america was founded a free republic not democracy

i want everyones take on why we should be a democracy when we were a FREE REPUBLIC and our forefathers foretold how bad democracy is. and another thing thats bad about it is mob rules(51% rules 49% of the people). that is not how america was founded. from what i have seen democracy are just as bad as socialist communist. it was stalin that said democracys are a perfect merge between corparate interest and the state.

and if you think we were founded a democracy prove it and post your findings

im getting sick of people saying if you dont like america then get out or you need to abide by our new rules. when in reality its those people that are destroying america

our country was the only one founded the way it was and gave rights to the citizens and now we dont have that right. the police have the right to harrass you torturing is ok and all this other crap that sould not be allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

another thing thats bad about it is mob rules(51% rules 49% of the people).

---

Not always the case. Sometimes the vote is 75% - 25%. Is someone perhaps tired of being on the short end of the stick? Curious what rights have been denied to you, or that you think are due?

As a "great" American once said..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (Kirk: Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, 1982)
Not too sure Stalin would be the one I look to for info on democracies.
New or old, rules are still rules.

Democracy:
In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.
Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

i want everyones take on why we should be a democracy when we were a FREE REPUBLIC

---

I'm not sure what the distinction is that you are making between a republic and a democracy. Isn't a republic a form of a democracy? A democracy is a form of governemnt characterized by elections, and a republic is a form of a democracy in which elections select representatives that represent the elctorate, I think. Please correct me if that is not right. So what are you saying is the problem?

The most prevalent form of democracy is called "liberal democracy". No need to cross-referrence this with our common perception of "Liberalism", as many consveratives would find many of their views to be the same as Classical Liberalism. I found, upon taking political science, that Classical Liberalism and Conservatism take forms that are far from the pseudo representations we see today. I personally like Classical Liberalism the best, but there are great areas of all philosophies to utilize of course.

Anywho, liberal democracy utilizes the the "first past the post" method of majority representation. Hence, like texas said, 51% can end up supressing the rights of the other 49%. This is why a lot of places are toying with the idea of reforming their systems to one of proportional representation. I forget all the specifics, as it's been over a year for me since taking political science, but the system basically goes like this:


50% + 1 or more leads to victory, as in classic liberal democracy. However, the victor in the system of proportional representation only gets exactly 50% + 1. If they get, say, 76%, then 26% of their votes ( -1 ) would go to the second place winner. The second place winner would then have their excess votes alotted to the third place winner, and so forth. This basically ensures that the rights of minorities recieve proportional representation when implementing legislation, as the name suggests.
There is more to it, but as I said my memory is too rusty to describe the rest.


A couple years ago my province had our election and we voted on having a reform to PR. The vote lost by a narrow margin, and I was one of the people who voted against it. I was, however, one of many who didn't fully understand the system since it does get a bit complicated. After studying it thoroughly in political science though, I find the system preferrable and wish I had voted the other way.

for instance in a free republic marijuana cant be illegal because a select few want it illegal, making me wear a seatbelt, not having the right to question the law. our country was not founded so afew or a majority can take away our freedoms because they want to or its their agenda too. it is your right to do things in a free republic. you dont have the rights in a democracy you have to earn privilages like driving and so on, now days its a privilage to drive not our right. yes we have always elected a leader and we set restrictions on them and around 100 yrs ago we started to preach about democracys and started to give our true american government away like the right to print money, stay out of our lives, foreign policy changed ect ect ect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

for instance in a free republic marijuana cant be illegal because a select few want it illegal, making me wear a seatbelt, not having the right to question the law. our country was not founded so afew or a majority can take away our freedoms because they want to or its their agenda too. it is your right to do things in a free republic. you dont have the rights in a democracy you have to earn privilages like driving and so on, now days its a privilage to drive not our right. yes we have always elected a leader and we set restrictions on them and around 100 yrs ago we started to preach about democracys and started to give our true american government away like the right to print money, stay out of our lives, foreign policy changed ect ect ect

---

I'm not sure if what you are saying about the governemnt making laws about what you can or cannot do has anything to do with it being a free republic versus a democracy or vice versa. I don't think so.

