PDA

View Full Version : Democracy VS Republic – How do you explain it?




Erazmus
03-30-2010, 09:54 AM
Maybe it’s just a pet peeve of mine, but it really bothers me when people call the US a democracy. While it is true that our current system does reflect more of a democracy than a republic, it is important that people understand the distinction between the two, and what the founders intended. Words have meaning, and if people do not understand the meaning of the words they use, then any thoughts expressed on the combination of those words will have no meaning, or will mean something entirely different than what they understand. At this point, any deep intellectual discourse becomes impossible, and sharing of ideas becomes cumbersome.

For me, I explain it very simply with a short exercise. I first ask the person, “We have a Constitution, correct?” They will answer, yes. I continue with, “Have you ever read it?” They will usually answer yes, even if they haven’t. I then ask them, “Have you ever seen the words democratic or democracy in the Constitution?” I usually get a blank stare, and I add, “That is because they aren’t there.” I then challenge them to read the Constitution, for every time they find the word democratic or democracy, I will give them 100 dollars. This reinforces that we do have a Constitutional Republic. So far this method has worked for me, and they begin to ask questions. I then hand them a copy of Benedict D. LaRosa’s "Democracy or Republic, Which is it?"

Democracy or Republic - By: Benedict D. LaRosa (http://www.devvy.com/pdf/larosa/larosa_democracy_or_republic.pdf)

If you haven’t read it, I encourage you to do so. It’s a real treat, a pleasure to read. Anyway, this is how I start. How do you explain this to people, and what have been your results?

hugolp
03-30-2010, 10:06 AM
If they are leftist I go about the tiranny of the majority and ask them if they agree that the majority has the right to negate individual rights, like with prop8. It usually works because they see democracy as protecting the people, and suddenly see that it can violate individual rights and violate what they consider is right.

Philhelm
03-30-2010, 10:09 AM
hugolp's example is good. I would say that a (proper) republic would negate the potential of the tyranny of the majority with the rule of law.

ChaosControl
03-30-2010, 10:10 AM
We may as well be considered a democracy with the tyranny of the majority always winning out over constitutional limitations.

FrankRep
03-30-2010, 10:11 AM
Republic, The American Form of Government

YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

MelissaWV
03-30-2010, 10:13 AM
If it were a Democracy, in theory, we would have gotten to read and vote on the Healthcare bill and all of its little "fixes" ourselves. We also would have been beholden to the majority's opinion on this, which would have been dominated by our country's population centers to a ridiculous degree.

If it were a Republic, in theory, we would not have gotten to read the whole and final Healthcare bill until it was essentially too late to do much about it, and would only learn of the "fixes" piecemeal. We would have to place our trust in the people elected to represent us to do the Constitutional thing, and also to listen to their constituents.

Democracy is direct, brutal, simple, flawed. Republics are indirect, "civilized," overcomplicated, flawed.

Live_Free_Or_Die
03-30-2010, 10:28 AM
nt

mczerone
03-30-2010, 10:32 AM
In a democracy the money is spent swaying the opinion of the mob, who rule mercilessly.

In a republic the money is spent wining and dining the representatives, who rule mercilessly.

slothman
03-30-2010, 12:28 PM
First of all, one definition of the two words is that they are the same.
Second, I think of what government is "rule of the majority and rights of the minority."
Third, if you use they "Civilization" game mathod then they are basically the same except for war declaration and corruption.
Of course in real like they both have bad corruption.

@hugolp
What do you do if they are rightist?

erowe1
03-30-2010, 12:34 PM
Maybe it’s just a pet peeve of mine, but it really bothers me when people call the US a democracy. While it is true that our current system does reflect more of a democracy than a republic, it is important that people understand the distinction between the two, and what the founders intended.

If the current system is more of a democracy than a republic as you say, then aren't the people who call it a democracy using the right term? Aren't people who call what we have now a republic doing a disservice to that word?

