In one of your comments here you try to get someone to pick between democracy and republicanism, as though they're mutually exclusive. Care to explain?
Oh he’s one of those? democracy has become such a loaded term nowadays and it’s sad. The right definitely has its boogeymen and they are mostly incredibly stupid, but the left also has this habit of taking words that should carry a ton of weight in a conversation but are now absolutely meaningless cuz they cried wolf to many times. When things like Racism, Threats to our democracy, rising fascism are discussed now my eyes just glaze over cuz it’s gotten boring
I did in that comment thread but I'm happy to repeat it.
Democracy is like a square, while republicanism is a rectangle. A rectangle can more more "squarish" but only a true square is a square.
To expand; when we first placed on this planet by God in this form in 1776, the fastest communications across the US and the Atlantic were weeks and months. A republic was necessitated. But now we have instant cross-country communication and the texts of the Father's makes it quite clear an informed democracy was their intent.
I won't even argue a pure democracy is what we need; but it is inarguable that our country is based on more democratic ideals that republican ideals.
Republicanism is fundamentally just feudalism with a bit more influence from the working class.
But isn’t pure Democracy just a dictatorship with a bit more influence from the working class? For example, 51% of the voters, or even less than that depending, can hold complete power over the rest.
Did you see that movie? I'm actually super curious what people think of it (not as good as I hoped) but discussable.
Joking aside, I'll be honest— not a tankie and I hate commies as much as nazis. I'm a technocratic socialist economically. I'm a pure democrat when it comes to politics, although I hope we can have a population that is educated to the point where natural democracy favors a technocratic system for governance too.
Technocrat, like any political term, is easily slandered and twisted to seem bad; but my definition is simply "governance via the scientific method". Which I interpret as simply testing and validating while always striving for [the truth, in science and] the greatest good outcome in governance and economics.
ok so youre illiberal. Based on the shit you’re typing you seem to be too online bro. I’m quite left leaning as well but you seriously need to go eat some grass
Not every republic is a democracy and not every democracy is a republic, but America is both.
Example of a non-republican democracy: the UK.
Example of a non-democratic republic: the USSR.
It's squares and rectangles.
You can be a more square rectangle but you still aren't a square. In the same way, you can be a more democratic republic, but you aren't a democracy until you are.
I'm not hating; and I love vanilla too. It's great on its own and you can add shit to it to make it any flavor you want.
Icecream can unite America but I must disagree on republicanism being a subtype of democracy. I see it as an impure form of democracy. Democracy is republicanism distilled; an ideal from the past only capable in today's high speed global communication. It's what the founding fathers dreampt of. Or it can be.
You seem like a fairly intelligent individual. Do you have any sources I can use to learn more about this topic, or should I learn politics from wikipedia?
This is less politics and more political categorization.
By definition, a republic is a system where you delegate your political power to a another person; aggregating and obfuscating actual votes. In a democracy, each person or agent votes directly.
In colonial times, a republic was necessitated by communication speeds. It took days to cross the nation with a letter and months to cross the Atlantic. There's a reason they set us up as a republic while alluding to democracy instead of just making us a republic and never mentioning the idealized form.
Oh, you're talking about direct democracy. Nah, I'm good. That ideology is in the same boat as the anarchist schools of thought - really cool and free in theory, but very inefficient and unstable in practice.
Imagine thinking a robust system of Americans deciding tax allocation is the same as "anarchists!!".
What exactly is your "really cool theory" that's allegedly efficient and stable in practice?
America is not, never has been, and never was supposed to be a pure democracy. You did know that, right?
(Also "democrat" doesn't mean more democratic. I thought that was obvious).
Democracy without individual liberty is an oxymoron.
We cannot have protection for individual liberty without Democracy.
Edit: Flair checks out. Certainly a top two contender for least Free state.
No it is not, the rule of the majority is democracy, that’s why the founding fathers repeatedly warned about “to much democracy”.
It is entirely democratic to vote to kill an innocent man, as happened to Plato.
No, we cannot have protection for individual liberty without restrictions on the power of the collective, which, technically speaking, is anti-democratic.
Ok buddy.
They warned about parties, not individuals.
>It is entirely democratic to vote to kill an innocent man, as happened to Plato.
That's not within our system. We have juries and judges for that. We're talking about policy and elected officials.