The powers of the US government are not defined by what it is called (free republic, democracy, federation, bunch 'o crazies, klepotocracy, evil cabal, whatever), they are defined by the US Constitution. The laws restricting your freedoms are allowed by the Constitution. (Of course, someone will now say that they are NOT constittional, but that's a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, according to the Constitution.) The Constitution is what it is, so if you look at that set of laws and decide it's a democracy and not a free republic according to your definition, then that's your business, but it doesn't really change what the Constituion is.

Incorrect. Our country was founded as an indirect democracy via electoral college. By technicality the popular vote means nothing, and the electoral college makes the ultimate decision. Google the instances when the electoral college overrode the popular vote.

Its not always 51 triumphs 49, sometimes the 49 triumphs the 51 if the elector is feelin itchy. Or they just want to be different. No elector is bound by any obligation to vote for what the masses have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I'm not sure if what you are saying about the governemnt making laws about what you can or cannot do has anything to do with it being a free republic versus a democracy or vice versa. I don't think so.

The powers of the US government are not defined by what it is called (free republic, democracy, federation, bunch 'o crazies, klepotocracy, evil cabal, whatever), they are defined by the US Constitution. The laws restricting your freedoms are allowed by the Constitution. (Of course, someone will now say that they are NOT constittional, but that's a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, according to the Constitution.) The Constitution is what it is, so if you look at that set of laws and decide it's a democracy and not a free republic according to your definition, then that's your business, but it doesn't really change what the Constituion is.

---

as we were founded i had the right to put things in my body weather bad or not it was my right. now there a bunch of natural things banned

i have the right to teach my kid the way i want. now days you cant spank your kid without government steping in

in a free republic the supreme court CANNOT change the constitution in a democracy they can. and generally when you change the constitution like that you are doing it for political reasons or for $$$



and still no one has shown me that we were founded a democracy, but just saying we are one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefer86

Incorrect. Our country was founded as an indirect democracy via electoral college. By technicality the popular vote means nothing, and the electoral college makes the ultimate decision. Google the instances when the electoral college overrode the popular vote.

Its not always 51 triumphs 49, sometimes the 49 triumphs the 51 if the elector is feelin itchy. Or they just want to be different. No elector is bound by any obligation to vote for what the masses have.

---

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


the electorial college system was first ratified in 1804 and first tried in 1796 and showed major complications

our country was founded/declared in 1776 and most of the bill of rights and the first 10 amendments to the people came in 1791

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

as we were founded i had the right to put things in my body weather bad or not it was my right. now there a bunch of natural things banned

i have the right to teach my kid the way i want. now days you cant spank your kid without government steping in

in a free republic the supreme court CANNOT change the constitution in a democracy they can. and generally when you change the constitution like that you are doing it for political reasons or for $$$



and still no one has shown me that we were founded a democracy, but just saying we are one

---

I have a feeling this is a discussion going nowhere. My point was that it doesn't matter what you call it, the form of government is defined by the Constitution, not by what it is called. I'm not the one calling it one thing or another, you are, and I am just trying to figure out what you mean. It doesn't matter to me what it is called --- you call it whatever you want, and I'll just call it the US govenrment.

I was trying to respond to when you said, "If you think we were founded a democracy prove it and post your findings." My point is that our founding document is the US Constitution, not some kind of declaration that "we are a democracy" or "we are a free republic." We are still working from the same set of rules, with whatever ammendments have been added over time, so I would say we are still operating under the same form of government that we were founded under, whatever you want to call it.

The people don't vote to determine laws except on the most local levels. That's why we vote for representation.

Therefore we are a republic, not a democracy. The only real democracy in the world is in Appenel, Switzerland. They still vote on laws with straws.

