Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

We are a (representative) democracy, whose head of state is not a monarch (republic). We are both.

No, they're still technically right, but only in the context of the form of Government (since Democracy is also a form of government). Democracy on this case is the system by which the government is selected for the Republic, however. Further, not having a monarch is not unique to Republics.

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I learned Republic, which is a form of democracy

And see, that I am cool with.

It's the "WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!" crowd that makes me face palm every election time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I learned Republic as well, because Texas was a republic, and all the other states wanted to be like us. Thats why everyone has to have forty head of longhorns by law, so in emergency we can line them up horn to horn to make a standing wall.

You know, just in case.

Is that why your flag is the US flag, but with only one star?

Because you were the only state to actually get it right?

"We are not a Democracy" is a correct statement.

Democracy is a distinct form of government from what we actually have(Democratic Republic)


In a Democracy, everybody votes on everything. Instead of Congress, we would have citizens vote on issues directly. It is literally Mob Rule. See the ancient Greek city states for what an actual Democracy is.

In a Democratic Republic, the citizens elect representatives who actually pass legislation on the behalf of those who elected them. It uses Democratic principals, but is not actually a Democracy.

Our government more closely resembles ancient Rome than it does the Greek City states.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I learned Republic, which is a form of democracy

And see, that I am cool with.

It's the "WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!" crowd that makes me face palm every election time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I learned Republic as well, because Texas was a republic, and all the other states wanted to be like us. Thats why everyone has to have forty head of longhorns by law, so in emergency we can line them up horn to horn to make a standing wall.

You know, just in case.

Is that why your flag is the US flag, but with only one star?

Because you were the only state to actually get it right?

"We are not a Democracy" is a correct statement.

Democracy is a distinct form of government from what we actually have(Democratic Republic)


In a Democracy, everybody votes on everything. Instead of Congress, we would have citizens vote on issues directly. It is literally Mob Rule. See the ancient Greek city states for what an actual Democracy is.

In a Democratic Republic, the citizens elect representatives who actually pass legislation on the behalf of those who elected them. It uses Democratic principals, but is not actually a Democracy.

Our government more closely resembles ancient Rome than it does the Greek City states.

Again:

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Or the Wikipedia definition:

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

Now the "Rabble rabble REPUBLIC rabble rabble" crowd (usually Republicans, I wonder if there is a connection) often try to pull the "Democracy is what they had in Athens" argument because they pretend that democracy somehow equals "Direct Democracy" only, which is of course largely not the case:

Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy.

Democracy = every person get's to have a vote. That is what we have. You could have 10 people meet every two years in a bathroom at the 7-11 to pick our President and then shoot every single person that doesn't agree with them and guess what, we would still be a Republic since our President wouldn't be a monarch.

And again, that is also ignoring the large amount of Direct Democracy that actually happens in this country on a regular basis.

You can be a democracy without being a Republic, and you can be a Republic without being a democracy. We are both.
We are a democracy because everybody gets to vote. We are also a Republic, because we don't have a monarch.

A more narrow definition doesn't invalidate a broader definitions. It's like people going "this is not a starch, this is rice" or "this is not pasta, this is spaghetti".

But it's awesome that the person making comments about Syrians not even knowing what democracy is would get that wrong.

Again, you're atatcking them for being more correct then you?

ok....

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, you're atatcking them for being more correct then you?

ok....

Do you have dogs?

Again: Saying "we are not a democracy" is not being "more correct".

Our governmental system is a republic which is a more narrowly defined subset of democracy. they are being more accurate than you.

This seems to annoy you a great deal. This is time that could be better spent pondering why Oklahoma is so flat, and if a giant CCC work could be performed to make it less flat.

 Jihadin wrote:
I turn 43 this coming Nov. Now its gut check on you Cad.

Well done, you have a few years on me, doesn't make you right in regards Syria.

The UN have now formally agreed that sarin was used in the attack but aren't prepared to guess who was responsible for using it.

So for those claiming that the Syrian government are responsible, where is your evidence? Why do you have a hard time believing that the rebels, which include international terrorists with a history of killing civilians, would not use the gas to precipitate a response from the West?

