more than one kind of democracy!  Ok?

----------


## FrankRep

> (Republic / Democracy) Huh, the two sound similar.


*Karl Marx: "Democracy is the road to Socialism"*

SOURCE


Plot Thickens, huh?


Democracy is the Road to Socialism
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9496

----------


## crushingstep7

Yes, Democracy can lead to Socialism.  Republics can be vulnerable to Socialism (as we can all see!).

----------


## FrankRep

> Yes, Democracy can lead to Socialism.  Republics can be vulnerable to Socialism (as we can all see!).


Republics are vulnerable to Democracy. 
We're not a full Democracy yet, but we're walking in that direction.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Liberty Eagle, the *mechanisms that brought this country into being (voting) are democratic. * 
> 
> The votes of the Founding Fathers (yes, they participated in democracy...) ratified the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  We elect members to the House of Representatives and the Senate.  We do not have a Monarch or King. 
> 
> Therefore we have both a Representative Democracy and a Constitutionally Limited, Republican and Federal Government.  
> 
> Sheesh.  There's more than one kind of democracy!  Ok?


We were established as a constitutional republic.  It is also sometimes referred to as a democratic Republic, in that we vote to elect representatives.  Notice that the noun is still Republic.

This is no small deal.  It's important.

Democracies are majority (or mob) rule.  Republics use the Rule of Law, designed to protect the minority, or the one, from the force of the majority.

----------


## crushingstep7

Platitudes!

Someone post me another article.  Or how about one of those videos!

----------


## FrankRep

> Someone post me another article.  Or how about one of those videos!



*"A Republic, if You Can Keep It"* 
- John F. McManus | The New American

*Republics and Democracies*
- Robert Welch, 1961


*John Adams:* "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes and murders itself. There never was democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

*Thomas Jefferson:* "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

*James Madison:* "Democracy is the most vile form of government."

----------


## crushingstep7

Ok, I'm done lol
I give up!

----------


## Pennsylvania

> Ok, I'm done lol
> I give up!


hah. I hear that

----------


## crushingstep7

It's impossible to get to some people, I'll tell ya.

Unfortunately, this thread demonstrates perfectly why most people think we're all nutcases. 

I notice a lot of us (and a lot of people in general) don't think too deeply.

----------


## osan

> A republic is still organized democratically. No fundamental difference.


You need to go back to your text books.  A constitutional republic such as the USA and a pure democracy are wildly different.  They hold some similarities, but the way in which they differ are indeed fundamental.

A democracy is literal "mob rule".  A constitutional republic such as ours eliminates that element of capriciousness that mobs tend to weigh heavily in because it sternly limits the whims of the mob in favor of the rights of the individual.  One does not get any more fundamentally different than that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You need to go back to your text books.  A constitutional republic such as the USA and a pure democracy are wildly different.  They hold some similarities, but the way in which they differ are indeed fundamental.
> 
> A democracy is literal "mob rule".  A constitutional republic such as ours eliminates that element of capriciousness that mobs tend to weigh heavily in because it sternly limits the whims of the mob in favor of the rights of the individual.  One does not get any more fundamentally different than that.



Yes, but they both inevitably become tyranny.

----------


## MichelleHeart

> Yes, but they both inevitably become tyranny.


Even anarchies eventually become tyrannies. Unfortunately, the plight of despots will never cease to exist. There will always be people who seek to concentrate all power into their hands or the hands of the people they work for. As long as a lust for power exists within the hearts of men, oppressive governments will continue to evolve from even the smallest and noblest of governments. But each and every time this happens, there will  be those of us who love liberty, whose lust for freedom will drive us to fight the powers that be and reclaim our God-given rights. If the War of Independence taught us anything, it's that liberty can be won and preserved for some time - but it must be guarded like a precious jewel, for there will always be those who wish to take it away from us for their own interests, whether they be driven by selfishness, "humanitarianism," or a combination of compassion and egoism. Freedom doesn't always come free. It must be fought for, sometimes through peaceful means, and, in the case of the War of Independence, with defensive arms. Liberty is precious, but it can only be preserved if we are willing to guard and restore it for ourselves and for future generations.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Travlyr

> It's impossible to get to some people, I'll tell ya.
> 
> Unfortunately, this thread demonstrates perfectly why most people think we're all nutcases. 
> 
> I notice a lot of us (and a lot of people in general) don't think too deeply.


