America is not a Democracy

It is a representative republic, with some democratic principles (which are slipping away very fast)

<snip> From wikipedia:
Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek δημοκρατία-demokratia demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government
<snip>

In fact, Bush and his cronies pride themselves on not listening to public opinion, as they state so often. In doing so, they demonstrate that after all, they really despise democracy.

If this were a democracy, we would be leaving Iraq right now.

I despise people who talk about "spreading democracy", when they have such a shallow and childish understanding of what the word really means.

we would listen to Iraqis when they ask us to leave. The clear majority want us to leave,but we won't because we're spreading democracy.

our form of government represents the "mob" while still (supposedly) protecting the minority. -- though I've not seen much of that lately.

To a certain degree democracy is a more orderly form of mob rule. If you get right down to it that all you really ever have. There are physics involved in Democracy. A couple thousand elected official and a couple hundred million of us. You don't even really have to do the math to figure out who wins that pissing contest. Iraq has the mob rule part down now all they have to do is insert the order and vola! They have democracy.

:P

1 person without any special technology or arms cannot force their will upon 500 people, unless the 500 consent. It's simple math.

That's actually why equally the amount of technology the government has to project force v. the amount of force the public can project is important, otherwise the natural truth will be tyranny, because the government will have the ability in fact to force its will on the people.

I call unrestricted freedom, either anarchy or the natural democracy. In that system there is no government or law, so the people may exercise absolute control over others without fear of retribution or prevention from the government.

In theory, the government only has just power in areas where harm to a person by another exercising their will.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately with Bush being a total law-breaking tyrant and all.

The rule of anarchy is that there are no rules. Which eliminates the rule that created it.

Anarchy means without RULERS. Not chaos.

Incidentally, I think you're confusing "anarchism" and "anarchy" - the latter *does* explicitly mean chaos; the former would in fact lead to chaos but its proponents deny this.

You cannot organise health-care, law enforcement, education, social security etc for a large body of people without rulers.

your position is that you can not have a functioning society without a rulership based hierarchical structure;

You cannot organize health-care, law enforcement, education, social security etc for a large body of people without rulers

But the definition of anarchy is: Absence of any form of political authority. emphasis mine

Members of Government and proponents of States have long tried to change the definition of anarchy through writing and usage into some vile notion of mass hysteria-like chaos with multiple murders happening everyday and people running rampant in others lands killing and appropriating their items.

That is simply not the case. People always try and change words, into a strawman argument, so they can then debase the concept.

Katrina was a failure of government; on several levels, federal, state, parish, city. Is the proper response to make government more powerful?

Just because I call Iraq or America a Democracy doesn't make it so.

The situation in Iraq is a prime example of how Americans have deluded themselves into thinking "We are the Government". Obviously, the people are not. No matter what the people say the elected leaders clearly indicate they will take the course they see fit. Is this a failure due to an evil, rampant executive? Or can it be traced to the root problem (imo) of the nature of coercive Rulership?

After all, the government has done things and taken actions of this type before.

And the nature of the US government is such that it now exists to ensure and augment it's continued existence, not to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".

but the thing is that straight democracy is rarely a nation ruled by law, and more of a nation ruled by popularity. If one looks around the world, many of the so-called democratic republics are so because their revolutions were confrontational, violent, filled with hatred and in general vengeful. What is so often missed from the picture of our revolution, is that the founding fathers were completely willing to just separate themselves from the UK instead of wreaking vengeance on them. They simply wanted their freedom and self control over their lives, and in all respects honored the rule of law. If you look at the man who really sparked our independence, John Adams, he believed very fervently in the rule of law and regularity of procedure, he defended the soldiers of the "Boston Massacre". Now, he was also an elitist and it's my analysis of him that he valued the rule of law simply for its own sake and not for the sake of the people. Hence the Alien and Sedition acts.

On the other hand there was Thomas Jefferson, the person who really made America what it is in the sense of popular control. Unfortunately, he didn't value the rule of law as much, and one can look to his support of the French Revolution, which eventually ended up creating an empire and was very bloody. That was because they didn't value the rule of law and they wanted vengeance against their former rulers.

These two strains of thinking have fought with one another throughout our history, today one would say the modern Republicans are the John Adams "rule of law" types, who in their most extreme form actually break the law (Nixon, Reagan, Bush). While we are the Thomas Jefferson type figures, who in our extremes support popular movements which eventually end up in dictatorships.

