You don’t think the United States is a representative democracy?
Well, I can’t see how anyone wouldn’t be convinced by your intellectually stimulating discussion. Excellent contribution to your own thread.
whats happens when the two combine making it a hybrid, a democratic republic like the US,
Allan
What do you mean by soverignty?
Democracy: everyone votes on everything.
Republic: everyone votes on a representative
A bit of an oversimplification. But not hard to understand
Jefferson considered the US a representative democracy:
I consider the [War of 1812], with him, as ‘made on good advice,’ that is, for just causes, and it’s dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings . . .
What country do you think Jefferson is referring to there?
Republican institutions are part of a representative democracy. They are not in opposition to it.
Do you think “republic” has anything to do with how the ruling class is chosen?
Power.
No.
Jefferson was an anti-federalist (true). He is a huge reason we have the mess we do today.
Now that is a great question! I’m impressed!
Been reading Madison before the change?
Great explaination. Would you mind expanding? I cant read your mind.
Can you have a republican monarchy?
As a theoretical thing? As a historical thing? I don’t know. There’s a historian who describes the Byzantine Empire that way.
Theoretcally, I dont see why not? I could see a form of government where the citizenry vote on a monarch.
I did in the first post.
Did you know Allan, that the way Senators were chosen prior to the 17th Amendment was one of Madison’s counters to accusations of a consolidated government?
In our Constitutional Republic each man can practice his traditions, culture and heritage in peace as long as he doesn’t violate or harm others without the consent of majority.
Watch out. Language like this could trigger Sneaky.
I don’t think the majority can give someone the ability to violate or harm others in many cases. Maybe none.
Is that all you have? Are you done?
I have a lot more if you’re brave enough to talk about it.
For starters, Conan’s definition was problematic, for the reason I identified.
Secondly, individual sovereignty is just as easily, if not easier, to violate with or without a “republic or democracy”. Saying that “sovereignty” resides in the individual is basically a meaningless statement outside of a philosophical abstraction.
Yes… Pure democracy is just tyranny of 50% plus 1 vote.