 Frazzled wrote:
Our governmental system is a republic which is a more narrowly defined subset of democracy. they are being more accurate than you.

Are Dachshunds dogs?

Or does the fact that a Dachshund is a more narrowly defined subset of dogs cause it to no longer be a dog?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Our governmental system is a republic which is a more narrowly defined subset of democracy. they are being more accurate than you.

Are Dachshunds dogs?

Or does the fact that a Dachshund is a more narrowly defined subset of dogs cause it to no longer be a dog?

I get the feeling that this is appropriate:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Our governmental system is a republic which is a more narrowly defined subset of democracy. they are being more accurate than you.

Are Dachshunds dogs?

Or does the fact that a Dachshund is a more narrowly defined subset of dogs cause it to no longer be a dog?

It's some kind of weird dogschund

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Our governmental system is a republic which is a more narrowly defined subset of democracy. they are being more accurate than you.

Are Dachshunds dogs?

Or does the fact that a Dachshund is a more narrowly defined subset of dogs cause it to no longer be a dog?

It's some kind of weird dogschund

Seriously, how does CatDog poop?

That has always bothered me...

 d-usa wrote:
Seriously, how does CatDog poop?

That has always bothered me...

It's why Cat is always grumpy.

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Seriously, how does CatDog poop?

That has always bothered me...

Food goes in one end and waste goes out t'other, same as normal. Dogs eat poop anyway so dogend isn't bothered by this, cats are clean in comparison hence catend is grumpy.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Our governmental system is a republic which is a more narrowly defined subset of democracy. they are being more accurate than you.

Are Dachshunds dogs?

Or does the fact that a Dachshund is a more narrowly defined subset of dogs cause it to no longer be a dog?

Wiener dogs transcend mere dogdom.

Well done, you have a few years on me, doesn't make you right in regards Syria.

The UN have now formally agreed that sarin was used in the attack but aren't prepared to guess who was responsible for using it.

So for those claiming that the Syrian government are responsible, where is your evidence? Why do you have a hard time believing that the rebels, which include international terrorists with a history of killing civilians, would not use the gas to precipitate a response from the West?

No one is right in regards to Syria. I never claimed I was right about Syria. You are "Assuming" I am right about Syria. You are assuming everyone else has the "right" plan for Syria. What is "right" in regards to debate is never go on the personal attack on groups of people like you did. Sure bet you lose a lot of credibility and, for lack of words, a level of maturity.

 whembly wrote:
I kinda disagree with you there...

I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but having only two countries being able to veto seems asinine.

Why? The point of the veto is to ensure that the UN doesn't commit to an action that one of the major world powers considers unacceptable. The point is that the UN's processes should reflect the realities of real world power. And therefore it makes sense that veto be restricted to the countries that the rest of the world just does not want to feth with.

France, Russia and Great Britain haven't really matched that description for a while now.

Maybe change the UN Charter to have simple majority? Add a few more countries to the security council?

Nah, because then you'd have a situation where, by UN protocol, the will of Albania in determining world affairs mattered as much as China's opinion. You could have a situation where the world said something should happen, and the US and China said it should not, and it could still happen. That'd make a complete nonsense of events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The simplest solution would be to remove the five permanent seats on the Sec Con and their vetos, and just have everyone rotated in on a yearly basis.

Nah, because it would no longer reflect real world power (even more than it fails to do so now). The US and China are not just another couple of countries, their view of world affairs is simply more important than the view of Laos or the Ivory Coast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
There are 15 members of the Security Council, and no member of the permanent 5 would, or should, give up its veto power.

Taiwan did. Stupid pedant answer, but it had to be done


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you complaining because they know what type of government they have, or are you complaining with the people arguing we aren't a republic? I'm confused. However, thats ok. As I've noted, Oklahoma is flat, like pool table flat. There's always lingering evil where places are flat.

No, he's pointing out that republic and democracy aren't exclusive. You can be one of the two, or both, or neither.

It's like saying 'oh he doesn't play amateur sports, because he's a dentist.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
No, they're still technically right, but only in the context of the form of Government (since Democracy is also a form of government). Democracy on this case is the system by which the government is selected for the Republic, however.

