NationStates Jolt Archive

I take issue with the idea that without Bill of human Rights protections as laid out in a constitution,
that including that would make it not a "pure" democracy.


Some would argue that in a "pure" democracy if a majority wanted to kill a minority they could,
and that inclusions of such protections would make it not
a "pure" democracy.

I disagree.
If a majority killed a minority this would merely be a sign
of democratic immaturity and by definition be not democracy.

Pure or direct democracy is pointless. With no restrictions on its lawmaking power how do you expect it to respect privacy?

In a true democracy, the majority do have all rights. The minority have NO rights. Look at some of the threads that deal with religion. "Christians are the majority therefore everyone else has NO rights."-----The basic arguement-----It isn't really a "Christian" arguement but it is the arguement made by "Conservative Christians". Without the amendments to the US constitution that protect the rights of the minority we could easily have an "Inquisition".

It should be noted that only one amendment to the US constitution took rights away, and another amendment removed it. I amazes me how I hear demands now for amendments to protect the majority. Deep down, people really don't like to give rights to others.

this is why i like living in australia, we have no bill of rights and we don't need it. no australian government would think of going far enough in it's law making to infringe on our rights like that

A direct democracy is good in small settings, like a town hall where everyone can voice their opinions and get their ideas voted on. However in a country, forget it. A representative or constitutional democracy best represents the people as a whole. You can't make everyone happy, but a representative democracy is the most democratic.

A direct democracy is good in small settings, like a town hall where everyone can voice their opinions and get their ideas voted on. However in a country, forget it. A representative or constitutional democracy best represents the people as a whole. You can't make everyone happy, but a representative democracy is the most democratic.
yes, a constitutional representative democracy, as they should have specified in their post

Direct democracy is good for social and non-technical policy, as well as constitutional amendments. Power to the people and all that.

However technical and complex policy, like monetary policy, should be left to the professionals, representative government, even if they are all in the pockets of major corporations and interest groups, corrupting the system...

My point, well I forget, but demand a referendum on gay marrage. It ain't technical!

I don't have a clue what this has to do with constitutional limitations on democracy.

Pure or direct democracy is pointless. With no restrictions on its lawmaking power how do you expect it to respect privacy?
Because the majority of people desire privacy.

In a true democracy, the majority do have all rights. The minority have NO rights. Look at some of the threads that deal with religion. "Christians are the majority therefore everyone else has NO rights."-----The basic arguement-----It isn't really a "Christian" arguement but it is the arguement made by "Conservative Christians". Without the amendments to the US constitution that protect the rights of the minority we could easily have an "Inquisition".
Wacko, fundie Christians are a minority. They're simply a loud and vocal minority. Most Christians are moderate and rational. And representative democracy has majority rule, in an even worse way, because elections establish parties, which in turn, establish political majorities.

I feel that people believe that representative democracy is the best form of democracy simply because it's what they're used to and what they've experienced. It's the same as early Europeans believing that it's preferable to have a monarchy than a democracy, or like today, with many Afghanis and Iraqis not seeing, really, what the benefit of a democracy is.

It's the same as early Europeans believing that it's preferable to have a monarchy than a democracy, or like today, with many Afghanis and Iraqis not seeing, really, what the benefit of a democracy is.

Afghanistan actually held a successful election for its lower house I believe, just recently. There needs to be a lot of work to rebuild the country, but it is definitely on the right track. Iraq is a bit more ways off.

In a democratic country constitutions, bills of rights and other institutions only exist to protect the minority.
Indeed a "pure" democracy would be a dictatorship of the majority, as many pointed out. Thus I also don't think you can actually make a pure democracy work.

The majority in a democracy has no more right to tyrannise over a minority than, under a different system, the later would have to oppress the former.
T Roosevelt.

So give me an impure democracy any day.

The majority in a democracy has no more right to tyrannise over a minority than, under a different system, the later would have to oppress the former.
T Roosevelt.

Shouldn't that be JS Mill, On Liberty. It was originally Mill anyways.

Shouldn't that be JS Mill, On Liberty. It was originally Mill anyways.
Enlighten me. It's down in my little black book as T.R.

I can't find the quote; but on second look, I feel that Roosevelt may have modified the original wording.

Now an extract from one of the finest books ever written.

On Liberty, JS Mill, 1859

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

"His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
Well duh.

Well duh.

And yet most drugs are illegal, as is gay marriage and so on and so on

And yet most drugs are illegal, as is gay marriage and so on and so on
Indeed. Perhaps we all have the wrong kind of people leading us...?

Indeed. Perhaps we all have the wrong kind of people leading us...?

Ye speak the truth lefty.

this is why i like living in australia, we have no bill of rights and we don't need it. no australian government would think of going far enough in it's law making to infringe on our rights like that

Hah, have you been watching the news lately? Our government is trying to do exactly that. I still don't know why people keep electing them. Leave someone in power that long and they're going to become corrupt, though I suspect the corruption was present in the Coalition to begin with. Labor's no better. I hate the two party system. It does not work.

As for direct democracy, I think it's a bad, bad idea. The majority is too collectively stupid and easily spooked to be given that sort of power, and the minority is usually too exclusively self-interested for it. There needs to be a balance between the two, but we haven't reached it yet, that's for certain.

One of my favourite quotes:

"No, a person is smart. People are panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
-Tommy Lee Jones as Agent Kay, "Men in Black"

In a pure democracy the majority could vote that all readheads are evil and must die . A constitutional democracy can have a bill of rights thats states all men are equal even red heads you cant treat them different . Pure democracy is another name for tyrany of the majority. A constitutional democracy would attempt to correct that .

