republic - set law
democracy - mob law
explain to me how a republic is better than a democracy, because the same tired argument i keep hearing is "democracies allow the larger group of people to change the laws"
if this then is your argument, then to who makes the law of a republic? a single person? a group of people? a person elected by a group of people?
if you want to have a republic then you must too have a democracy, right? one almost entirely cannot exist without the other
Other urls found in this thread:
it's not an either or situation
America is a republic but it is also a liberal democracy. Americans elect representatives who vote on laws in a legislature. It's basically identical to how it works in the UK, Canada or France with some minor differences.
Democracy doesn't work because plebs aren't smart enough to understand politics tho.
My poor logically failed user. The leaf makes a good point but you're looking at it in a very small minded way. "Republic" in this context refers to ideals of states and local government. One and none.
>America is the only form of Republic
This is the main reason why Americans don't understand anything.
If you view everything through an America lens, without the scope of history then nothing makes sense anymore and you become retarded.
Republic can be run via oligarchy, totalitarianism, democracy, Fascism, Communism and in history we've witnessed all of these republics occur at one time or another.
Yeah pretty much
>Candidate A: I will raise the minimum wage. I'll print money. We'll all be rich.
>Candidate B: don't do that that's retarded
AND B WINS WITH 75% OF THE VOTE WE RICH NOW
Fucked that up. I meant A. Pls no bully
They don't exclude each other, they are in two different categories you brainlet.
wew
The United States is a democratic republic; meaning the people don't make laws, we elect people to make laws.
>mob rule
Imagine a class of 40 people. The teacher tells the whole class he's ordering pizzas. Pandemonium ensues. Arguments break out. Eventually people stop caring and only the most vocal and persistent individuals get to tell the teacher what kind of pizza they want because everyone else is "whatever".
>representative democracy
The teacher tells YOU to go around and see what kind of pizzas everyone likes, and then tells YOU to order some pizzas.
>Monarchy
The teacher declares that pizzas would please him. His best students start ordering pizzas they think the teacher would like. Everyone else gets some eventually.
>Fascist Dictatorship
The teacher declares it is pizza day, and everyone will have a good time. You order some pizzas and hope the teacher likes them. Anyone who complains gets their head banged against their desk for a half hour, and then fed pizza. The teacher is happy, so everyone is happy.
I get what you mean, and you're on point.
It's all political favors or whatever someone can promise the idiots. Democracy is always government by the lowest common denominator.
not really. A representative democracy (which a democratic republic is) is intended to counteract the "tyranny of the majority" -- You can have sensible, educated people making informed and reasonable decisions even when all of their constituents are hurt/angry/upset about something.
what america used to be was a republic with a citizenship standard. All citizens at the founding of the republic were determined to be white male landowners, or white male taxpayers. That was the requirement to be a citizen. That meant that, according to Wikipedia, at the founding of the country only 6% of the total US population at the time could vote. No women, blacks, children, or fuck-ups could vote.
In a democracy we would have been with her right now. Enough said
i love how a republic is a beautiful idea
but everyone that represents its ideology is so fucking bat shit insane that they ruin/tarnish its name completely
repubs are basically tumblrinas
Democracy is a mechanical process, ie. The method or order that changes are processed through. A republic is a type of law structure declaring the domain of the population as apex. They aren't comparable because they aren't the same thing.
In a republic, all the people have a set of rights which limit the scope of potential law, this is necessitated because they have representative government. The reps are supposed to be of the people.
A democracy is simply majority rule, which is broad that it can encompass anything, most often veiled despotism through social engineering and the synthesis of mass-consent.
In the US, the founding fathers almost never wrote about democracy, and when they did, it tended to be as a warning.
this guy literally becomes the EXACT thing he is advocating against in the same video
youtube.com
(he is on the side of the republic) but watch how he uses the tactics of (what he thinks is) a democracy
The benefit of a republic is primarily found in the fact that it, to some extent, limits the ability of individual parts of the government to over-reach. Each branch is checked by another branch in some way, and all branches, ultimately, are responsible to the voters, who, if they are dissatisfied, are capable of voting for someone else.
The system is imperfect, of course, but it does prevent, say, a Nero or a Calligula,or any of the abusive monarchs of the past who failed to represent the people of their nation from getting away with much. Oh sure, there's corruption (that's universal. There is no such thing as a government devoid of it), but there are mechanisms in place that allow for some of that corruption to be cut out, like a cancerous growth, or to have rivalry with other groups within government who may also be corrupt, but whose corruption is at odds with theirs, thus potentially keeping everyone in check (after all, the president can't just have his enemies killed, nor can the congressman or the judge).
Additionally, another thing is kept in check: the passions of the people themselves. While the people have a say, their say is not final, not without extremely overwhelming consensus. This prevents the tyranny of the mob.
Now personally, I think the flaw in our republic was entrusting the law-making function to congress. I would have given that to the president (who would have a single 10 year term) and then given the veto power to congress. The current model is inefficient and prone to creating legislation that is thousands of pages in length, chocked full of pork barrel spending for individual legislators, etc. Because each representative represents their district, they're prone to that sort of bullshit. A president represents the whole country, and so his aim should be to do what is best for the whole nation.
And that's all nice on paper, just like marxism but it never works that way in practice.
The "sensible educated" people either end up exploiting open society for their own benefit. (Corporations, politicians, political parties, interest groups or etc) or the education itself becomes indoctrination because of the political bias of the academia.
Where is the system in which I can buy my own damn pizza and everyone else leaves me alone?
That sounds ideal
becuase no one would make you a pizza in that society.. you would have to make it yourself.
Are you completly retarded? republics and democracy isn't even opposites, you can be both like the United States