No, they're completely 100% technically and materially wrong. They have no understanding of what republic actually means (no hereditary head of state), and therefore have no idea how that doesn't relate at all to whether you are also a democracy.

Further, not having a monarch is not unique to Republics.

No, seriously, not having a hereditary head of state is the entire sum of what a republic is. Have a king/queen/emperor/tsar/kaiser etc... then you're not a republic. Lack those things, and you're a republic. Whether power is actually decided through elections, a dictator torturing enough people that everyone goes along with it, or bi-annual jelly wrestling tournaments doesn't matter - it's a republic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
In a Democracy, everybody votes on everything. Instead of Congress, we would have citizens vote on issues directly. It is literally Mob Rule. See the ancient Greek city states for what an actual Democracy is.

In a Democratic Republic, the citizens elect representatives who actually pass legislation on the behalf of those who elected them. It uses Democratic principals, but is not actually a Democracy.

That last part isn't a democratic republic, but representative democracy. And it describes how just about every modern democracy works (in fact the US has a much higher amount of direct democracy than just about anyone else in the world).

Your assertion that democracy must be direct democracy is just wrong. Democracy can take many forms, and insisting that it can only describe a form that exists nowhere in the world is just inventing strange definitions for words for no good reason.



Oh, and the people allowed to vote in the direct democracy of the Greek city states were highly restricted - it was in fact a very small percentage of the total city. In fact, you could say they basically had a senate, but instead of the senators being elected by the people, the positions were granted on the basis of social and economic status - ie it was an oligarchy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, you're atatcking them for being more correct then you?

ok....

No, he's attacking them because he knows what words mean, and knows how to actually describe your system of government. And you're sitting there looking dumbfounded about this, despite it being explained to you several times.

The fact that citizenship was restricted doesn't matter.

Unless you think that any form of restriction on citizenship makes it an Oligarchy instead of a Democracy.

Was the US an Oligarchy when you needed to be a man and own land to vote?

Just read a Muslim cleric just issued a Fatwah permitting the rebels to rape non-sunni women in Syria...

 whembly wrote:
I get the feeling that this is appropriate:

I've always thought there should be flipside to that;
"Are you coming to bed?"
"I can't. This is important."
"What?"
"It turns out someone on the internet knew something I didn't and now have to spend hours not reading their explanations and replying with nonsense, because protecting my ego is more important than learning."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The fact that citizenship was restricted doesn't matter.

Like with many things, it depends on the extent. It would be ridiculous, for instance, to say that a country of 50 million people, where voting was restricted to 7 people, was a democracy. So obviously there is a point where the restriction on citizenship matters. And once you reach the extent to which voting is restricted to less than 20% of the adult population (as it was in Athens), then what you're describing is not really a democracy, or a very weak democracy at best.

And more importantly, you failed to respond to my comments on the rest of your post.


But anyway, in case anyone is genuinely confused about how republic and democracy interact, here's a cheat sheet;

Democracy - people cast a vote, giving them a say in how they are governed.
Republic - the head of state isn't a hereditary position.

Example of a country that is both a democracy and a republic - The United States of America
Example of a country that is a democracy, but not a republic - The United Kingdom
Example of a country that is a republic, but not a democracy - Zimbabwe
Example of a country that is neither a republic nor a democracy - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

 djones520 wrote:
Just read a Muslim cleric just issued a Fatwah permitting the rebels to rape non-sunni women in Syria...

Is there a link to that story and is the cleric that issued it held in the same regard as the Koran burning preacher? Not that I am a fan of either side, but it seems the stories are flying thick and fast depending on which news service is doing the telling.

Found the link and checked out the cleric that issued it. He appears to have a degree of influence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamad_al-Arefe

A story that disputes the claim, though, has come up:

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/saudi-cleric-issues-fatwa-allowing-gang-rape-syrian-women

 djones520 wrote:
Just read a Muslim cleric just issued a Fatwah permitting the rebels to rape non-sunni women in Syria...