Are there even any examples of democarcies without constitutions? One point is that a constitution does not necessarily address the issue of minority rights, although most do. I think constitutions are more about setting out the power the government has.

this is why i like living in australia, we have no bill of rights and we don't need it. no australian government would think of going far enough in it's law making to infringe on our rights like that

Effectively you do.... To my knowledge (in addition to the US), the UK, Canada and Australia all use the British system of Common Law (which is the legal basis of the Constitution and attached Bill of Rights in the system constructed by the US)...

Effectively the argument here is Direct Democratic Civil Law vs. Representative Democratic Common Law.

In a pure democracy the majority could vote that all readheads are evil and must die . A constitutional democracy can have a bill of rights thats states all men are equal even red heads you cant treat them different . Pure democracy is another name for tyrany of the majority. A constitutional democracy would attempt to correct that .

assuming, of course, that the people in charge of making the constitution care to protect anybody from anything. and also assuming, of course, that the constitution has an actual meaningful connection to how the state is run in reality.

neither of those seem to be based on much more than hope and the luck of the draw when it comes to who gets to be the ruling elite. constitutions are not magical freedom machines. and giving a ruling elite the ability to use a huge amount of violence while merely hoping that they will feel themselves bound to protect either majorities or minorities and obey some words on a bit of paper seems like lunacy to me.

The bill of rights defines the roles and limitations of government, while the democratic process determines the policies within those roles and limitations. So really, the bill of rights has no direct effect on whether a democracy is "pure".

The bill of rights defines the roles and limitations of government, while the democratic process determines the policies within those roles and limitations. So really, the bill of rights has no direct effect on whether a democracy is "pure".

especially if there are democratic ways to change the constitution and any rights it protects or omits.

Direct democracy on a large scale is the equivalent of mob rule. A majority of people could squelch the rights of anyone who opposes them. And on top of that, it would cause a humongous logistical problem. I don't trust my neighbor to know much about foreign policy. This is where the paradox of democracy comes into play.

Society is better served by any sort of democracy when less people vote. When less people vote, it tends to be those that are more active in politics and those people tend to know what is going on. It prevents ignorance like voting one party or group every time. It is infuriating when someone says they don't know anything abot the cantidates, but they are voting anyway.

I think there should be a test. I'm not saying that people shouldn;t have the right to vote, but that people who actually know what they are voting on should ahve more pull than someone who just comes to the polls because he feels a "civic duty." That is a disservice to your countrymen, no matter what country you're for. That is the type of people that screw everything up. Not the educated and those who actually watch people in charge and the decisions being made. Yet we are the minority, and as such are subject to the whims of the drooling majority.

Society is better served by any sort of democracy when less people vote. When less people vote, it tends to be those that are more active in politics and those people tend to know what is going on.



If 09/11/2001 terrorist attacks taught us anything, it is
that we cannot leave it to the experts anymore.
That's what one guy told me that very day.

discouraging democracy, look at you!

democracy is not JUST voting. it never was JUST voting.


conversing with fellow human beings,
being able to believe what one wants,
things that we do not prevent others from doing
(because, afterall, in a democracy we are the government)
so long as harm is not being done to another.

murder is the ultimate form of censorship.



having a bill of (human) rights does not make it not democracy.
Killing others is tyranny or dictatorship onto others
and thus
not democracy in any meaning of the word.
Killing is anti-democratic.

Direct democracy on a large scale is the equivalent of mob rule. A majority of people could squelch the rights of anyone who opposes them.

no, it isn't. direct democracy in no way necessitates some sort of naive majoritarianism.

Society is better served by any sort of democracy when less people vote. When less people vote, it tends to be those that are more active in politics and those people tend to know what is going on.

and you trust the few to better look after the interests of all, even when they conflict with their own interests? 'knowing what is going on' doesn't seem to be related in any way to doing what is best for anyone except for yourself. it certainly couldn't be argued that the lobbyists (and the once and future ceo) of halliburton don't know what's up politically.

I think there should be a test. I'm not saying that people shouldn;t have the right to vote, but that people who actually know what they are voting on should ahve more pull than someone who just comes to the polls because he feels a "civic duty."

who gets to write the test? and what would be on it? is there any way that this wouldn't wind up being used to disenfranchise people for the political gain of the test writers and graders?

having a bill of (human) rights does not make it not democracy.

nor does having a constitution and constitutionally protected universal sufferage. anybody ever seen stalin's constitution for the ussr? it's actually fairly impressive.

sheboygan, wi?

I went bowling sheboygan, wi once.

It was for my cousin's bachelor party.



Yeah,
plus the USSR had voting too.
To claim that voting is all that is needed for a
democracy or a free society is a joke and a lie.


So, no, Afghanistan does not have a democracy on this
day in mid september, 2005 C.E.

I take issue with the idea that without Bill of human Rights protections as laid out in a constitution,
that including that would make it not a "pure" democracy.


Some would argue that in a "pure" democracy if a majority wanted to kill a minority they could,
and that inclusions of such protections would make it not
a "pure" democracy.

I disagree.
If a majority killed a minority this would merely be a sign
of democratic immaturity and by definition be not democracy.

You worded the first paragraph wrong. I really have little idea what you meant.

