what is the diffrence between a republic and a democracy?

[nate895]

I usually think of democracy in this way:

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Democracy is never a good thing, IMO. Majority are fickle, easy to manipulate and frighten and can be tyrannical (we want our dinner!). When you think about it, Republican Party (and to less extent, Democratic Party) is actually modeling republic because we select delegates in precincts, who then selects delegates in next level and so forth, while deliberating what issues are important to them. Not everyone is a born politician, but everyone will know someone else who they can entrust to make some political decision and thus select that person as a delegate to represent them. This also stems tyranny of majority because instead of convincing a majority that a course of action, you only need to convince a majority of delegates (which is a minority within the whole population), and the chances are that delegates are more thoughtful than an average Joe Sixpack.

Democracy is the third worst form of government, only fascism and communism are worst.

 

[nate895]

Fifth amendment to the rescue. If they wanted my house, they could do it through their representatives also.

Well, that is what a republic is about. In a democracy the people can just decide they don't like the 5th amendment and throw it out the window in a "vote."

 

[Tdcci]

Democracy is the third worst form of government, only fascism and communism are worst.

How is communism worse?

 

[nate895]

How is communism worse?

Your property is automatically taken away.

 

[Tdcci]

Well, that is what a republic is about. In a democracy the people can just decide they don't like the 5th amendment and throw it out the window in a "vote."

And they can't do this in a republic why?

 

[Tdcci]

Your property is automatically taken away.

But you have no need for private property if you are accommodated for (except greed).

 

[Broadlighter]

The United States was created as a Constitutional Republic with some Democratic processes built in.

The Constitution is an agreement among the people that determines how these people are to govern themselves. That's why the preamble says "We the People...." and not "We the People and the Government...."

A Republic is a state in which the powers of the government are divided up between branches which serve as checks and balances on each other. It is designed to promote the greatest amount of liberty to the citizenry possible. It's based on the idea that a government needs to be strong when the nation is threatened, but otherwise limited in its scope and influence.

A Democracy is a state where the majority opinion of the citizens determines policy.

The United States uses democratic processes (ie..elections) to select representatives in the government as in the congress, senate and the presidency. The President along with votes from the senate select judges to serve in the federal and the Supreme Court.

The process has become perverted because we have certain individuals who have secured for themselves by law, the privilege of printing money out of thin air. This gives them an unfair advantage to lobby their interests among government representatives.

There isn't anything wrong with lobbying per se because individuals have the natural right to petition the government. The problem is, the corporate lobbyists can create counterfeit money with which to entertain and influence politicians, whereas the rest of us have to earn our own money for making a living and petitioning the government.

Take away the power of the banks to create money out of thin air and all of sudden the playing field becomes much more level. Maybe not perfectly level, but enough to give more people a chance to get their voices heard.

 

[Banana]

And they can't do this in a republic why?

Because 1) It's in Constitution, which the requirement for amendment are much more stringent than just a vote; 2) you have to convince the representatives, who are presumably to be more educated and thoughtful about protecting everyone, even the minority that an action is necessary.

In democracy, you only need to wave something shiny in front of the mob.

 

[FireofLiberty]

they sound both a lot like america but im having a hard time understanding what america actually is.

garrettwombat, I highly recommend you watch this video which will explain to you the difference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

 

[Alawn]

The United States was created as a Constitutional Republic with some Democratic processes built in.

Federal constitutional republic

 

[tpreitzel]

they sound both a lot like america but im having a hard time understanding what america actually is.

I'm simply amazed that no one has mentioned it.

Prior to passage of 17th amendment: Republic
Following passage of 17th amendment: Democracy

In our republic as conceived by the founders, the people had a voice only in the House of Representatives. The state legislatures had a voice only in the Senate. Hence, the federal government has a bicameral legislature which essentially functions today as a unicameral legislature since the passage of the 17th amendment. Want our republic back? Repeal the 17th amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[FireofLiberty]

I'm simply amazed that no one has mentioned it.

Prior to passage of 17th amendment: Republic
Following passage of 17th amendment: Democracy

Want our republic back? Repeal the 17th amendment to the US Constitution.

This is a solid point, although the 17th Amendment wasn't the crux of our Republic.

 

[Tdcci]

1) It's in Constitution, which the requirement for amendment are much more stringent than just a vote;

If you have enough popular support, anything can be passed. 16th amendment, anyone? (Blah blah it was not ratified, well the courts have upheld it, and the people want it because even though they hurt, they love to see the rich hurt more)

2) you have to convince the representatives, who are presumably to be more educated and thoughtful about protecting everyone, even the minority that an action is necessary.

Ideally, but not in practicality.

In democracy, you only need to wave something shiny in front of the mob.

In a republic, you only need to wave someone shiny in front of the mob. Barack Obama!

 

[Banana]

If you have enough popular support, anything can be passed. 16th amendment, anyone? (Blah blah it was not ratified, well the courts have upheld it, and the people want it because even though they hurt, they love to see the rich hurt more)

Popular support doesn't mean support within the representives.

Ideally, but not in practicality.

Unfortunately, that's true. See below.

In a republic, you only need to wave someone shiny in front of the mob. Barack Obama!

Actually, no. That is because the present system is perverted. Electing a shiny president wouldn't be enough to hijack the system; you'd need to have majority of Congress and majority of Supmere Court. Something like this takes years to cumulate, and that's exactly what happened. Obama is simply a symptom of a bigger problem.

Whether the problem, I've not quite decided. Apathy would be one. It was and still is our responsibility to understand our obligations as a citizens. Another factor would be ignorance. Several people don't know anything about constitution, and whether this is deliberately fostered by the system or simply out of negligence, I don't know.

Even so, the bottom line is this: All RPRs are taking up their duties and exercising this by working toward to get ourselves elected as delegates so we can reform the party. That's republic at work.

 

[Broadlighter]

If you have enough popular support, anything can be passed. 16th amendment, anyone? (Blah blah it was not ratified, well the courts have upheld it, and the people want it because even though they hurt, they love to see the rich hurt more)

This is the biggest fallacy about the income tax. The poorer people think the rich take it in the shorts.

First off, the very, very rich - the ones who create money out of thin air are not even the slightest affected by the income tax. They actually benefit from it.

Secondly, Rich people use things like corporate veils, loopholes and shelters to hide taxable income, maybe not all of it, but enough to keep their wealth intact.

Thirdly, at the end of the day, the tax system does nothing to change the economic balance of the rich, middle and poorer classes, except maybe make the middle and poorer classes poorer.

Conclusion: The rich are not hurt at all by the income tax. Not really.

 

[Tdcci]

Popular support doesn't mean support within the representives.

Sure it does, because the people control their representatives through lobbying and votes. The representatives are supposed to represent the people.

 

[Tdcci]

This is the biggest fallacy about the income tax.

I didn't say I agreed with it, I said that's how it was sold to the people.

 

[Fields]

they sound both a lot like america but im having a hard time understanding what america actually is.

Read the U.S. Constitution. Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

 

[Broadlighter]

Understood. I just wanted to add fuel to the argument for repealing the 16th Amendment.

I have a lot of liberal friends who think taxing the rich is cool. Use what I said as ammo, if you wish.

Another point: What liberals, who like taxation, don't understand is that when you target a constituency like the rich, you motivate them to influence policies that are designed to work against them.

Example: When the people were calling for busting up the money trust, the money trust met on Jekyll Island to plan the Fed.

You can use that, too, if you wish.

 

[the_bee]

Constitutional Republic

but what is america?

is it a republic or a democracy?

because we do vote on a lot of things...

Constitutional Republic ………. Period
It is absolutely based on property rights