NationStates Jolt Archive

Out of those three, which do you believe would be the most efficient in protecting individual rights?

Or you could argue for a constitutionally whatever, but it's your choice.

a dictator ready for a dictators powers who is also really smart

a dictator ready for a dictators powers who is also really smart
Like Jesus or something.

What is the difference between a republic and representative democracy?

It all depends on the beliefs and attitudes of the voters/leaders/despots...

In my opinion, the best one would be true communism, though this has yet to be even remotely achieved on any scale larger than a few dozen people. The next closest would be a direct democracy, with laws and such to protect against tyranny of the majority. The problem with any form of government is that it's run by people, and as such is practically destined to become a tool for gathering power into the hands of a few.

::grumble::Stupid human nature, screwing up my ideals::grumble::

Well, democracy, which revolves around the will of the collective majority is probably the worst choice. Individuals do not make decisions in a democracy. Those individuals with deviant opinions or positions are simply out of luck.

A republic is simply an indirect democracy, so it fails for the same reasons above.

"Egilitarianism" is impossible, as even those who support such an ideology strive for political control and power, thus automatically raising themselves above and superior to others. It's self-defeating. And again, the focus is not on individuals, but on the equality of the collective.

A monarchy would work nicely if there were any human beings capable of absolute and untarnished benevolence. I'm not holding my breath.

Thus, all of the choices are eliminated. I vote "none of the above."

Trans-human']What is the difference between a republic and representative democracy?

it is entirely possible to have non-democratic republics.

Trans-human']What is the difference between a republic and representative democracy?
A Republic is where the founders of a nation get together and write, say, a Consitution, and the rights of the citizens are spelled out explicitly in said Constitution. Generally, Republics are also Democracies, meaning that said Constitutions tend to explain whom the citizen can vote for and when, what rights he has and under what circumstances those rights can be taken away. The United States is a good example of a Democratic Republic.

'Pure' Democracy, on the other hand [at least, one detached from being a 'Republic'--a requisite for this poll since the two options appear to be mutually exclusive] is the idea that the majority decides which rights exist and which don't: the majority decides who can be voted for and when, and more or less everything else the Constitution would have taken care of in a Republic. Democracy is more of an ideal than a political system, being that it can be fused with a number of different economic and/or political models.

Trans-human']What is the difference between a republic and representative democracy?
And what's the difference between a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy?

The choice in this poll is invalid - both republics and monarchies can be dictatorial tyrannies (Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia) or free democracies (Germany, UK).

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" So we must avoid any system in which a select group of people has power for any time.

Yay for naive idealism!:)

a dictator ready for a dictators powers who is also really smart

What if he dies?

The best way is the British way, a Constitutional Monarchy.

The best way is the British way, a Constitutional Monarchy.
Even better is the Swedish/Danish/Dutch/Spanish way - a constitutional monarchy with a written constitution.

The best way is the British way, a Constitutional Monarchy.
I agree, but real power must rest with the monarch, not the Prine minister

Even better is the Swedish/Danish/Dutch/Spanish way - a constitutional monarchy with a written constitution.
Absolutely. Replace the cabinet with an intellectual elite a la Plato's Republic (a meritocratic system monitored by external bodies) and keep Parliament to keep the state rulers informed of the populace's desires and opinions and you have an excellent system. The Monarch can have some powers and serve as the country's symbol of power. At least this way you don't have a bunch of vote-whores (ie politicians) grabbing power, but rather an educated elite (which would be based on intellect and ability, not wealth). Absolute egalitarianism (anarchism) is nonsense, as it is founded on principles which will never come to fruition, and I detest partisan parliamentarism that is common in most republics.

Even better is the Swedish/Danish/Dutch/Spanish way - a constitutional monarchy with a written constitution.
Hey! It's written! It's... just not all written in one place... :p

Hey! It's written! It's... just not all written in one place... :p
Tell me about it :p I have to study it...:rolleyes:

Go, Idealism!!! :fluffle: :D

Pure Democracy is political shorthand for "mob rule", so no. We fought King George for our independance aand won, but apparently he wants his job back now, so no to constitutional monarchies. Idealism sounds good, but I'll leave that fo the kids and hippies.
I chose the impefect Republic as the best option.

Hey! It's written! It's... just not all written in one place... :p
Bits of it are written, much of it isn't. There's no written definition of the office of Prime Minister, for example, and yet it is the most important office in the whole constitutional system.

just fyi, not meant to patronize:

since you're comparing more than two things, the question should be, "Which of these would best protect individual rights?"

"better" is used only when comparing two things

carry on.

btw, the poll results are astonishingly close.

btw, the poll results are astonishingly close.
Meh monarchy is down by 2 votes :( :p Hell, my vision of a political system isn't exactly monarchy anyway, so I won't hold my breath.