In anycase, pure democracy or what is known as absolute democracy would NOT work in anything bigger than a town, and perhaps a small city. Democracy is just a word thrown around because citizens to get the chance to vote once in a while. However, making them vote ALL the time would achieve nothing in anything bigger than a town.

Hence why you elect representatives. Once you elect representatives, it becomes a republic.

Once you give a republic particular guidelines for the way it works and even what rules the government must adhere to for its citizens, it becomes a Constitutional republic.

Actually "democracy" is an improper description of the US. It is an example of how one man can change a language. Before the 1940's the US and other nations of the world were described more properly as "republics". Notice that the US pledge says "republic". Notice that democracy or democratic is NOT in ANY of the basic documents of the US. The founders knew and understood democracy and rejected it. They didn't even allow for the direct election of the Senate. So what changed? FDR belonged to the "democratic" party. So he decided that it would help the party to call the country a "democracy" rather than a "republic". After just a few years the people had for gotten "republic" and adopted "democracy". Now that idea has spread world-wide. The question is--Why don't the current Republican presidents change it back to "Republic"?

Actually "democracy" is an improper description of the US. It is an example of how one man can change a language. Before the 1940's the US and other nations of the world were described more properly as "republics". Notice that the US pledge says "republic". Notice that democracy or democratic is NOT in ANY of the basic documents of the US. The founders knew and understood democracy and rejected it. They didn't even allow for the direct election of the Senate. So what changed? FDR belonged to the "democratic" party. So he decided that it would help the party to call the country a "democracy" rather than a "republic". After just a few years the people had for gotten "republic" and adopted "democracy". Now that idea has spread world-wide. The question is--Why don't the current Republican presidents change it back to "Republic"?
Good Lifes, we are one of the few countries who do have the ability to, on some rare occassions, pass laws by referendum.

Good Lifes, we are one of the few countries who do have the ability to, on some rare occassions, pass laws by referendum.

Did you NOT read what he wrote? The citizens do NOT have the power to directly vote for our senators. Those referendums are not at the federal levels either from what I recall. They are mostly at the state level. And they are not a common occurance.

The US is a Constitutional Republic. Learn some government.

Actually "democracy" is an improper description of the US. It is an example of how one man can change a language. Before the 1940's the US and other nations of the world were described more properly as "republics". Notice that the US pledge says "republic". Notice that democracy or democratic is NOT in ANY of the basic documents of the US. The founders knew and understood democracy and rejected it. They didn't even allow for the direct election of the Senate. So what changed? FDR belonged to the "democratic" party. So he decided that it would help the party to call the country a "democracy" rather than a "republic". After just a few years the people had for gotten "republic" and adopted "democracy". Now that idea has spread world-wide. The question is--Why don't the current Republican presidents change it back to "Republic"?

no

a republic essentially means that the state isn't viewed as the personal domain of some individual or group of individuals, but is a 'thing of the public'. most republics these days are democratic - they have various democratic institutions on some level - though this may not need to be the case for something to qualify as a republic.

the u.s. is an example of a democratic republic, with the form of democracy it uses being largely representative democracy, and some smaller scale institutions of direct democracy or deliberative democracy.

Doesn't "republic" mean nothing more than that the country does not have a monarch? Constitutional monarchies, and British Commonwealth countries elect representatives but are not republics. I also think that given how widely the word "democracy" is used, people should get over the idea that it can only be use in situations where the population directly make all decisions. It's representative democracy, or just democracy for short. Or is Dubya going to have to start claiming that he's promoting "constitutional republicanism" in the Middle East...

The US is a Constitutional Republic.I am unable to see any difference between a republic and a democracy. I've been wondering what the difference is since I read some comments in another discussion here previously this week. Dictionaries usually define the words like this:

A republic is a state or country having a government whose political power depends solely on the consent of the people governed.

Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referendums

If the majority of people in the USA wanted something, shouldn't they in principle get it? If they want what Bush wants they vote for him and he does what he wants.

I am unable to see any difference between a republic and a democracy. I've been wondering what the difference is since I read some comments in another discussion here previously this week. Dictionaries usually define the words like this:

A republic is a state or country having a government whose political power depends solely on the consent of the people governed.

Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referendums

it is possible in principle that you could have a republic which had few to no democratic institutions. a 'president-for-life', for example, could rule at the consent of the governed with no input from them other than their continued lack of armed rebellion. as long as they don't claim to derive their authority from god or by heredity or through brutal repression of all dissent, but through the general will or whatever, it might qualify as a republic.

I've never heard anyone apart from Americans use the word 'democracy' to specifically mean pure democracy, and 'republic' to mean representative democracy. It just seems like pointless nitpicking to me, since no modern country would even consider running itself as a pure democracy.

I've never heard anyone apart from Americans use the word 'democracy' to specifically mean pure democracy, and 'republic' to mean representative democracy. It just seems like pointless nitpicking to me, since no modern country would even consider running itself as a pure democracy.

i think it comes from one of the federalist papers (#10, maybe?), where the author starts by talking about 'pure democracy' and 'republic' - which is defined as representative democracy, but not in those words. over the course of the paper, it turns to just democracy vs. republic. and the whole thing is about how great a republic is and how bad democracy is.

like in most things, americans speak largely in talking points written by other people.

Once you elect representatives, it becomes a republic.

so those republicans in the uk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_republican_movement) should shut up already because they've already won, right?

so those republicans in the uk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_republican_movement) should shut up already because they've already won, right?

And that sneaky Queen keeps taking public money despite being just another citizen!