I think the two ought to be combined and their unpleasant elements removed. People should rule countries, but they should recognize that the rule of law and their own restraint is for their own protection. Revolutions should not be geared towards revenge, but rather just merely obtaining independence from former oppressors. All revolutions and revolutionaries should never draw blood, and should merely defend themselves if attacked by their former oppressors, and when they defend themselves, they should not launch a military campaign to conquer their former oppressors.

I call it Republican Democracy, I would call it a Democratic Republic, but of course that has extremely negative connotations. Republican, as in the original meaning of "res publica" or public thing; a government which people feel is their own. And Democracy in that people should be the source of change and decision making. Government at a national level should always have little power because it covers so many wide ranging opinions, government at local levels should have the most power.

our Revolution did hold a manner of vengence -- or perhaps dishonest profiteering in the name of vengence. After the war, property was seized from anyone who was accused of siding with the British and given to the accuser. There were quite a few unscrupulous types who amassed VAST swaths of land by accusing all their neighbors - most of whom were widows of men who refused to take a stand either way. Pretty much, unless a widow could prove her husband was part of the militia or the regular army then she was ripe for losing her home, and often her children.

It was a terrible law and it's shameful the founding fathers allowed it to happen.

Sorry, but Bush Co. will use whatever excuse or means it can to get its way. In fact the NeoCon movement is mostly about appearances and marketting. They don't care what it is that the people swear allegiance to as long as they control it and frame it.

The Iraqi's want us out of there yesterday if not sooner. But maliki won't tell us to leave. We want our people out of there yesterday if not sooner. Bush won't bring them home. Iraq does not have a democracy and niether does America anymore. Next Bush will declare the US Constitution a dead letter.

which seem to be fatal. One of which is the fact that it is so large and that people with disparate beliefs have great power over one another, causing great tension. The centralization of power in the federal government has not helped things, although it is very likely many of the problem we are currently having would ultimately occur.

One has to wonder if it is time to get a foundation together to buy a bunch of land then declare independence from this nation circling the drain. It'd be nice if it could happen peacefully.

The US is an Oligarchy, it isn't even close to being a representative democracy unfortunately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

I definitely do agree with you. However, if we'd actually follow the US Constitution, logic, and fact we'd be a democracy of some type.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

first thing that needs to go is the electoral college. Modern media has made this useless, as we are not separated like we were 200 years ago. back then people's viewpoints varied greatly based on geography. This is not the case anymore.

Gore would be president if not for the electoral college.

the electoral college should be turned into a college of governors, who would exercise control over the federal government at the local level.

They would pick the President. They would not have legislative powers, like the Congress, so it wouldn't violate the separation of powers doctrine, say like a the west minister parliamentary system. However, the President could be more accountable, and the federal government would be more responsive to the people in the executive branch.

And I would beg to differ about the "people's opinions don't vary greatly depending on geography" part, because in fact they do. Only this time around it is less about the North vs. the South, but rather Urban v. Rural.

Great idea. :sarcasm:

principles to make its decisions.

Right wingers use that meme to excuse all of Bushboy's violations of human rights.

In fact, the righties have confused the two types of democracy:

1. Direct democracy: Everyone votes on everything, as in a precinct caucus. Unwieldy in large groups.

2. Indirect democracy: People elect representatives.

I'm tired of going on countless threads like this and informing people that A REPUBLIC IS NOTHING BUT A COUNTRY WITHOUT A MONARCH.
North Korea is a republic, and Japan is not. Belarus is a republic, and Norway is not. Cuba is a republic and Spain is not. Syria is a republic and Saudi Arabia is not.

<snip>
A Republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress the importance of the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.
<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

any country can attach the word republic to it's name, but that does not make it a republic.

to abolish the monarchy are called "Republicans."

By the way, ANYBODY can write a Wikipedia article.

We do, after all, elect our representatives in Congress, do we not? We also are a Constitutional Republic, as in, our Constitution limits what the government can do, and what powers it has. We are also a Liberal Democracy because that same Constitution guarantees that the government cannot curtail certain liberties, even from minorities.

Now, it is debatable as to how effective our Constitution is, but this is an enforcement issue, and, in some cases, a systematic issue.

The US has been and is now a Plutocratic Republic, instead of the 30 Tyrants we have 537 or so...

you might also want to think of calling it an oligarchy.

A plutocracy is a form of government where the state's power is centralized in an affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low.

<snip>

...plutocracy is a pejorative reference to the great and undue influence (both positive and negative) the wealthy have on the political process in contemporary society. Positive influence includes campaign contributions and bribes; negative influence includes refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, and so on. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

We really need a buzzer icon thingy for this!