The last few have actually been fake. They're still running the story that Muhammad al-Arifi supposedly issued a fatwa for the same earlier over twitter: he denies this was something he wrote. Supposedly his twitter was hacked.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3bf_1365249089


Yasir al-‘Ajlawni, who seems to have been the source of the latest one is salafi, and is now pitching the idea of muta’a, or a temporary marriage, something that most sunni find reprehensible. It's more typically a Shia practice. He also, supposedly, has not yet actually issued the fatwa, but is 'preparing to'. Interestingly enough, he's been thrown out of Jordan and been living in Damascus for the last 17 years, so I'd say he's right up there with the 'Burn the Koran' guy.

There is a video that supposedly has this guy saying it, but it's in arabic, so for all I know he's sharing a cake recipe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rg4rUBoLIo

Here's the story I read, guess it was written back in April, so not exactly new news.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/02/islamic-cleric-rape-of-non-muslim-syrian-women-permitted/

A troubling excerpt...

Indeed, even some Muslim women advocate the enslavement and rape of fellow (non-Muslim) women. Kuwaiti political activist, Salwa al-Mutairi, for instance, is working to see the institution of sex-slavery return. In a video she posted online, she explained how she once asked Islam’s greatest authorities living in the city of Mecca, the city of Islam, about the legality of sex-slavery and how they all confirmed it to be perfectly legitimate.

 djones520 wrote:

Here's the story I read, guess it was written back in April, so not exactly new news.

AFAIK the fatwa that he was proposing has never materialized and the previous one has turned out to be a fake. (Though retweeted extensively by pro Assad hacktivists.)

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Indeed, even some Muslim women advocate the enslavement and rape of fellow (non-Muslim) women. Kuwaiti political activist, Salwa al-Mutairi, for instance, is working to see the institution of sex-slavery return. In a video she posted online, she explained how she once asked Islam’s greatest authorities living in the city of Mecca, the city of Islam, about the legality of sex-slavery and how they all confirmed it to be perfectly legitimate.

Well, that's really something. Actually I think from the point of view of the Quran and other texts it's true. Muhammad had sex slaves, after all.

 xole wrote:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".

And how does a slogan written 105 years after the Constitution in order to sell more flags declare that we are not a democracy?

Our status as a republic was never questioned by me, I have pretty much affirmed the fact that we don't have a monarch as our head of state in almost all my posts.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
so I'd say he's right up there with the 'Burn the Koran' guy.

The problem with that part of the world is that those types do get followers, who then proceed to do things like suicide bomb schools, fly planes into buildings, etc...

 djones520 wrote:

The problem with that part of the world is that those types do get followers, who then proceed to do things like suicide bomb schools, fly planes into buildings, etc...

I might also point out they get them in the US too. Who shoot up schools, murder doctors, etc...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

The problem with that part of the world is that those types do get followers, who then proceed to do things like suicide bomb schools, fly planes into buildings, etc...

I might also point out they get them in the US too. Who shoot up schools, murder doctors, etc...

Not nearly to the scale though. You've got a largely 3rd world region, with very ignorant populations, it's easy for these "leaders" to twist the populace to their perveted message. It's endemic to that region. I firmly believe that until Islam manages to centralize itself, much like Christianity did with the Catholic Church, these problems will persist and will constantly be an issue for us.

 d-usa wrote:

 xole wrote:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".

And how does a slogan written 105 years after the Constitution in order to sell more flags declare that we are not a democracy?

Our status as a republic was never questioned by me, I have pretty much affirmed the fact that we don't have a monarch as our head of state in almost all my posts.

So instead of taking a narrow view of democracy and a broad view of republic you are taking a broad view of democracy and a narrow view of republic. And calling the pledge a way to "sell more flags" is misleading. It was about instilling feelings of nationalism in the american people, something which is always waning when we are not threatened.

 xole wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 xole wrote:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".

And how does a slogan written 105 years after the Constitution in order to sell more flags declare that we are not a democracy?

Our status as a republic was never questioned by me, I have pretty much affirmed the fact that we don't have a monarch as our head of state in almost all my posts.

So instead of taking a narrow view of democracy and a broad view of republic you are taking a broad view of democracy and a narrow view of republic. And calling the pledge a way to "sell more flags" is misleading. It was about instilling feelings of nationalism in the american people, something which is always waning when we are not threatened.

Patriotism isn't something to be proud of now a days. Didn't you get the memo?