And that sneaky Queen keeps taking public money despite being just another citizen!

damn welfare queens

aww, a perfect delivery and nobody around to see it...

damn welfare queens

Dude, I think I love you.

Dude, I think I love you.

didn't i have a poll about people wanting to have my babies at some point?

Did you NOT read what he wrote? The citizens do NOT have the power to directly vote for our senators. Those referendums are not at the federal levels either from what I recall. They are mostly at the state level. And they are not a common occurance.

The US is a Constitutional Republic. Learn some government.

What I said was in the beginning the founders of the US did not trust the common man to govern. One of the ways they protected the government from the majority (democracy) was to not allow the citizens to vote for senators. The senators were appointed by the state governments. A later amendment changed that so now senators are elected.

I agree with the rest of your statement. Many states also have initiative. Where the citizens can force an issue onto the ballot for a democratic vote.

i think it comes from one of the federalist papers (#10, maybe?), where the author starts by talking about 'pure democracy' and 'republic' - which is defined as representative democracy, but not in those words. over the course of the paper, it turns to just democracy vs. republic. and the whole thing is about how great a republic is and how bad democracy is.
.



Some things I've heard before are starting to really make sense.
The fact that the constitution of the US, "the rules",
were written by and rattified by a small group of wealthy white
male land holders.

It only makes sense that they would create it to serve their interests.
And now, all these years after hearing about it. It really makes sense.
We all play & live by THEIR rules.
Rules that allow the rich to get richer and huge 'under' class
of cheap poor labor.
THAT is what the constitution guarantees.

And i'm not even a marxist or communist. HA

I take issue with the idea that without Bill of human Rights protections as laid out in a constitution,
that including that would make it not a "pure" democracy.


Some would argue that in a "pure" democracy if a majority wanted to kill a minority they could,
and that inclusions of such protections would make it not
a "pure" democracy.

I disagree.
If a majority killed a minority this would merely be a sign
of democratic immaturity and by definition be not democracy.
"Pure democracy" is not well defined. But many people argue as though democracy meant despotism with the opinions of the despot replaced by the opinions of the majority of the people ("right"==the majority wants it). Obviously you can not have a bill of rights that must always be respected in despotism, so also not in pure "democracy".

no

a republic essentially means that the state isn't viewed as the personal domain of some individual or group of individuals, but is a 'thing of the public'. most republics these days are democratic - they have various democratic institutions on some level - though this may not need to be the case for something to qualify as a republic.

the u.s. is an example of a democratic republic, with the form of democracy it uses being largely representative democracy, and some smaller scale institutions of direct democracy or deliberative democracy.

The problem is one of language. "Democracy" since FDR has been used as a noun to describe the US government, and has been adopted that way in many English speaking nations. If you say "democratic republic", democratic becomes an adjective describing a noun. This would be a more proper description of the US and many other countries. The US doesn't exist as a "democracy". In the pledge...."and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands". NONE of the basic documents of the US say anything about democracy. And no one described it as such until FDR. Any time you use democracy, or democratic as a noun, you are wrong. In the debates during the writing of the constitution, democracy was discussed and rejected as being a most dangerous form of government where the emotions of the masses rather than logic, reason, and intelligence would run the country.

Well duh.
So should we have drug laws? Mill would say no, most people disagree (or at least don't find his opinion uncontroversial).

NONE of the basic documents of the US say anything about democracy. And no one described it as such until FDR. Any time you use democracy, or democratic as a noun, you are wrong. In the debates during the writing of the constitution, democracy was discussed and rejected as being a most dangerous form of government where the emotions of the masses rather than logic, reason, and intelligence would run the country.

so then what are we to make of andrew jackson's democratic-republican faction? and the democratic party that it soon became?

Are there even any examples of democarcies without constitutions? One point is that a constitution does not necessarily address the issue of minority rights, although most do. I think constitutions are more about setting out the power the government has.
Sweden has no constitution in the American sense. There are some laws that are harder to change, but we keep changing them all the time, and they don't give many rights except the right to vote and the rights of journalists.

so then what are we to make of andrew jackson's democratic-republican faction? and the democratic party that it soon became?
Jackson was a "back-woodsman" who wasn't really accepted by the "in crowd". He and others did attempt to bring more power to the people and it has worked. Only one amendment took rights away from the people and it was later made moot by another amendment. As the nation has developed, more and more people have gained more and more rights and powers. Nearly all of these rights and powers were passed under "liberal" governments. I don't say party names because the Republicans were originally founded as a "liberal" party. They slowly changed from 1860 to 1900. T. Roosevelt was the last of the liberal Republican presidents. But you notice he was not renominated because his party had become to conservative for him.

I can't find the quote; but on second look, I feel that Roosevelt may have modified the original wording.

Now an extract from one of the finest books ever written.

On Liberty, JS Mill, 1859

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
Now tha's good, a bit long winded but still...
How about 'The most dangerous foe to truth and freedom in our midst is the compact majority. Yes, the damned, compact liberal majority.' Henrik Ibson by all accounts. Sounds a bit like a frustrated wig to me.

Doesn't "republic" mean nothing more than that the country does not have a monarch? Constitutional monarchies, and British Commonwealth countries elect representatives but are not republics. I also think that given how widely the word "democracy" is used, people should get over the idea that it can only be use in situations where the population directly make all decisions. It's representative democracy, or just democracy for short. Or is Dubya going to have to start claiming that he's promoting "constitutional republicanism" in the Middle East...
At the moment he seems to be promoting islamism in Iraq (what the US tried to promote was democracy. Since the majority was fundamentalist muslims and did not care about western human rights, that means islamism).