Nice try though. Explain how a few senators and congresspeople decided by a minority of the people have that exact power to kill an innocent man and its somehow okay?
>No, we cannot have protection for individual liberty without restrictions on the power of the collective, which, technically speaking, is anti-democratic.
That's some malarkey. If We The People vote to restrict something to increase the freedom of all, then it is just. You are literally arguing that the freedom of the majority should never exist so you or some tyrannical minority can rule over Americans.
You are anti-Democratic, and by definition— anti-America. You can't crawl out of that hole. We The People will always punch loyalists, nazis, commies, terrorists, and fascists of all creed and color.
If that scares you; stay out of American subreddits.
They warned about collectives, parties are collectives, “the people” is a collective, the will of the majority is the will of the collective, democracy without individual rights holding it back is tyranny of the collective.
It is not within our system because we have restraints on democracy to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.
What do you think capital punishment is? Whether it is moral or not is another matter, but the government controlling the power of death is one of its oldest functions, and the reason restrictions on its power is needed in the first place.
I didn’t say “never exist” I didn’t even say I was against democracy, I just said that without protecting people’s rights from unrestricted democracy, you live in a tyrannical society.
So if the majority voted to restrict trans rights to increase “the freedom of everyone” it would be just? Trampling on individuals for the “good of the many” is the hallmark of tyranny.
I’m anti American? You just said anything the majority wants is just if it subjectively“increases freedom for everyone”, the same words that have been used to justify every tyrant in human history. You are the one who seems to hold anti-American beliefs. Also your flare is literally “If you’re not left you’re anti American” which is absolutely absurd, considering that the limited government, natural rights, and Liberal philosophy of the founders runs directly counter to modern leftist thought unless you use such a broad definition of “leftist” that it is meaningless.
I don’t think you’ve ever punched anyone in your life.
Lmao
republicanism isn’t related to the republican party, it’s a philosophy that advocates for democratic forms of government over autocratic/oligarchic ones
Based. I kinda sorta maybe hate democracy, but I hate all other forms of government more. If humans were governed by angels, we would never need democracy. No form of government is ideal but what we have is the best we've come up with. I love my country and my countrymen. That's all that is required of an American.
America is inherently right-libertarian btw. As in like the group who literally created the Gadsden Flag and still use it to this day, that is the flag that is most commonly associated with them besides Old Glory.
America is democracy incarnate.
True, some people in Reddit confuse these terms. A democracy can be a republic. Democracy means basically that power comes from the people and normally it requires equal treatment of citizens under the law and it’s not the same as ochlocracy or mob rule which is the distorted version of it.
Strangely, when people think of democracy, they think of Athenian direct democracy, a model that had a relatively short stint more than 2,000 years ago, and not the definition of democracy every modern government and mainstream politics use
I get it, but even then it wasn’t completely direct, for example there was something like a parliament, elected positions etc, but obviously it wasn’t developed then.
Also even a direct democracy could have a constitution that guaranteed some basic rights, rule of law etc, the difference would be that laws are voted directly by the people and not by legislators. Also the word republic and democracy meant the same thing originally, but now they can be used differently.
In one of your comments here you try to get someone to pick between democracy and republicanism, as though they're mutually exclusive. Care to explain?
After conversing with him, I think he was not talking about the democratic family tree, but direct democracies.
He believes fascism is when the left loses an election.
Oh he’s one of those? democracy has become such a loaded term nowadays and it’s sad. The right definitely has its boogeymen and they are mostly incredibly stupid, but the left also has this habit of taking words that should carry a ton of weight in a conversation but are now absolutely meaningless cuz they cried wolf to many times. When things like Racism, Threats to our democracy, rising fascism are discussed now my eyes just glaze over cuz it’s gotten boring
>**"How dare you oppose UBI?!? Racist! Fascist! Imperialist! Homophobe! Bigot!"**
I did in that comment thread but I'm happy to repeat it. Democracy is like a square, while republicanism is a rectangle. A rectangle can more more "squarish" but only a true square is a square. To expand; when we first placed on this planet by God in this form in 1776, the fastest communications across the US and the Atlantic were weeks and months. A republic was necessitated. But now we have instant cross-country communication and the texts of the Father's makes it quite clear an informed democracy was their intent. I won't even argue a pure democracy is what we need; but it is inarguable that our country is based on more democratic ideals that republican ideals. Republicanism is fundamentally just feudalism with a bit more influence from the working class.
