• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Government theory

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It has come to Your Master's knowledge that there are many types of governments in the world. What is your idea of the best type of government humans? I, The God of war, summit that the Republic is the best form of government. Whom among you would dare question this?

Ivan The Terrible, Your Master, has started the debate!
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are many forms of government, and there are many positive and negative factors about each. In my opinion a democracy or democratic-republic is the best form. But the ultimate government is no government, at least in today's sense.
 

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Comrade Brian,

What is this,"ultimate government is no government" that you speak of?
 

Dondie

New member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Although we are slowly,if not quickly losing it,A Republic is indeed the best. Our Forfathers proved that. We are turning into a democracy. Next step,3rd. world status.
 

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Donie

Although we are slowly,if not quickly losing it,A Republic is indeed the best. Our Forfathers proved that. We are turning into a democracy. Next step,3rd. world status.
Explain! How are we turning into a democracy?
 

Dondie

New member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Our political system is nothing more than a way to distribute government largasse through tax dollars confiscated from the American people.As always,in the name of 'democracy'. The dependency on government,by welfare or wichever of a thousand agencys has been made possible by our shift from a republic(republican) to a democracy (democratic) system." The Constitution has become almost null and void.Perhaps democracy is incorrect. Dictatorship or kingdom might fit a little better.
 

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Our political system is nothing more than a way to distribute government largasse through tax dollars confiscated from the American people.As always,in the name of 'democracy'. The dependency on government,by welfare or wichever of a thousand agencys has been made possible by our shift from a republic(republican) to a democracy (democratic) system." The Constitution has become almost null and void.Perhaps democracy is incorrect. Dictatorship or kingdom might fit a little better.
I agree in part. However, could you show me,in your own words, why you belive this?
 

t125eagle

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
384
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ha ha ha go figure. i didnt make the list.. oh well. not that im bothered by it. well, first choice would definetly be a republic but my second choice would be a monarchy. there is a charm in it, i think. but, yeah first choice would def be a republic!
 

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There does not seem to be much debate on this topic. Is there any among you that feel dif?
 

Robodoon

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
0
Location
Lakeport CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ivan The Terrible said:
It has come to Your Master's knowledge that there are many types of governments in the world. What is your idea of the best type of government humans? I, The God of war, summit that the Republic is the best form of government. Whom among you would dare question this?

Ivan The Terrible, Your Master, has started the debate!

A Constitutional Republic under God was the best, we use to be one, today they call us a democracy, but our founders hated Democracy, But you know who likes democracy? Socialists and Communists do.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A republic without democracy is an oligarchy or an aristocracy.

Democracy without republican influences is a major-cracy, slow, inefficient, and ultimately impossible.

Democratic Republican governments, historically, have worked, lasted, and continued to work. Starting with he United States.

Robodoon said:
A Constitutional Republic under God was the best, we use to be one, today they call us a democracy, but our founders hated Democracy, But you know who likes democracy? Socialists and Communists do.
Right wing partisan garbage. Merely because you're party is called the "Republican" party and your opposing party is the "Democratic" party skews your judgement. A republic on it's own is an aristocracy.
 

Robodoon

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
0
Location
Lakeport CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
-Demosthenes- said:
A republic without democracy is an oligarchy or an aristocracy.

Democracy without republican influences is a major-cracy, slow, inefficient, and ultimately impossible.

Democratic Republican governments, historically, have worked, lasted, and continued to work. Starting with he United States.



Right wing partisan garbage. Merely because you're party is called the "Republican" party and your opposing party is the "Democratic" party skews your judgement. A republic on it's own is an aristocracy.
We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy in any form. Democracy is not mentions in the Delaration of indepenance, in the bill of rights or in the Constitution.

And we were to be a Republic under God, not man.






Has the Definition of Democracy been changed over the years?

- Democracy
A goverment of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,... without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Army Training Manual Concerning Citizenship 1928

And the Words of old wisdom (FEDERALIST PAPERS)
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.


http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

"Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika...is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy."
Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life..."
Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988
 

Bustabush

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Location
Broward Community Collage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy in any form. Democracy is not mentions in the Delaration of indepenance, in the bill of rights or in the Constitution.
Agree! :2razz:


A republic without democracy is an oligarchy or an aristocracy.
Not sure what you mean. Could you explain?
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Robodoon said:
A Constitutional Republic under God was the best, we use to be one,
Tell me, if you really think that we were a republic "under God", then why is there no meaningful mention of god in the Constitution? Or that the only mention of religion is to guarantee the freedom of religion? It seems fairly obvious from that that the founders didn't want religion mixed with government. They recognized what a dangerous combination that is.