I am unable to see any difference between a republic and a democracy.
A republic has an elected head of state. A monarchy can be a democracy, if there is some sort of voting system and a specific level of respect for everyone's freedom.

At the moment he seems to be promoting islamism in Iraq (what the US tried to promote was democracy. Since the majority was fundamentalist muslims and did not care about western human rights, that means islamism).
I have to agree. The problem is, the people of Iraq understood and understand exactly what the word democracy means. W should have said we would set up a republic. By saying democracy, he was telling the Sunni's and Kurd's that they had no rights. He appeased the Kurds by giving them partial independence and protections. But he let the Sunni hang out to dry. They know democracy and they know if they allow it they will have no rights and no power. If you were told that someone was setting up a government that gave you no rights and no power, you might just tend to fight also.

But for a word, tens of thousands die.

I have to agree. The problem is, the people of Iraq understood and understand exactly what the word democracy means. W should have said we would set up a republic. By saying democracy, he was telling the Sunni's and Kurd's that they had no rights. He appeased the Kurds by giving them partial independence and protections. But he let the Sunni hang out to dry. They know democracy and they know if they allow it they will have no rights and no power. If you were told that someone was setting up a government that gave you no rights and no power, you might just tend to fight also.

But for a word, tens of thousands die.
And is a democracy the best form of gov for their culture? A bit presumptious of the west to assume democracy suits every one.

So should we have drug laws? Mill would say no, most people disagree (or at least don't find his opinion uncontroversial).
Maybe, but I don't. I don't see why there should be drug laws. It is possible that the incorrect use of many substances can hurt an individual to the point where that person can be a risk, or impediment, to others, at which point the state has a justification to intervene.
But it is not the consumption per sé that hurts others, and so I say: Legalise it all, regulate the distribution (vendor licenses etc), and ideally have special centers where the hard drugs (such as heroin, cocaine etc) can be taken, and in emergencies help is available.

Maybe, but I don't. I don't see why there should be drug laws. It is possible that the incorrect use of many substances can hurt an individual to the point where that person can be a risk, or impediment, to others, at which point the state has a justification to intervene.
But it is not the consumption per sé that hurts others, and so I say: Legalise it all, regulate the distribution (vendor licenses etc), and ideally have special centers where the hard drugs (such as heroin, cocaine etc) can be taken, and in emergencies help is available.
"Vendor licenses etc" is a limitation of the freedom of all the people who want to sell but don't get a license, and of their costumers. So you seem to not fully agree with the Mill quote.

But I was not questioning your liberalism, only that the statement was obvious.

"Vendor licenses etc" is a limitation of the freedom of all the people who want to sell but don't get a license, and of their costumers.
:D
Now, I'm not a libertarian, that just first up.

Secondly, the licenses are a way of protecting customers from being hurt by drugs that have been manufactured in unsafe conditions, are handed out in unsafe doses etc

:D
Now, I'm not a libertarian, that just first up.

Secondly, the licenses are a way of protecting customers from being hurt by drugs that have been manufactured in unsafe conditions, are handed out in unsafe doses etc
For their own good.

What on earth did you mean when you replied to that Mill quote?

For their own good.
For the good of the customer we restrict the right of the producer, true. If you're going to take the smaller number of producers that result as a negative to the consumer, then by that logic you could exclude pretty much all forms of policy.
If you take a murderer away, you're doing that for the potential victims' own good...

What on earth did you mean when you replied to that Mill quote?
....ahem...I don't even remember. :D

It probably just seemed rather obvious to me that we should give people the choice, as long as they don't hurt others.

JS Mill, On Liberty, 1859: The Correct Quote

If all mankind minus were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

TR just expanded the meaning of the quote.

Aside from constitutional issues reguarding property , what would stop the people of the state of California from making it a socialist state if they wanted to ? They could vote for universal health care in that state . They could make the state income tax as high as they want on the rich . They could tax business at any rate they please . They could give the poor of that state all the money and programs they could think up . On a state and local level the " democracy " is way more representative than at the federal level .
Maybe thats why the STATES elect the president. Also there is nothing to stop any state from electing to become a pure democracy . They have done it before . It doesnt work for government so they changed . Why would someone insist on something that has been proven to be unworkable ? ;)

Maybe thats why the STATES elect the president.

nah, that's so that southerners would have more say in presidential elections. with direct elections, slave states would have been at a distinct disadvantage to places with more universal sufferage. by appointing electors on the basis of reps plus senators, they were able to take advantage of the 3/5 compromise again without going to the trouble of allowing their slaves to vote.

like nearly every other bad idea in american history, this too was a compromise with racist southerners.

Jackson was a "back-woodsman" who wasn't really accepted by the "in crowd". He and others did attempt to bring more power to the people and it has worked.

so, jackson and not fdr then?

T. Roosevelt was the last of the liberal Republican presidents. But you notice he was not renominated because his party had become to conservative for him.

actually, he didn't seek a third term (having served out most of mckinley's term and then gotten re-elected), and chose to back taft. after one term of taft, tr decided that taft was a fuckhead and ran for the republican nomination again. this was successfully blocked by taft's people in the party, despite tr's clear popular support in all of the states that had introduced presidential primaries (the first time they'd been used, i think). so then he ran with the progressives, creating a three-way race that split the party pretty bad, with the progressive party beating the republicans pretty badly. but this allowed the solid south to combine with the close races in the north to give it to the democrat, and friend of the kkk, woodrow wilson.

nah, that's so that southerners would have more say in presidential elections. with direct elections, slave states would have been at a distinct disadvantage to places with more universal sufferage. by appointing electors on the basis of reps plus senators, they were able to take advantage of the 3/5 compromise again without going to the trouble of allowing their slaves to vote.

like nearly every other bad idea in american history, this too was a compromise with racist southerners.