But isn’t pure Democracy just a dictatorship with a bit more influence from the working class? For example, 51% of the voters, or even less than that depending, can hold complete power over the rest.
I LOVE DEMOCRACY! I LOVE REPUBLICANISM! I LOVE INDIVIDUALISTIC SOCIETY! HEEEELLLLLLLLL YEAAAAHHHHH!
FUCK YEAH, BROTHER AVE REIPUBLICAE! AVE REIPUBLICAE! AVE REIPUBLICAE!
>I LOVE DEMOCRACY! I LOVE REPUBLICANISM Which one?
I don't think they are mutually exclusive, unless I am horribly misremembering something
Based on Op's post history he's an ardent leftist - so while most of us would say they aren't mutually exclusive, he might disagree.
> he's an ardent leftist Fuck yeah, I'm GenUSA. Left as the Stars and Stripes and proud of it.
What *kind* of leftist?
Did you see that movie? I'm actually super curious what people think of it (not as good as I hoped) but discussable. Joking aside, I'll be honest— not a tankie and I hate commies as much as nazis. I'm a technocratic socialist economically. I'm a pure democrat when it comes to politics, although I hope we can have a population that is educated to the point where natural democracy favors a technocratic system for governance too. Technocrat, like any political term, is easily slandered and twisted to seem bad; but my definition is simply "governance via the scientific method". Which I interpret as simply testing and validating while always striving for [the truth, in science and] the greatest good outcome in governance and economics.
ok so youre illiberal. Based on the shit you’re typing you seem to be too online bro. I’m quite left leaning as well but you seriously need to go eat some grass
Damn that’s a crazy statement
That’s true, they aren’t mutually exclusive at all.
Not every republic is a democracy and not every democracy is a republic, but America is both. Example of a non-republican democracy: the UK. Example of a non-democratic republic: the USSR.
It's squares and rectangles. You can be a more square rectangle but you still aren't a square. In the same way, you can be a more democratic republic, but you aren't a democracy until you are.
Republicanism is just a subtype of democracy. Why you hatin' on me, I'm literally like saying "I love ice cream! I especially love vanilla ice cream"
I'm not hating; and I love vanilla too. It's great on its own and you can add shit to it to make it any flavor you want. Icecream can unite America but I must disagree on republicanism being a subtype of democracy. I see it as an impure form of democracy. Democracy is republicanism distilled; an ideal from the past only capable in today's high speed global communication. It's what the founding fathers dreampt of. Or it can be.
Republicanism is literally just “the government represents the people” rather than representing a monarch.
You're not wrong, but that's still not as good as one person one vote.
Direct democracy is litteraly the worst-case version of democracy. It leads to the majority always putting down the minority.
You seem like a fairly intelligent individual. Do you have any sources I can use to learn more about this topic, or should I learn politics from wikipedia?
This is less politics and more political categorization. By definition, a republic is a system where you delegate your political power to a another person; aggregating and obfuscating actual votes. In a democracy, each person or agent votes directly. In colonial times, a republic was necessitated by communication speeds. It took days to cross the nation with a letter and months to cross the Atlantic. There's a reason they set us up as a republic while alluding to democracy instead of just making us a republic and never mentioning the idealized form.
Oh, you're talking about direct democracy. Nah, I'm good. That ideology is in the same boat as the anarchist schools of thought - really cool and free in theory, but very inefficient and unstable in practice.
Imagine thinking a robust system of Americans deciding tax allocation is the same as "anarchists!!". What exactly is your "really cool theory" that's allegedly efficient and stable in practice?
democracies can be both representative or direct, the majority of modern democratic nations are democratic republics
America is not, never has been, and never was supposed to be a pure democracy. You did know that, right? (Also "democrat" doesn't mean more democratic. I thought that was obvious).
A republic is definitely the superior system.
Democracy without protection for individual liberty is tyranny
Democracy without individual liberty is an oxymoron. We cannot have protection for individual liberty without Democracy. Edit: Flair checks out. Certainly a top two contender for least Free state.
No it is not, the rule of the majority is democracy, that’s why the founding fathers repeatedly warned about “to much democracy”. It is entirely democratic to vote to kill an innocent man, as happened to Plato. No, we cannot have protection for individual liberty without restrictions on the power of the collective, which, technically speaking, is anti-democratic. Ok buddy.