Robodoon said:
today they call us a democracy,
Well, since we are a democratic republic, it is inaccurate to refer to us as just a republic or a democracy. We have elements of both.

Robodoon said:
but our founders hated Democracy,
Care to substantiate that?

Robodoon said:
But you know who likes democracy? Socialists and Communists do.
So do capitalists, so I don't really see your point.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Democracy without republican influences is a major-cracy, slow, inefficient, and ultimately impossible.
interestingly enough, one of my professors was going over the inefficiencies of a true democracy. he said that technologies like the internet and increased computing power may eventually make a true democracy possible. Every voice in a populace could in theory be heard, logged, analzyed, etc. There would be no need for representatives then. Who knows, maybe in a 100 years we may start seeing versions of this system.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Bustabush said:
A republic without democracy is an oligarchy or an aristocracy.
Not sure what you mean. Could you explain?
Saying that a republic is better than a democracy implies that we should use a very strict definition of a republic, where we merely have people who represent us in the government. In this strict definition the public has no say in the government only the "representation." This is what is called an oligarchy.

The normal definition of a republic included democratic elections for these representatives. This is the kind of republic that we have, for the most part. Traditional definitions of a republican government include democracy to an extent.

That is what makes it confusing, when someone says we shouldn't have a democracy, we should just have a "republic." A republic with it's democracy taken out of it is nothing less than oligarchy or aristocracy.

Robodoon said:
And we were to be a Republic under God, not man.
When does God tell us what to do?

And the Words of old wisdom (FEDERALIST PAPERS)
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.


http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

"Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika...is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy."
Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life..."
Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988
Didn't I just say that a democracy without a republic doesn't work?

Democracy = Socialism ?? I think you mean Democrats = Socialism. You are getting confused.

MrFungus420 said:
Well, since we are a democratic republic, it is inaccurate to refer to us as just a republic or a democracy. We have elements of both.
Exactly.

but our founders hated Democracy,
Care to substantiate that?
They disliked the idea of mass control, that is the federalists did. This didn't mean they hated Democracy.

galenrox said:
Alexander Hamilton did advocate a monarchy
He suggested a strong government that hinted at monarchy during the Constitutional Convention. It's important to note:

1) In his plan the president was elected, but for life. Senators were elected for life also.

2) He only suggested this plan once, during the Convention. It was not an ongoing idea that he advocated.

3) It was probably only suggested to get the other delegates to vote on a stronger government. If he suggests a very strong government, a monarchy hinting government, then the other delegates might settle for a stronger government than they would have before.

nkgupta80 said:
interestingly enough, one of my professors was going over the inefficiencies of a true democracy. he said that technologies like the internet and increased computing power may eventually make a true democracy possible. Every voice in a populace could in theory be heard, logged, analyzed, etc. There would be no need for representatives then. Who knows, maybe in a 100 years we may start seeing versions of this system.
But the general population is stupid, and many wouldn't have enough time to look at everything. It wouldn't work.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Why would you need computers for a direct democracy anyway? I dont get this whole "ooh now we have computers we can have a direct democracy" malarky. The Swiss are a direct democracy and there system doesnt use computers [theres information availible on how their system works on a wikipedia article called direct democracy] I think their system is better because in representative democracys using First Past the Post voteing systems what normally happens is that the electorate elect the lesser of two evils. Onece the lesser of two evils in elected it can pass what ever legislation it wants regardless of what the electorate wants. Direct democracy allows the electorate to legislate for themselves , problem solved :mrgreen:
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Red_Dave said:
Why would you need computers for a direct democracy anyway? I dont get this whole "ooh now we have computers we can have a direct democracy" malarky. The Swiss are a direct democracy and there system doesnt use computers [theres information availible on how their system works on a wikipedia article called direct democracy] I think their system is better because in representative democracys using First Past the Post voteing systems what normally happens is that the electorate elect the lesser of two evils. Onece the lesser of two evils in elected it can pass what ever legislation it wants regardless of what the electorate wants. Direct democracy allows the electorate to legislate for themselves , problem solved
Of course they do not legislate for themselves, the Swiss Parliament does. The "Direct Democracy" part enables any citizen to challenge a law passed by parliament, get 50,000 signatures, then the whole country votes whether to keep it or not. They can also propose amendments and stuff (challenge, 100,000 sigs in 18 months, states and people vote) but that's basically how it works.

Switzerland is still a democratic republic, just more like Direct democracy than any other country, even though it's a far cry from direct democracy. That's not to say that these aren't good ideas, just that it's very important to remember that Switzerland is not a Direct Democracy, and no true Direct Democracy has lasted long in the past.
 
Top Bottom