There is nothing nutcase about understanding the definition of words and using them correctly.

Not one of the 50 state constitutions have the word democracy listed.  The U.S. Constitution does not use the word democracy anywhere.  Our forefathers were smart enough to know that subversion would eventually take place, so they left nothing to chance about their intent.

When someone uses the word democracy in reference to the way our system of government was originally set-up, they instantly lose credibility to those of us who understand the difference between a republic and a democracy.

----------


## nf7mate

> When someone uses the word democracy in reference to the way our system of government was originally set-up, they instantly lose credibility to those of us who understand the difference between a republic and a democracy.


+1

For example, I would never vote for someone that refers to our government as a democracy because they are demonstrating that they don't even have a fourth grade level understanding of our system of government. 

Say the Pledge of Allegiance and stop at the sixteenth word.

----------


## Old Dragon

Try this............

http://apathetic-usa.com/

----------


## .Tom

> A republic is still organized democratically. No fundamental difference.


+1

----------


## FrankRep

*A Republic, Not a Democracy*

*- Ron Paul*

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> A Republic Not a Democracy


And a republic is not freedom.

----------


## FrankRep

> And a republic is not freedom.


*Without Law, There Can Be No Freedom.*

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> *Without Law, There Can Be No Freedom.*


Say what?  Isn't that how natures god created the world... without any law?  Absence of law is freedom.

I think you ought to refine that philosophical statement to something more accurate like:

law/rules enable commerce

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Even anarchies eventually become tyrannies. Unfortunately, the plight of despots will never cease to exist. There will always be people who seek to concentrate all power into their hands or the hands of the people they work for. As long as a lust for power exists within the hearts of men, oppressive governments will continue to evolve from even the smallest and noblest of governments. But each and every time this happens, there will  be those of us who love liberty, whose lust for freedom will drive us to fight the powers that be and reclaim our God-given rights. If the War of Independence taught us anything, it's that liberty can be won and preserved for some time - but it must be guarded like a precious jewel, for there will always be those who wish to take it away from us for their own interests, whether they be driven by selfishness, "humanitarianism," or a combination of compassion and egoism. Freedom doesn't always come free. It must be fought for, sometimes through peaceful means, and, in the case of the War of Independence, with defensive arms. Liberty is precious, but it can only be preserved if we are willing to guard and restore it for ourselves and for future generations.


You basically made my point for me, but thanks anyway.   Have a fantabulous Easter (if you celebrate it)

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Say what?  Isn't that how natures god created the world... without any law?  Absence of law is freedom.
> 
> I think you ought to refine that philosophical statement to something more accurate like:
> 
> law/rules enable commerce


Not really. Incentive enables commerce. I have a product you want. And you buy it. That's commerce. No law involved in that.

----------


## .Tom

I was in a chat room with a girl on stickam and I told her I was a voluntaryist and she said:

"If everything was voluntary, nothing would get done."

She said that everyone was greedy and nobody would trade with each other if the government didn't exist.

How someone could be this illogical and backwards is beyond comprehension.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Not really. Incentive enables commerce. I have a product you want. And you buy it. That's commerce. No law involved in that.


Check.  Standard weights and measures do not enable commerce.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I was in a chat room with a girl on stickam and I told her I was a voluntaryist and she said:
> 
> "If everything was voluntary, nothing would get done."
> 
> She said that everyone was greedy and nobody would trade with each other if the government didn't exist.
> 
> How someone could be this illogical and backwards is beyond comprehension.


I like your thinking, Tom. I don't understand how they think no one would conduct commerce without government lol. That just sounds hilarious! Once government is gone everyone will turn into zombies and eat each other!!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I was in a chat room with a girl on stickam and I told her I was a voluntaryist and she said:
> 
> "If everything was voluntary, nothing would get done."
> 
> She said that everyone was greedy and nobody would trade with each other if the government didn't exist.
> 
> How someone could be this illogical and backwards is beyond comprehension.


Well, they teach ill logic and backwards thinking the government schools, so it's not so surprising to me...just disappointing.

----------