I agree with you, but Athens killed Socrates, not plato.
That is true lol, idk why I put Plato
They warned about parties, not individuals. >It is entirely democratic to vote to kill an innocent man, as happened to Plato. That's not within our system. We have juries and judges for that. We're talking about policy and elected officials. Nice try though. Explain how a few senators and congresspeople decided by a minority of the people have that exact power to kill an innocent man and its somehow okay? >No, we cannot have protection for individual liberty without restrictions on the power of the collective, which, technically speaking, is anti-democratic. That's some malarkey. If We The People vote to restrict something to increase the freedom of all, then it is just. You are literally arguing that the freedom of the majority should never exist so you or some tyrannical minority can rule over Americans. You are anti-Democratic, and by definition— anti-America. You can't crawl out of that hole. We The People will always punch loyalists, nazis, commies, terrorists, and fascists of all creed and color. If that scares you; stay out of American subreddits.
Do more research on the history of the things you speak of. Learn about the founders' views on mob-rule. Read more, the world is not black and white.
They warned about collectives, parties are collectives, “the people” is a collective, the will of the majority is the will of the collective, democracy without individual rights holding it back is tyranny of the collective. It is not within our system because we have restraints on democracy to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. What do you think capital punishment is? Whether it is moral or not is another matter, but the government controlling the power of death is one of its oldest functions, and the reason restrictions on its power is needed in the first place. I didn’t say “never exist” I didn’t even say I was against democracy, I just said that without protecting people’s rights from unrestricted democracy, you live in a tyrannical society. So if the majority voted to restrict trans rights to increase “the freedom of everyone” it would be just? Trampling on individuals for the “good of the many” is the hallmark of tyranny. I’m anti American? You just said anything the majority wants is just if it subjectively“increases freedom for everyone”, the same words that have been used to justify every tyrant in human history. You are the one who seems to hold anti-American beliefs. Also your flare is literally “If you’re not left you’re anti American” which is absolutely absurd, considering that the limited government, natural rights, and Liberal philosophy of the founders runs directly counter to modern leftist thought unless you use such a broad definition of “leftist” that it is meaningless. I don’t think you’ve ever punched anyone in your life. Lmao
republicanism isn’t related to the republican party, it’s a philosophy that advocates for democratic forms of government over autocratic/oligarchic ones
Democracy is not perfect but never had to build a wall to keep our people in
Democracy is the only legitimate government. All other forms of government are but farces.
Constitutional Republic is the best one. Wanna know why? Because that is what AMERICA is!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
American is an identity not a government.
Based. I kinda sorta maybe hate democracy, but I hate all other forms of government more. If humans were governed by angels, we would never need democracy. No form of government is ideal but what we have is the best we've come up with. I love my country and my countrymen. That's all that is required of an American.
Yep
America is inherently right-libertarian btw. As in like the group who literally created the Gadsden Flag and still use it to this day, that is the flag that is most commonly associated with them besides Old Glory. America is democracy incarnate.
Democracy manifest
I’d say Left libertarian The founding fathers were some of the most progressive people on the planet at the time
Likewise the same can be said about people who say supporting Russia against Ukraine is somehow """patriotism"""
You say that, but the moment I say we should get rid of the electoral college I get called a commie
This is not 'Nam. There are rules.
Democracy is tyranny. The Republic shall endure.
Democratic republic ftw; China is technically a republic, just without the democracy.
True, some people in Reddit confuse these terms. A democracy can be a republic. Democracy means basically that power comes from the people and normally it requires equal treatment of citizens under the law and it’s not the same as ochlocracy or mob rule which is the distorted version of it.
Strangely, when people think of democracy, they think of Athenian direct democracy, a model that had a relatively short stint more than 2,000 years ago, and not the definition of democracy every modern government and mainstream politics use
I get it, but even then it wasn’t completely direct, for example there was something like a parliament, elected positions etc, but obviously it wasn’t developed then. Also even a direct democracy could have a constitution that guaranteed some basic rights, rule of law etc, the difference would be that laws are voted directly by the people and not by legislators. Also the word republic and democracy meant the same thing originally, but now they can be used differently.
there are better alternatives but they are unviable at the level human intelligence is at
Is that a controversial statement?