FrankRep
03-30-2010, 12:44 PM
First of all, one definition of the two words is that they are the same.

A Republic, Not a Democracy - Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm


"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201489)
- John F. McManus | The New American

Republics and Democracies (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199744)
- Robert Welch, 1961


John Adams: "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes and murders itself. There never was democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

James Madison: "Democracy is the most vile form of government."


YouTube - The Difference between a Democracy and a Republic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPwnFt_m-RE)

Erazmus
03-30-2010, 12:45 PM
If the current system is more of a democracy than a republic as you say, then aren't the people who call it a democracy using the right term? Aren't people who call what we have now a republic doing a disservice to that word?

I guess it goes back to education and words defining how we perceive things. It goes to the root of the idea that we can continue to educate people to try and enlighten, change attitudes, and change direction. So yes, I stand by my statements and your comment rings true. However, I am more arguing from the stance of the original intent and from that point, seeing the direction we have gone. I believe the usage of Democracy became popular during Woodrow Wilson's administration (or was it FDR?). As the words became deluded and commonplace, so we followed. Could it not be true to go back the other way as sentiment changes? Isn’t this the core of revolutions, the paradigm shift?

I guess it's the same idea of the commerce clause in the Constitution. To "regulate" during the time of the founders meant to keep regular, not put regulations upon. Since the definition was changed, congress continues to justify all their actions based on the changed definition.

That's pretty much where I'm coming from.

Ninja Homer
03-30-2010, 12:47 PM
A Democracy is a mob stealing all of a man's property because they outnumber him and they can.
A Republic is a man defending his property from that mob with a weapon that the mob can't equal.

FrankRep
03-30-2010, 12:49 PM
Republic vs. Democracy

YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

Travlyr
03-30-2010, 01:18 PM
republic
1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public). Supreme Power = ",it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

democracy
1570s, from M.Fr. democratie, from M.L. democratia (13c.), from Gk. demokratia, from demos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength" (see -cracy).

oligarchy
1570s, from M.Fr. oligarchie (14c.), from Gk. oligarkhia "government by the few," from oligoi "few, small, little" (of unknown origin) + arkhein "to rule" (see archon).

http://www.teamlaw.org/control.htm

Once again this is a nation of Sovereigns. That means, 'a nation of Kings'.

From the beginning the people of our nation recognized that God gave them dominion, agency and possession of their bodies and commanded them to multiply replenish and subdue the earth. The three elements, dominion, agency and possession constitute the very definition of sovereignty. Recognizing that, the people formed our government by design to function of the people, by the people, and for the people. When I went to school the part about "of the people, by the people and for the people" was still taught but the sovereign part was already lost and those that control the school system were in the process of eliminating the whole principle from their curriculum.

This nation's government was created by a Trust Indenture (contract) called, The Constitution for the United States of America. That document had only seven (7) articles. It had no amendments. The founders of the nation's Constitution created the Trust with the authority the people gave to them; the authority to fix the problems they faced under the Articles of Confederation. The prime difficulty was that the Articles of Confederation were formed in a world made up of Monarchies. Under it the states were recognized as independent sovereign nation states wielding the "collective sovereignty of the people" as if they were Kingdoms unto themselves. The central government had no power to: unite the states, settle disputes, set a standard of money or even to martial an army for defense of the nation. When the Revolutionary war was over, the nation and the states were nearing bankruptcy; hard money was almost nonexistent anywhere in the nation, the people were literally starving and the government had no way to generate funds to pay the army. Congress was left with no choice but to send the soldiers home with nothing but a worthless written promise that their pay for the previous four years would come. The people made deals with banks, merchants and private capitalists to borrow grain (and seed) on the promise that they would repay with their crops (again there was no money available). Before the year was over the lenders went to the state legislatures to have the laws changed to compel the people to repay their grain loans in hard money, regardless of their contractual agreements. With the states’ shakey financial condition and pressure from foreign lenders promising support if the legislation passed, the states changed the laws. When harvest time came the banks refused to accept payment according to the terms of loans; the people could not sell their crops for hard money because there was none to be found; and, the courts put the people in debtor’s prison and foreclosed on their farms. Great Britain, France, Holland and Spain stood by gobbling up cheap land from such foreclosures, holding their ports closed to trade with American based ships, vying for who would be the kingdom that would pick up the pieces and become the new rulers over America; while the independent states battled each other over borders, tariffs and control of the rivers.