Knucklehead they never changed the constitution to reflect otherwise . Slaves or no slaves . The United STATES is still the United States .
Each STATE is still soveriegn . The electorial system is still with us . Canidates STILL try to win STATES to be the president . the PRESIDENT still has to ask PERMISSION to do things in a state . Congress is limited as to what it can do in a STATE . Your direct political influence COMES from the local level . Every politician that runs at a national level must influence the STATES that is still the REALITY of politics in the United States . Unless of course this is a different reality we are talking about ?

WTF are you talking about ? did you invent your own reality ? A six grade student knows ...wait I think it might be fourth ...At any rate if you live here and do not know the difference between state and local government I feel bad for you . Look it up in case you dont live here and are just confused .
BTW tell Al Gore its so the southern states could keep slaves that he 'aint :D the president and never will be . He could use the laugh .

In a true democracy, the majority do have all rights. The minority have NO rights. Look at some of the threads that deal with religion. "Christians are the majority therefore everyone else has NO rights."-----The basic arguement-----It isn't really a "Christian" arguement but it is the arguement made by "Conservative Christians". Without the amendments to the US constitution that protect the rights of the minority we could easily have an "Inquisition".

It should be noted that only one amendment to the US constitution took rights away, and another amendment removed it. I amazes me how I hear demands now for amendments to protect the majority. Deep down, people really don't like to give rights to others.

Which is why so many people enjoy thinking the Bible makes it seem God hates gays. A foolish lot they are.

Oh, and the US is a Federalist Republic.

Some sort of constitutional protections are necessary to maintain democracy.

Say 60% of the voters vote to disenfranchise the other 40%. Then, 60% of those still enfranchised - 36% of the population - votes to disenfranchise the other 40%. This could theoretically be repeated multiple times, resulting in a small minority controlling politics. Similar problems can occur with the restriction of free speech or the unjust detainment of dissidents.

Majority rule must be combined with individual rights, or else one has a very tenuous democracy.

I am unable to see any difference between a republic and a democracy. I've been wondering what the difference is since I read some comments in another discussion here previously this week. Dictionaries usually define the words like this:

A republic is a state or country having a government whose political power depends solely on the consent of the people governed.

Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referendums

If the majority of people in the USA wanted something, shouldn't they in principle get it? If they want what Bush wants they vote for him and he does what he wants.

Republic = Representatives doing legislation on behalf of the citizens. The Roman republic had no democratic system. The people through out the empire or even roman citizens themselves had no say in their legislators. It was still a republic through the senate.

Democracy = Decisions of a people are dictated by the rule of the citizens who vote. Example: Athenians male citizens gathered together most of the day and voted on whatever they needed to decide on. The definition you gave is correct.

Some things I've heard before are starting to really make sense.
The fact that the constitution of the US, "the rules",
were written by and rattified by a small group of wealthy white
male land holders.

It only makes sense that they would create it to serve their interests.
And now, all these years after hearing about it. It really makes sense.
We all play & live by THEIR rules.
Rules that allow the rich to get richer and huge 'under' class
of cheap poor labor.
THAT is what the constitution guarantees.

And i'm not even a marxist or communist. HA

Actually you probably are. At the very least, your uneducated, prejudice, and naive. The reason for a lot of those old rules was because the way the society was built at the time and how the economy was structured differently than it was today. Basicly, if they had cotton pickers or other farm machines back then, the entire structure would have been different.

I doubt had you lived in that society back then you would have been any better than the regular common racist since you have a lot of petty beef already billowing.

The truth is, slavery and indentured servants were a practice that was learned in england and europe and only traveled to the Americas through the colonization of it.

Aside from constitutional issues reguarding property , what would stop the people of the state of California from making it a socialist state if they wanted to ? They could vote for universal health care in that state . They could make the state income tax as high as they want on the rich . They could tax business at any rate they please . They could give the poor of that state all the money and programs they could think up . On a state and local level the " democracy " is way more representative than at the federal level .
Maybe thats why the STATES elect the president. Also there is nothing to stop any state from electing to become a pure democracy . They have done it before . It doesnt work for government so they changed . Why would someone insist on something that has been proven to be unworkable ? ;)

Just that. The Constitution regarding certain rules such as property, and primarily the state's own Constitution. The state is free to regulate its lands as it sees fit. However it truthfully should abide by the bill of rights. That also means gun ownership.

"Republic = Representatives doing legislation on behalf of the citizens. The Roman republic had no democratic system. The people through out the empire or even roman citizens themselves had no say in their legislators. It was still a republic through the senate.

Democracy = Decisions of a people are dictated by the rule of the citizens who vote. Example: Athenians male citizens gathered together most of the day and voted on whatever they needed to decide on. The definition you gave is correct."

New Zealand is NOT a republic as its head of state is the Queen. However, our Government system is that representatives do legislation on behalf of the citizens. Your definition of Republic vs Democracy is US-centric, as it is based entirely on the language used by the founders of the US.

