Christianity in the public sector, politics, and government - Page 4

Diesel66 · 10-08-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Okay, now I understand. So how would a country our size accomplish that?

Check out CA. 30million people deciding every minor little thing because our represenatives dont want to make a decision.

KatKanPlay · 10-08-2006, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Check out CA. 30million people deciding every minor little thing because our represenatives dont want to make a decision.

So wouldnt that be more of a purer form of democracy? Majority rules or is that exactly reference you were making?

Dumpy Dooby · 10-08-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

So wouldnt that be more of a purer form of democracy? Majority rules or is that exactly reference you were making?

So how would a country our size accomplish that?

Accomplish what, exactly?

If you mean "accomplish being a pure democracy," then see Deisel's post regarding California; it can be done on a mass scale.

If you mean "accomplish being a republic," then we already are.

If you mean "accomplish being an anarchy," then I would say that's virtually impossible, but looks good on paper.

Diesel66 · 10-09-2006, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

So wouldnt that be more of a purer form of democracy? Majority rules or is that exactly reference you were making?

Majority rules and the people use it to attack others.

Tax bill that will improve all of CA, but only smokers are paying for it.

Kytro · 10-09-2006, 01:29 AM

Democracy > other systems so far, but still not "perfect".

Dumpy Dooby · 10-09-2006, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Democracy > other systems so far, but still not "perfect".

So...

51% ruling 49% is better than "other systems so far"?

Kytro · 10-09-2006, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

So...

51% ruling 49% is better than "other systems so far"?

In practical terms, it has panned out better. It rarely works out as 51% ruling 49%.

Representitve democracy is still democracy. Most "democratic" nations have some checks and balances against mob rule, but usually not enough.

The problem in my opinion is that people who are not quailified end up making important decisions badly based on how they or some groups happens to feel.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-09-2006, 02:13 AM

I like our political system more than that. I think it's better than any flavor of democracy.

Kytro · 10-09-2006, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I like our political system more than that. I think it's better than any flavor of democracy.

It is democracy, it is a representive democracy.

Why do people from the US insist that the US is not a from of democracy.

It is a democratic republic.

It isn't a direct democracy (though some state have elements of this) but then I don't think any nation is.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-09-2006, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

It is democracy, it is a representive democracy.

Why do people from the US insist that the US is not a from of democracy.

It is a democratic republic.

It isn't a direct democracy (though some state have elements of this) but then I don't think any nation is.

I would like to hear your distinction between "republic" and "democracy."

Partitioned constituents. Protecting the rights of the minority. Representatives. Checks and balances.

None of those are attributes of a democracy. All of those are (or can be) attributes of a constitutional republic. I did say on the last page that we were a "republic, which is a type of democracy," but I take that back. There is nothing democratic about our government. "Democracy" is not the same as "lol, we vote." Calling our political system a democracy is certainly grasping for straws, IMHO.

But I respect your opinion, so I'd like for you to explain the ways in which we are a "democratic republic," as you put it.

Kytro · 10-09-2006, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I would like to hear your distinction between "republic" and "democracy."

A Republic does not have to have elections, thought it does require the the politics of the nation can be influenced by the people.

Democracy is bascially people can vote and affect policy.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Partitioned constituents. Protecting the rights of the minority. Representatives. Checks and balances.

None of those are attributes of a democracy. All of those are (or can be) attributes of a constitutional republic.

Representive democracies have representives.....

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I did say on the last page that we were a "republic, which is a type of democracy," but I take that back. There is nothing democratic about our government. "Democracy" is not the same as "lol, we vote." Calling our political system a democracy is certainly grasping for straws, IMHO.

It appears to be unique US opinion based on what the founders considered a democracy.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

But I respect your opinion, so I'd like for you to explain the ways in which we are a "democratic republic," as you put it.

Republic which votes, basically.

Info from wiki:

In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.

Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which the citizens have a vote or voice in shaping policy. Today democracy is often assumed to be liberal democracy,[7][8] but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations.

n contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[23] The term "republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister.[24]

In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic.[25][26] Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles.

I think there is mostly a miscommunication of concepts.

When i talk about democracy, I am talking about people influencing policy through elected officals, unless I specifically say "direct democracy".

Dumpy Dooby · 10-09-2006, 03:38 AM

Your broader definition of democracy ("a government chosen by the people" or whatever) wouldn't be any sort of antithesis of republicanism. In fact, a republic would be a type of democracy. So "democratic republic" would be redundant since, by your definition of democracy, there couldn't be a republic that wasn't a democracy. So it would be more accurate to call it a republic ... regardless of how you paint the "democracy" picture. "Constitutional republic" or "constitutional representative republic" seems right on all accounts.

Kytro · 10-09-2006, 03:42 AM

Pretty much, it is just that a republic, strictly spreaking does not have to be democratic.

In any case, without sufficant checks and balances, democratic elements can be dangerous.

The system the US has is better than many, but it still has flaws ibn the way policy is decided.

When policy is not based on the opinion of an expert(s), but on what a politican thinks is a good idea it tends to retard progress.

Diesel66 · 10-09-2006, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Democracy > other systems so far, but still not "perfect".

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

lew · 10-09-2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

It is democracy, it is a representive democracy.

Why do people from the US insist that the US is not a from of democracy.

It is a democratic republic.

It isn't a direct democracy (though some state have elements of this) but then I don't think any nation is.

It is not a democracy. The founding fathers were adamant that they did not want to create a democracy.

Kytro · 10-09-2006, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by lew

It is not a democracy. The founding fathers were adamant that they did not want to create a democracy.

Only US conservatives insist the term democracy does not apply to the US.

It is nothing more than a disagreement over the usage of the word - the founding fathers were talking almost exclusivley about direct democracy, what the word referred to at the time.

Under contemporay definitions the US qualifies as a representive democracy (you vote for representitves).

Diesel66 · 10-09-2006, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Under contemporay definitions the US qualifies as a representive democracy (you vote for representitves).

Except under a real democracy/representative democracy they can do anything they want. We are a Constitutional republic

Kytro · 10-09-2006, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Except under a real democracy/representative democracy they can do anything they want. We are a Constitutional republic

This in only an issue because of the insistance of narrow definitions. You vote for representitves, who represent you in government : Representive democracy.

You have a constitution, and are a republic: Consitutional republic.

The same goes for Australia, but we are a constituional monarcy.

Representitve democracy and constituional republic are not mutually exclusive.

Representative democracy is so named because the people select representatives to a governing body. Representatives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many proportional systems) or represent a particular district or constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate some elements of direct democracy, such as referenda.

How does this not apply to the US?

More definied:

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy (with free and fair elections) along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-09-2006, 10:53 PM

You're simply not understanding that "representative democracy" does not include a constitution...

Constitutional republic is the most accurate way of describing our government. Like I said, if we're adhering to your definition of "democracy" then "republic" would be a type of democracy, and therefore, "democratic republic" would be a redundant term.

Pray tell, what's wrong with calling it a "constitutional republic"? That's what it is. Can you think of a more accurate way of describing it? We've already pointed out how "representative democracy" is too vague of a term to describe the USA's government. Try looking up "constitutional republic."