Uhh, thank you for restating the 12th amendment. It states that appointed electors cast the vote for presidency, not the population, althought they generally go along with the population.

Indirect democracy.

Is your argument that the 12th amendment doesnt apply because it was ratified after the bill of rights? Then neither does womens voting or abolition.

What is your argument? Please read our constitution CAREFULLY and find out how shit works.

I dont understand what you are trying to prove. Your claim and warrant have nothing to do with one another.

We are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, meaning the people vote on who they want and the electoral college makes the final decision. Please please please read the constitution.

"Indisputably, this nation was founded as a republic and its leaders were justifiably afraid of a democracy,
lest it destroy the nation they had risked their lives to establish"

The author is secretary of Sons of Liberty (P.O. Box 44673, Boise, ID 83711-0673; phone 208-322-7863), a network of activist patriots whose goals is "the full and permanent restoration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as their authors intended them" â?? The editors.

It was long ago speculated that the reason why so many Americans â?? especially new (naturalized) and working class Americans â?? register and vote as Democrats instead of Republicans is that they think this nation is a democracy. After all, that's what they've been told all their lives, and, wanting to be "good Americans," they opt to call themselves Democrats.

As a person who has never been able to understand how so many people with, supposedly, common sense would identify with and slavishly support the very party that bleeds their pocketbooks dry while enacting interminable tax loopholes for their very rich campaign contributors, that theory makes better sense than anything I have been able to come up with.
Alexander Hamilton said: "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."

The redefining of "democracy" is one of the most disastrous and potentially fatal blows America has ever suffered, and the most frustrating thing about it is that it is such a blatant lie. The simple truth is that America is not now, never was, and was never intended to be a "democracy."

The political systems known as "democracy" and "republic" were created and named concurrently about 3,000 years ago in ancient Greece in what are known as "city-states": cities that were in bare-knuckle competition with each other even though their citizens were all the same nationality, Greek.

The one thing both systems had in common was the idea of self rule; that is, the absence of a "king" by any name. The distinction between them was that, in democracies, the qualified voters (which included every "free" citizen â?? yes, the ancient Greeks had their helots; lower, "serf" class people) met together and enacted all laws and made all decisions directly for the state. In the republics, the qualified voters elected representatives who, in turn, met together and enacted all laws and made all decisions for the state. Obviously, any political unit that got too large for all its qualified voters to meet together at one time in one place could not be a democracy, even if it wanted to be.

Also, keep in mind the fact that, contrary to what every 20th Century "liberal" (closet communist) propagandist tells you, "democracies" have never been classless societies, and have never been governments "of all the people."

Furthermore, even then, even 2,500 to 3,000 years ago, the dangers and failures of a democracy had revealed themselves, as shown by writers of the times.

About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor, gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others, and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens equally."

About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is flattered by others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer willing to submit to control, but demand that everything be subject to their authority. The invariable result is that government assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in fact the most execrable thing, mob rule."

And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is more cruel than wars or tyrants."

More than 2,000 years before this nation was founded, democracy had been recognized by its creators for the political and economic failure it is.

Colonial American Experience â?? Subsequent to declaring their independence from Britain, the colonies established their own, individual governments and, apparently in the enthusiasm of independence, most of them incorporated "democratic" standards for qualifying voters in their systems. According to some of the framers of the Constitution and to many 20th Century historians, this act very nearly caused the political death of the infant nation.

Specifically, most of the colonies voted themselves all manner of benefits without any apparent reflection on the ramifications of their acts. As a result, the individual colonies as well as the Confederation were confronted with massive debts and zero funds with which to pay them off. They had no credit â?? either financial or psychological â?? anywhere in the world. They were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and facing the very real threat of being taken over by some European nation.