I think that using the word 'Democracy' in this way is outdated and pointless. When someone says Democracy they mean representative democracy, or what you call a Republic. Language changes and evolves, and since the last direct Democracy seems to have been Athens 2500 years ago, this is an archaic definition.

Your definition of Republic vs Democracy is US-centric, as it is based entirely on the language used by the founders of the US.

it seems to me that we both said something similar to them earlier. maybe they can't see us?

New Zealand is NOT a republic as its head of state is the Queen. However, our Government system is that representatives do legislation on behalf of the citizens. Your definition of Republic vs Democracy is US-centric, as it is based entirely on the language used by the founders of the US.

I think that using the word 'Democracy' in this way is outdated and pointless. When someone says Democracy they mean representative democracy, or what you call a Republic. Language changes and evolves, and since the last direct Democracy seems to have been Athens 2500 years ago, this is an archaic definition.

Because if it has a queen, IT IS A MONARCHY. Crap, why HAVE a queen or claim to have a queen if your not going to call it a monarchy. Britian nor New Zealand is not a republic because it HAS a monarchy head of state. This is not a problem with the definition, it is a problem with you all forgetting there is STILL a monarchy HEAD OF STATE in place. Say times change, but the monarchy is still in place. However the citizens have less say in its government for whatever reason. It is STILL a kingdom or queendom with a monarchy system of government

Also, the founders used their terminology because, THEY WERE EDUCATED IN THESE FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. They were FAR more well read than the both of you in republics, democracy and even participated in them regularly during the period of salutory neglect, had dealt with a monarchy and parlimentary system of government, a nigh unworkable confederation, and goddamned anarchy. I'm afraid you are out of your ****ing league here.

The term "democracy" is not "outdated", it is simply a misused word as you and FDR have shown. It is a form of government in which the citizens take part in legislation by popular vote. Thus, it is a system that works very well in small local areas as it's truest form. I was using Athens as an EXAMPLE. However there is a term for Athenian democracy. It is called absolute or direct democracy. We have terms for representative democracy as well. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. A republic is NOT necessarily a represenative democracy as I mentioned with Rome.

A republic is a government structure when a few representatives, elected or not, decide legislation for a nation.

Quit whining like little losers getting pwned at life, I KNOW what the **** I am talking about here.

Because if it has a queen, IT IS A MONARCHY. Crap, why HAVE a queen or claim to have a queen if your not going to call it a monarchy. Britian nor New Zealand is not a republic because it HAS a monarchy head of state. This is not a problem with the definition, it is a problem with you all forgetting there is STILL a monarchy HEAD OF STATE in place. Say times change, but the monarchy is still in place. However the citizens have less say in its government for whatever reason. It is STILL a kingdom or queendom with a monarchy system of government

Also, the founders used their terminology because, THEY WERE EDUCATED IN THESE FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. They were FAR more well read than the both of you in republics, democracy and even participated in them regularly during the period of salutory neglect, had dealt with a monarchy and parlimentary system of government, a nigh unworkable confederation, and goddamned anarchy. I'm afraid you are out of your ****ing league here.

The term "democracy" is not "outdated", it is simply a misused word as you and FDR have shown. It is a form of government in which the citizens take part in legislation by popular vote. Thus, it is a system that works very well in small local areas as it's truest form. I was using Athens as an EXAMPLE. However there is a term for Athenian democracy. It is called absolute or direct democracy. We have terms for representative democracy as well. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. A republic is NOT necessarily a represenative democracy as I mentioned with Rome.

A republic is a government structure when a few representatives, elected or not, decide legislation for a nation.

Quit whining like little losers getting pwned at life, I KNOW what the **** I am talking about here.


from wiki pedia.
Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referendums, open to all or most citizens. In recent decades 'democracy' was used as a synonym for (western) liberal-democratic systems in nation-states, but the existence of "illiberal democracies" is now recognised. The qualifier 'liberal' in this context refers strictly speaking to constitutional liberalism and individual rights, but 'liberal democracy' is widely used to describe other aspects, (see below and the main article Liberal democracy). Definitions of democracy have in any case broadened to include aspects of society and political culture in democratic societies, which are not specifically a 'form of government'. Most liberal-democracies are parliamentary representative democracies, but there are many varieties of democracy, some still hypothetical. The term 'democratic' is also used in a looser sense, to describe participatory decision-making in groups or organisations.

Since there are other forms of government, the preference for the democratic form is itself an ideology, and a source of conflict. Despite its historical importance, there is no separate name for this ideology; it is referred to as 'pro-democracy' or simply 'democracy'. It is a universal ideology: most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government. Democratisation is the replacement of these non-democratic forms by a democracy, and the historical impact of modern democracy has taken the form of successive democratisations of nation-states (rather than slow parallel evolution). If it continues, some consider that this process will make the liberal-democratic nation-states the standard form of human society, although they are historically recent and historically unique. This (incomplete) transition is the core of the end of history thesis presented by Francis Fukuyama.

The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia). The components of the word are δημος (demos), the people; κρατειν (kratein), to rule; and the suffix ία (ia). The term means "rule by the people".

Well since I enjoy irony I thought I would add that the above information is being disputed . A small sample from wikipedia..

Should there be a distinction between a republic and a democracy?
The original distinguished between a republic and a democracy, but I question whether mainstream politicial science distinguishes between them. (On which I might add, I am no real expert.) This distinction seems to be mainly one made in the US, especially by certain political groups (Libertarians for instance.) To an Australian like me, and I guess to a lot of other people, the distinction makes no sense at all. In short, the definitions the original article was based on are minority definitions; I have tried to make them fit better with what the majority of people mean.