Something had to change or all would be lost. That's when the Constitutional Republic was born. Visionary men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington and the like petitioned the states to sent representatives to Annapolis then to Philadelphia with authority from the states to fix the problem. The Governors and or State Legislatures of the individual States each sent Deputies with authority to speak for their State. The formed our Constitution to unite our nation under one Law. Under the new Constitution: the states were no longer recognized as sovereign, the central government had the power to coin hard money and to regulate interstate commerce and foreign tariffs and trade; still the sovereign nature of the people was recognized. Our government was given the power to govern itself and the states according to specific limitations and Law; it was not given power to govern the people.

Acting as Senators under the Constitution the Deputies sat George Washington in the seat of the President of the Constitutional United States of America. Note: they properly sat George Washington in that capacity, with their delegated authority, without a popular election.

Once the Constitutional Republic was created in trust and the President and Senators were seated, copies of the Constitution were distributed amongst the States for "ratification". It is very important that we understand what ratification was. Could it have been that the individual States had to approve of the Constitution in order for it to have any affect? No. Ratification did not change the fact that the President and the Senate were already seated according to the Constitution. It was that the each State had to recognize that they were giving up their alleged state sovereignty and all of their right and title to all of the unappropriated public lands within their State.

It is impossible to control government if you have no idea of what government is. Today what people generally see as the United States Government is not a government at all. It is a private 'municipal corporation' that was formed in, The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the actual government acting under martial law. That corporation trademarked the names: United States, U.S., USA, and America. We call it: Corp. U.S. They adopted their own constitution, which did not include our nation's 13th Amendment, which amendment limited officers of government from raising themselves above the people. In 1913 Corp. U.S. started to have their Corp. Senators elected by popular vote and the States stopped appointing national Senators. In 1944, Corp. U.S. was deeded to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) under The Bretton Woods Agreement, codified at USC Title 22 § 286.

Our nation's original jurisdiction Constitutional Republic government is vacant. It's vacant because people have forgotten who they are. It's vacant because we forgot what Land ownership is. It's vacant because we stopped seating national Senators. We forgot that Electors are Land Owners.

Our nation's government is vacant and it's up to us to re-seat it. The first step to re-seating our government is understanding how it is seated in the first place.

The Constitution of the United States of America shows, the general popular vote of the people does not elect the President of this nation's government; the Electoral College does. The Electoral College must elect the President by a margin. The Senate reviews the Electoral College's presidential election and only they can ratify the election and seat the new President. If they do not ratify the election the Senate holds their own election and seats the President which may be of their own choosing. Either way, the Senate always seats the President.

Now what would happen if there was no Senate seated? According to Law, the President cannot be seated except by the Senate.

As stated, when Corp. U.S. was formed, they adopted their constitution as one of their charter documents. It was identical to the national Constitution except that they dropped out the national 13th amendment and renumbered the remaining amendments as the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to their Constitution of the United States. That left their constitution with one less amendment than the national constitution. They fixed that by adding their own 16th amendment without ratification. To the corporation, ratification was not necessary; after all they created their constitution in 1871 by adoption; what could keep them from doing the same thing with their corporate amendments? Then, in 1913, Corp. U.S. created their 17th amendment which removed the nature of Corp. U.S'. governing relationships from a Republic, like the nation is, to a 'Democratic Oligarchy', which form of government is repugnant to the Law's of this nation. Therefore, their 17th amendment had nothing to do with our national Constitution.