Well, democracy, which revolves around the will of the collective majority is probably the worst choice. Individuals do not make decisions in a democracy. Those individuals with deviant opinions or positions are simply out of luck.
Democracy is the only system where the individual's voice is heard on all issues. A republic only hears the individual's voice when it's time to pick representatives, or in the case of referenda. A monarchy doesn't guarantee that the individual's voice is heard on any issues.

Democracy is the only system where the individual's voice is heard on all issues. A republic only hears the individual's voice when it's time to pick representatives, or in the case of referenda. A monarchy doesn't guarantee that the individual's voice is heard on any issues.
That depends on how powerful the Parliament is. If the Parliament acts as the expression of the public's opinions and desires, rather than as a tool for representatives to govern with, it may actually ensure that the Monarch and the governing elite actually are aware of what is going on.

That depends on how powerful the Parliament is. If the Parliament acts as the expression of the public's opinions and desires, rather than as a tool for representatives to govern with, it may actually ensure that the Monarch and the governing elite actually are aware of what is going on.Monarchy doesn't require that there be a parliament.

a true democracy is the will of the majority and will not protect the rights of a minority, a republic can do that.

Monarchy doesn't require that there be a parliament.
There are various forms of monarchy. A constitutional monarchy could well enforce its existence. My idea of monarchy is radically different to the commonplace notion of what it should be.

a true democracy is the will of the majority and will not protect the rights of a minority, a republic can do that.
Agreed. The Republic can be of any shape or form though, be it constitutional monarchy or representative democracy.

There are various forms of monarchy. A constitutional monarchy could well enforce its existence. My idea of monarchy is radically different to the commonplace notion of what it should be.This is true, but I wouldn't say that there's a huge difference between that type of constitutional monarchy and a republic, and therefore it would still be difficult to say that monarchy is better, as the republic doesn't have inherited positions of power.

This is true, but I wouldn't say that there's a huge difference between that type of constitutional monarchy and a republic, and therefore it would still be difficult to say that monarchy is better, as the republic doesn't have inherited positions of power.
In my view, only the Monarch should inherit his or her power. Government should be done by an elite consisting of the nation's brightest minds, monitored by independent bodies and so on, a more liberal version of Plato's Republic. The Monarch would be a symbol of the nation rather than actual power. Parliament would ensure that the public's concerns are voiced. This is my idea of a monarchical republic.

In my view, only the Monarch should inherit his or her power. Government should be done by an elite consisting of the nation's brightest minds, monitored by independent bodies and so on, a more liberal version of Plato's Republic. The Monarch would be a symbol of the nation rather than actual power. Parliament would ensure that the public's concerns are voiced. This is my idea of a monarchical republic.
Would these independent monitors have power, and would they also be made up of the nation's brightest minds?

Would these independent monitors have power, and would they also be made up of the nation's brightest minds?
They would have power enough to sure that the elite does not overstep its boundaries. They would not necessarily be associated with the elite to eliminate any vested interests. The body would have to be independent and without bias. It would be more of a judiciary than an executive.

In my view, only the Monarch should inherit his or her power. Government should be done by an elite consisting of the nation's brightest minds, monitored by independent bodies and so on, a more liberal version of Plato's Republic. The Monarch would be a symbol of the nation rather than actual power. Parliament would ensure that the public's concerns are voiced. This is my idea of a monarchical republic.

while a good idea, I believe it is ultimately unworkable. Nobody likes a government where only the elite rule (though that might be the current practice in even many western democracies, that is not the percieved notion)

In all of these forms of government, success depends on the decision-makers being good people, intelligent, benevolent, empowered, enabled, and engaged in the process.

Do we want one person, or many people, making decisions?

Best answer is a good monarch. Worst answer is a bad monarch. The more people there are, the more the goodness and intelligence one finds in any crowd gets diluted by the badness and idiocy one also finds in any crowd.

Personally, I'd love to find a form of government that was not dependent on the character of its rulers for success. That would be ideal.

while a good idea, I believe it is ultimately unworkable. Nobody likes a government where only the elite rule (though that might be the current practice in even many western democracies, that is not the percieved notion)
Yet in the end its much better to have the best and most able ruling a society, rather than idiotic vote mongers. I would rather be ruled by an elite that is truly the best, than by a bunch of pathetic whores that sell themselves and their ideals to the highest bidder (ie the voters).

Collective protection of rights under anarchy is the best. Collective protection of rights under monarchy is second.

Collective protection of rights under anarchy is the best. Collective protection of rights under monarchy is second.
If there is no authority to impose the collective protection of rights under anarchy, how will this occur?