This crisis, created by the financial and social irresponsibility of "democracy," compelled the convening in 1787 â?? barely four years after wining their war for independence â?? of the convention that led to the writing of our Constitution. During those debates, the danger and failure of democracy as a political system was known and pointed out.

Edmund Jennings Randolph, in debate, stated: "Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitutions."

Alexander Hamilton, in debate, said: "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."

Elbridge Gerry, in debate, said: "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots."

And after the Constitution had been adopted: Alexander Hamilton, in Senate: "It has been observed that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny: their figure deformity."
James Madison said: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

John Adams, in a letter to John Taylor, wrote: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

James Madison said: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Thomas Jefferson, in the drafts of the Kentucky Resolutions, wrote: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

(Yes, Democratic Party propagandists and their dupes insist that Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat. And he did, in a response to a European correspondent, say, "...we are all democrats; we are democratic Republicans and democratic Federalist..." and explained that, to him, "democratic" was not a political system but a political condition; specifically, a system in which the government recognizes no social classes and creates no social classes. Where, as far as law go, "all men are created equal." Jefferson, of course, acknowledged that all humans are not equal, in hardly any way â?? he was just adamant that the laws should make no acknowledgment of these differences, should bestow no benefit or civil advantage to a part of the citizenry because of differences. That was as far as his "democratism" went, which, obviously, is the exact opposite of what "Democrats" today believe.)

John Adams, in a letter to William Cunningham in March 1804, wrote: "Democracy is Lovelace and the people is Clarissa" (an allegoric reference to popular literature of the time, in which Lovelace "did Clarissa wrong").

Not only were our Founding Fathers adamantly opposed to creating a "democratic" system, they were unanimous in giving this nation a republic as its political system.

Alexander Hamilton, June 26, 1788, stated: "There are few positions more demonstrable than that there should be in every republic some permanent body to correct the prejudices, check the intemperate passions, and regulate the fluctuations of a popular assembly."

Alexander Hamilton, also in 1788: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."

George Washington, April 30, 1789: "The...destiny of the republican model of government (is) justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally stacked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

Thomas Jefferson, March 11, 1790: "The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1791: "Government in a well constituted republic requires no belief from man beyond what his reason authorizes."

Thomas Jefferson, July 30, 1795: "The revolution forced them (the "people of America" â?? author) to consider the subject for themselves, and the result was an universal conversion to republicanism."

Thomas Jefferson, March 12, 1799: "The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played upon by some fact with more fiction, they have been the dupes of artful manoeuvres, & made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves."

Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form..."

Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 18, 1802: "The body of our people ... have ever had the same object in view, to wit, the, maintenance of a federal, republican government..."

Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 13, 1813: "This is my belief of it; it is that on which I have acted...to administer the government according to its genuine republican principles..."

Thomas Jefferson, in the Anas: "He (John Adams â?? author) has since thoroughly seen that his constituents were devoted to republican government..."

Thomas Jefferson, in the Anas: "...and I fondly hope ... that the motto of the standard to which our country will forever rally, will be â??federal union, and republican government..."

As historians Charles Austin Beard and Mary Ritter Beard wrote (1939): "At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of â??We the people,' in the preamble ... When the Constitution was framed, no respectable person called himself a democrat."

Justifiably Afraid Of â??Democracy' â?? Indisputably, this nation was founded as a republic and its leaders were justifiably afraid of "democracy," lest it destroy the nation they had risked their lives to establish.

And thus it officially was for a century and a half. As recently as in a 1928 U.S. Army training manual it was described thusly:

"Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of â??direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards laws is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

It is stated (I have been unable to verify it â?? author) that Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president who gave control of this nation's money to the Federal Reserve Bank and thus put America's economic destiny in the hands of foreign bankers, was the first public figure to proclaim this nation a "democracy."