Once Corp. US inserted their 17th amendment (again without ratification) and accordingly began seating their corporate Senate, the national Senate was vacated because the State legislatures and the State governors stopped seating national Senators. By 1916, the national Senate stopped seating Presidents.

The result of this history is what we all see happening today: in our modern world people think that Corp. U.S. is their government and they are contractually controlled by it with nearly no way out. Corp. U.S. has legislatively ruled that the people of our nation are its enemies (the Trading with the Enemy Act). There is even evidence of their own involvement in killing Presidents (Kennedy), killing people (the Weavers at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, the Seventh-Day Adventist Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas and thousands more) and participating in terrorism of the people (The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, The World Trade Center) so that they can justify starting wars around the World and tighten security and control over the people of our nation. Remember, this nation was created by the people as a Republic, a government controlled by Law (not one that controls law and the people by its whim). Until the formation of Corp. U.S. the laws and statutes controlled the government not the people. Now, the IMF through its Corp. U.S. and the Corp. States under its control create thousands of statutes every year specifically designed to destabilize (or systematically destroy) our economy and force the people to only act under their will and control. Since W.W.II— the war against Fascism (settled by the Bretton Woods Agreement) — we live in a country of government controlled business, which is the very definition of Fascism. We won the battle of conventional weapons but we lost the war and the Fascists used our patriotism and will for peace to convince us to support them without noticing what had happened. Now that they have forced the new world of Homeland Security control over the people the only step left for a complete takeover of the people and transference of government control under Communism is for the people to revolt with arms. This is their long range plan, now coming into effect.

Where do we go from here?

The only legal, lawful and peaceful way out is to put our Constitutional Republic government back in place. To do this we are re-seating the State governors [See our election map and page]. Once the Governors are in place, they can re-seat any vacant seat. The Governors will seat the Senators. The Senate will seat the President. The President will seat the National Supreme Court and then demand that Corp. U.S. pays back the money Corp. U.S. owes to the national government. Corp. U. S. cannot pay (there is not enough money on the planet) and they are already bankrupt. They have no legal or lawful choice but to recognize the original jurisdiction government as their owner, as the controller of Washington D.C. and as the national government. We will have our nation with its Republic back under the control of Law and completely free of debt. We then put our monetary system back in place and eliminate the state of emergency that has been maintained as the controlling force over the people since the Civil War.

There is also the alternative that from the pressure the people create upon our nation and upon Corp. U. S. to reveal the truth and to re-seat the original jurisdiction government, the corporation could legislate and or regulate themselves legitimately back into lawful elections of the original jurisdiction government and reassume our lawful original jurisdiction Constitutional Republic government. We really don't care which way we get our nation back, so long as we get it back, and that our private sovereign rights to life, liberty and property are secured.

The question still remains, How do you control government?

Answer: This is a Republic. In a Republic, government is controlled by Law. That obviously means that government cannot control the Law. The Law controls the government. The people entrust government with sufficient ability to deal with foreign governments and to assist the sovereign people with civil and criminal remedies against trespasses. The people are thereby left alone to control their own lives, Land and property, as sovereigns with their own Sovereign Land secured by Land Patents, against any kind of encroachment.

Erazmus
03-30-2010, 01:22 PM
Wow, nice find! Thanks for posting that, Travlyr!

Travlyr
03-30-2010, 01:45 PM
Wow, nice find! Thanks for posting that, Travlyr!

You're welcome. :cool:

Restoring our Constitutional Republic peacefully looks promising.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=231468

http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html

slothman
03-30-2010, 03:14 PM
If he says that then he is wrong.
They are/can be synonyms of each other.

Plus it really confuses people because English is a living language.

Words are what people use them for.
If enough people say they are the same then they are the same.

What the Const. and founders wanted is a different story.
If people ask what they wanted then you can say a representative democracy.
And no, that is not contradictory.

FrankRep
03-30-2010, 03:48 PM
If he says that then he is wrong.
They are/can be synonyms of each other.

They are NOT the same. Listen to Ron Paul and the Founding Fathers.