Well, democracy, which revolves around the will of the collective majority is probably the worst choice. Individuals do not make decisions in a democracy. Those individuals with deviant opinions or positions are simply out of luck.

A republic is simply an indirect democracy, so it fails for the same reasons above.

"Egilitarianism" is impossible, as even those who support such an ideology strive for political control and power, thus automatically raising themselves above and superior to others. It's self-defeating. And again, the focus is not on individuals, but on the equality of the collective.

A monarchy would work nicely if there were any human beings capable of absolute and untarnished benevolence. I'm not holding my breath.

Thus, all of the choices are eliminated. I vote "none of the above."

You are a smart guy.

Democracy is the only system where the individual's voice is heard on all issues. A republic only hears the individual's voice when it's time to pick representatives, or in the case of referenda. A monarchy doesn't guarantee that the individual's voice is heard on any issues.

The democracy does not hear the individual's voice it hears the collective's voice. To hear the individual's voice there must be a response to dissent, in democracy, there is none.

If there is no authority to impose the collective protection of rights under anarchy, how will this occur?

Reason will be authority, or the individuals reasonable behavior at least. The individual will realize that only through mutual respect of rights will rights exist.

Reason will be authority, or the individuals reasonable behavior at least. The individual will realize that only through mutual respect of rights will rights exist.
And when will this happen? I think you expect too much of humans.

And when will this happen? I think you expect too much of humans.

I don't know when or if it will happen, that is just how it would happen.

I don't think any of us know what to expect out of the human race, look how far we have progressed in the last 500 years. If we make it another 500, who knows how society will be conducted.

I don't know when or if it will happen, that is just how it would happen.

I don't think any of us know what to expect out of the human race, look how far we have progressed in the last 500 years. If we make it another 500, who knows how society will be conducted.
Then this is ultimately idealistic, perhaps even utopian. It may happen one day, yet it may well never transpire.

Then this is ultimately idealistic, perhaps even utopian. It may happen one day, yet it may well never transpire.

Just because it may never happen doesn't mean I can't wish for it.

Just because it may never happen doesn't mean I can't wish for it.
Hey, I agree with you there, yet for the time being I'd rather focus on forms of government which are actually feasible.

Hey, I agree with you there, yet for the time being I'd rather focus on forms of government which are actually feasible.

I would say that the present path government should take would be steady privatization of government services, with a slow shift from democracy to monarchy.

I would say that the present path government should take would be steady privatization of government services, with a slow shift from democracy to monarchy.
Indeed. Partisan politics should eventually die.

a true democracy is the will of the majority and will not protect the rights of a minority, a republic can do that.

i guess. for example, the union of soviet socialist republics, which protected the privileges of a minority quite nicely.


nothing about 'democracy' requires naive majoritarianism, where simple majorities always win and can do whatever they want. just like nothing about a republic requires it to protect the rights of anybody.

Originally Posted by [NS]Trans-human
What is the difference between a republic and representative democracy?

And what's the difference between a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy?

The choice in this poll is invalid - both republics and monarchies can be dictatorial tyrannies (Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia) or free democracies (Germany, UK).

Actually there are very distinct though sutble differences here between each.
Its a matter of where the power lies.

In a Democracy, power is thought to be with the people. So the diff between a Direct Democracy and a Represenative democracy being in a Rep. Democracy people elect others to speak for them.

In a Republic however, power lies with the representatives themselves. Citizens elect represenatives to rule for them, rather then speak for them. A represenative holds the power the the citizen would otherwise hold (in a direct democracy). Representatives here have more freedom to act, where in a Rep. Democracy they would have to answer to the people more directly.

Constitutional Monarchy again is even more different because its just a monarchy with a constitution and a parliment. In many cases the Monarchs still have power (not the case with the UK). in each case though, power is farther and farther away from the people (from direct democracy to constitutional monarchy)

Any system can become a dictorial tyranny at its most peverse contimination.. but we are looking at the structure of the systems themselves (the UK and Germany are hardly dictitorial today)

Frankly, I think people get too caught up in wanting more political rights, IMHO if you get ample civil rights then you should only want a government that is strong and stable, so I voted for Monarchy, a government where the head reigns for life is more stable than one that gets a shake-up every four years.

Man this arguement seems way too similar to Cicero's discussion over

Autocracy versus Democracy versus Republics.

Mob rule blows, but royalty sucks.

More later.

Frankly, I think people get too caught up in wanting more political rights, IMHO if you get ample civil rights then you should only want a government that is strong and stable, so I voted for Monarchy, a government where the head reigns for life is more stable than one that gets a shake-up every four years.
That's why I would prefer a constitutional monarchy. Or if that isn't achievable, at least a bicameral parliament with members of the upper-house appointed for life (without hereditary succession if need be).