One of the 1993 Merriam-Webster's definitions of "democracy" is: "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." Yet today, "democratic" America is riven by class distinction, class envy, and class warfare, and all of it has been deliberately created and fomented by "liberal" (closet communist) Democrats in order to facilitate their personal possession of political power! Not a single day passes today but some Democrat politician somewhere deliberately agitates the masses in class envy, ethnic envy, economic envy, etc. â?? all in the name of "democracy" which, by their modern definition, forbids the very sociopolitical condition they advocate."

While our "democracy" and its accompanying social self destruction are the planned and deliberate handiwork of the "liberal" enemies of free people, so successful has their redefinition of "democracy" been that the leaders of the opposition, i.e., "conservatism," aid and abet the liberals by their constant reinforcement of the idea that this nation is a democracy and that there is nothing wrong with that.

All of the "conservative" and Republican icons of the past 50 years â?? William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Robert Dole, Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, Rush Limbuagh, and Gordon Liddy, to name just a few â?? invariably refer to this nation as a "democracy" without hesitation.

Today, America is 220 years old, and to call Congress' fiscal policy "loose" is an understatement of monumental proportions. Today, America's debt is several times as large as its total worth (in fact, America's total debt today â?? over $13 trillion â?? is, according to Ibbotson Associates, equal to 30 to 35 percent of the entire world's total worth) while chaos prevails in her streets and, like the cancer it is, is spreading to he countryside.

And all because of the successful definition and sanitization of the word "democracy."

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" â?? George Santayana.

It may be too late to save America from its historically mandated fate, but that doesn't mean we can't try. And one thing we can all do is to quit propagating the "democracy" lie. We who know better can quit calling America a democracy and we can try to educate those who don't know any better. Oh, yes. We can also call on those public leaders who keep repeating the lie to cease to do so. When the very people who invented "democracy" learn the error of their ways, what excuse can a modern educated person have for not knowing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefer86

Incorrect. Our country was founded as an indirect democracy via electoral college.

---

if the 12th amendment was ratified in 1804 and we declared independence in 1776 thats 28 yrs difference and if you count 1791 thats still 13 yrs before we started the electorial college

so no our country was not founded an indirect democracy

Texas, I think I'm going to let you have the last word on this. You and the author of the article you cited obviously care a lot more about the semantic difference between "democracy" and "republic" than I do. I'm going to stick by my argument that the government is defined by the US Constitution, and if you care whether the US Constitution describes a "democracy" or a "republic," then I will let that be your personal pet peeve.

It sounds like maybe your real concern is that your rights have been infringed in some way. If that's the case then I would suggest you get at the point in some other way than to argue whether the US is a "democracy" or a "republic." Your point is being buried under an argument about semantics.

I believe the point texas grass is trying to make.

The concept of democracy is based on majority rule without consideration of the minority parties involved. Pure democracy isn't necessarily a good thing. In it's purest form, it'd lead to mob mentality and rule. Full-fledged

The concept of a republic enables the US to correct some of these imbalances in law. Just because the majority of people believe it, doesn't mean it's the best course of action take. If we let mob-rule enact all our laws, I'm sure America will not have made some of the advances we made, especially on civil rights.

When you talk about the spread of democracy I liken it to a trader who got pretty rich and gives seminars to people on the secret of their success. They give them enough information on how they rich, but not their real formula of success. It's to open up investment in those countries. In the end, the intent is a win-win solution. Prosperity is good for all countries, but I believe America could've used less aggressive means, but I don't buy that people intended to spread misinformation. It's the perception our own government spreads. So really, what's in a name?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

I believe the point texas grass is trying to make.

---

Everyone has a differnt theory on what Texas Grass is trying to say.

• Is it ,"America was founded a free republic not democracy?"
  
• Does it have to do with the 12th ammendment somehow changing our form of governemnt?
  
• Does it have to do with the minority not having a say?
  
• Does it have to do with pot being illegal, having to wear seatbelts, spanking kids?