A Republic, Not a Democracy - Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm

John Adams: "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes and murders itself. There never was democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

James Madison: "Democracy is the most vile form of government."

Erazmus
03-30-2010, 04:17 PM
If he says that then he is wrong.
They are/can be synonyms of each other.

Plus it really confuses people because English is a living language.

Words are what people use them for.
If enough people say they are the same then they are the same.

What the Const. and founders wanted is a different story.
If people ask what they wanted then you can say a representative democracy.
And no, that is not contradictory.

Words do have etymology, and thus people should be careful as to definitions of the words that they are using. Definitions of words are very important to convey thoughts, discourse, and ideas. Words themselves are a core makeup of complete thoughts. If the meanings of words are consistently changing, as you suggest, and their definitions are arbitrary (with time), then forming any lasting significance becomes futile. Posterity has no way of understanding what the forebears were thinking. The consequence, the original ideas that were rooted in the words is fundamentally changed as a result.

Your premise is disingenuous, at best, and an assault on the founder’s and all intellectual thought. As an example, should any would-be unscrupulous character be able to modify meaning simply be redefining words then the foundation upon all critical thought is lost. Context and meaning of words, especially at the time they were written is incredibly important. As Robert Welch wrote (thanks for the link Frank).


…by the time of the American Revolution and Constitution, the meanings of the words "republic" and "democracy" had been well established and were readily understood. And most of this accepted meaning derived from the Roman and Greek experiences. The two words are not, as most of today's Liberals would have you believe — and as most of them probably believe themselves — parallels in etymology, or history, or meaning. The word "democracy" (in a political rather than a social sense, of course) had always referred to a type of government, as distinguished from monarchy, or autocracy, or oligarchy, or principate. The word "republic", before 1789, had designated the quality and nature of a government, rather than its structure. When Tacitus complained that "it is easier for a republican form of government to be applauded than realized", he was living in an empire under the Caesars and knew it. But he was bemoaning the loss of that adherence to the laws and to the protections of the constitution which made the nation no longer a republic; and not to the fact that it was headed by an emperor.

The word democracy comes from the Greek and means, literally, government by the people. The word "republic" comes from the Latin, res publica, and means literally "the public affairs". The word "commonwealth", as once widely used, and as still used in the official title of my state, "the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", is almost an exact translation and continuation of the original meaning of res publica. And it was only in this sense that the Greeks, such as Plato, used the term that has been translated as "republic." Plato was writing about an imaginary "commonwealth"; and while he certainly had strong ideas about the kind of government this Utopia should have, those ideas were not conveyed nor foreshadowed by his title.

Source: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199744

To say that English is a “living language” is the same as calling the Constitution a “living document” which basically means there is a no firm meaning. If anyone can “interpret” or define to suit their needs, at that point it serves simply as an instrument of lip service and nothing more. What good is a rule book or even a definition, if it can be twisted to mean whatever one wants to match some goal?

Live_Free_Or_Die
03-30-2010, 04:20 PM
nt

Travlyr
03-30-2010, 04:21 PM
If he says that then he is wrong.
They are/can be synonyms of each other.

Plus it really confuses people because English is a living language.

Words are what people use them for.
If enough people say they are the same then they are the same.

What the Const. and founders wanted is a different story.
If people ask what they wanted then you can say a representative democracy.
And no, that is not contradictory.

Understanding the definition of words and using them correctly is important if you want to be taken seriously.

Not one of the 50 state constitutions have the word democracy listed. The U.S. Constitution does not use the word democracy anywhere. Our forefathers were smart enough to know that subversion would eventually take place, so they left nothing to chance about their intent.

When someone uses the word democracy in reference to the way our system of government was originally set-up, they instantly lose credibility to those of us who understand the difference between a republic and a democracy.

Erazmus
03-30-2010, 04:22 PM
I would be remiss if I did not point out the obvious.

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck....

it is NOT a duck, it is a Republic. ;)

:(