See http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=democracy which defines democracy as "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" (American Heritage Dictionary).

-- Simon J Kissane

My friend!!!! DEMOCRACY IT IS NOT WHAT YOUR STUPID DICTIONARY IS SAYING!! -- 146.124.102.84, Jan 23, 2003
Restoring deletion. If you wish to change the article, Simon, do so acknowledging what you allege--from an admitted position of ignorance--is a minority position. And in any case, please do not remove useful content--which you did. --LMS
Well, the point of view of the article doesn't fit one major dictionary's (the American Heritage Dictionary's) defintion at least:
democracy: "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."
republic: "A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president."
Maybe I was being a bit accusatory and hasty in my original statement, and if so I do apologise. But my point remains that a lot of people (me and the American Heritage Dictionary) included do not take democracy to mean "direct democracy" and republic to mean "indirect democracy"; they take democracy to mean "democracy, either direct or indirect", and republic to mean "not a monarchy, be it democratic or un-democratic".
So maybe I am wrong to think it is solely some particular minorities view on the meaning of the word democracy, but I still maintain that the meaning I give it is the more common one. And I think articles should reflect words as they are most commonly used. -- Simon J Kissane
The American Heritage Dictionary is pure propaganda, and if it is the best reference you can find to back any assertion, the assertion is almost certainly biased beyond saving. That dictionary was authored in order to back the classical American view of politics, which is obviously not an NPOV. EofT, August 1, 2003


it seems the whole subject of democracy requires a vote .. :D

As an aside The term " constitutional Monarchy" has been used to describe the system of government with a monarch as a figurehead .
A constitutional monarchy is a form of monarchical government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges a hereditary or elected monarch as head of state. Modern constitutional monarchies usually implement the concept of trias politica, or "separation of powers", where the monarch is the head of the executive branch. Where a monarch holds absolute power, it is known as an absolute monarchy, and law within an absolute monarchy can often be quite different from law within a constitutional monarchy.

Today, constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents theories of sovereignty which place sovereignty in the hands of the people, and those that see a role for tradition in the theory of government. Though the king or queen may be regarded as the head of state, it is the Prime Minister, whose power derives directly or indirectly from elections, who actually governs the country.

Although current constitutional monarchies are mostly representative democracies, this has not always historically been the case. There have been monarchies which have coexisted with constitutions which were fascist (or quasi-fascist), as was the case in Italy, Japan and Spain, or those in which the government is run as a military dictatorship, as was the case in Thailand.

Some constitutional monarchies are hereditary; others, such as that of Malaysia are elective monarchies.






In case you are confused here is the wikipedia explaination of the politics of New Zealand.

New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. Under the New Zealand Royal Titles Act (1953), Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of New Zealand and is represented as head of state by the Governor-General, Dame Silvia Cartwright.

Parliament consists of the unicameral House of Representatives, normally consisting of 120 members, from which an executive Cabinet of about 20 ministers is appointed. There is no single written constitution; however, the Constitution Act (1986) is the principal formal statement of New Zealand's constitutional structure. The Cabinet is led by the Prime Minister, currently Helen Clark of the centre-left Labour party, which governs in coalition with the further-left Progressive Party and with support from the Christian conservative party, United Future.

General elections are held every three years. The last were held in September 2005 and the next will be held no later than 2008. The Leader of the Opposition is Don Brash who became leader of the National party on 28 October 2003. Currently eight parties are represented in the House of Representatives, which since 1996 has been elected by a form of proportional representation called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

The highest court in New Zealand is the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The Supreme Court was established in 2004 following the passage of the Supreme Court Act in 2003. The Act abolished the option to appeal Court of Appeal rulings to the Privy Council in London. The current Chief Justice is Dame Sian Elias. New Zealand's judicary also has a High Court which deals with serious criminal offences and civil matters, and a Court of Appeal, as well as subordinate courts.



Republic
A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote. This power is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them.


To get back on topic I think this explains things well .

America's founders were well aware of the evils of pure democracy, and wisely made the United States a limited constitutional republic in which individual rights were strongly protected.

The word democracy does not appear either in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. Instead, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
The difference between a Constitutional republic and a democracy is the difference between liberty and slavery. As Ira Glasser, former Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, explains:

"Even in a democracy the majority must be limited in order to guarantee individual rights and personal autonomy."

"If whites have more votes than blacks, they cannot be allowed to deny blacks their constitutional rights. If men have more political power than women, that cannot permit them to deny women certain individual rights. Winning an election should not permit the victors to assemble their votes and enact laws or govern in a way that strips those who lose of their liberty."

The problem with "dueling dictionaries" is the word "democracy" is a very abstract term. It means something different in the mind of each person who hears it. Sort of like the words "love" or "hate". It matters if one person is talking at a lower abstract level where democracy is a vote of the majority of the people, But, someone else is listening at a higher abstract level where democracy is any government that allows people to express their wants. This abstraction of the term is rather new (as history goes). As stated before it was started by FDR and has spread throughout the English speaking world.

Because of the many and varied abstract meanings and hues of the word, nearly everyone can say they live in a democracy. Note that NORTH Korea is "The People's Democratic Republic of Korea"

In today's word, saying you are against democracy is like saying you are against Mothers. The problem is no one knows what you really mean. They just automatically agree Mothers and Democracy are great.