Until Texas Grass decides what he is talking about and gets to the point, this thread is going to spin in pointless circles.

the only reason 12th amendment was brought up was because beefer brought it up saying that america was indirectly founded a democracy via electorial college but the electorial college was brought into effect until many years after the founding of the country.


pot being illegal for me to consume or wearing seatbelts or spanking kids, in a republic i myself would have the right to choose to do them or not but it would be up to me to decide. as we can see as what is happening today i do not have the right to choose if i want to consume pot or wear a seat belt, if i get caught i am fined or thrown in jail. if i spank my kids or they think im a pot head protective services can be called and take them away.
how is that a free republic?



democracys do not give you the right. every thing is a privilage


as i first stated why do yall think america is a democracy when we are a republic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

the only reason 12th amendment was brought up was because beefer brought it up saying that america was indirectly founded a democracy via electorial college but the electorial college was brought into effect until many years after the founding of the country.


pot being illegal for me to consume or wearing seatbelts or spanking kids, in a republic i myself would have the right to choose to do them or not but it would be up to me to decide. as we can see as what is happening today i do not have the right to choose if i want to consume pot or wear a seat belt, if i get caught i am fined or thrown in jail. if i spank my kids or they think im a pot head protective services can be called and take them away.
how is that a free republic?



democracys do not give you the right. every thing is a privilage


as i first stated why do yall think america is a democracy when we are a republic

---

Okaaaaay, have it your way! We are a Republic! Spark up a joint, take off your seatbelt, and start spanking those kids! Woooo-hooo! Long live the Republic!

one of them greek guys, i cant remember wich but i think plato, said in its true form communism is the best and most perfet form of gov't. an we have all seen how well that works.

also the US consitution is the longest standing constitution in history and this is because the authors made it an elastic document.

great post. I'm sick of americans being misguided by the mainstream media, and state run education system. America is not a democracy. It is supposed to be a constitutional republic.

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. The American government is a hybrid-system of both democracy and a Republic. We aren't Rome.
You could argue that we "used" to be a Republic, in that anyone could vote...as long as they were white, male landowners.

America is a Democracy in that all it's citizens are allowed to elect and have a say in the nomination of it's Republic representatives. It's not the same as being Republic citizens and voting, though there are still elements of that; such as in electing Supreme Court Justices.

People like Neil Bortz like to rant and rave (as much as I love his show) about how we aren't a Democracy and how the founding fathers dreaded it. This line of thought isn't so much selective history, as much as it is nostalgically recalling a history that never existed.

If America is a Republic, then so is Canada really; but then, so is most of the democratic world. I actually remember learning about the Canadian system in social studies, grade 9, and asked my teacher "so wait, aren't we a republic then?". All he could answer was "No we're not! We're a democracy!" but couldn't explain why I was wrong.



Anyway, a Republic quite simply is a form of democracy. The only difference is that what people here are referring to as "Pure Democracy", is actually called Direct Democracy. A Republic is what most of us use today, which is called a Representative Democracy.


We made the change from Direct Democracy to Representative Democracy because of a booming population that couldn't allow public deliberation on every issue; just too many people to gather on too many issues.
Democracy does not necessarily mandate mob rule though (it does, currently, but it doesn't have to). In the most simple and oft-used first-past-the-post system, 50%+1 gives candidates victory and likewise, 51% of the public can oppress 49% of the population. This is the main problem with classical liberal democracy, it does not ensure the rights of minorities.
Anywho, this can easily be remedied by jumping over to a system of proportional representation, as I described in my post above.


Cheers.:joint1: :S5:

I always thought that we were a "Constitutional Republic"?
This was the most confusing damn post I have ever read, you must be on some good shit tex.:jointsmile:

America was founded on the principal that majority rules as long as they don't infringe upon the minorities rights.

This has not happened, we've seen majority rule, destruction of freedom, marginalization of the freemarket, special interests lobbying for your tax dollars, an oppressive monetary system that favors the wealthy and giant government bureaucracies stealing your money then deciding what's best for you.