Forum Post: Republic > Democracy
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 9:12 p.m. EST by Yachtmaster
(4)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What you fail to understand is that a Republic safeguards the rights of all citizens per the rule of law, according to the Constitution, which in my opinion, is the best document ever written.
A democracy, is mob rule, where the majority, can infringe upon the rights and wishes of the minority. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI
A Republic protects the rights of all citizens, whether or not they can defend themselves.
A republic protects the rights of the poor and the rich.
A republic is what we should have.
The bible is the best document every written. Period.
it's not an either or. you guys need to get off the pop-star rebel bs and stop posting things before you understand them. your suggestion that republic and democracy is an either/or argument. in fact they are not http://library.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/africa/zaire.html democracy is a way to elect leaders and make laws. a republic is the actual structure of government. the comparison is like trading in your house to buy the paint for it.
We have neither.
Ben Franklin was heard to say to a women after leaving the Constitutional Conv. in Philly, when asked what form of Gov't we now had? "A Republic, if we can keep it?" Obviously we failed other wise we all wouldn't be here, would we?
Democracy is not mob rule or rule of the majority. It is equal power. Democracy is a Greek word for people power. It is a management system where power rests with everyone equally.
Our country was founded on the enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality which is the modern interpretation of a liberal democracy.
Two wolves and a sheep cannot vote to eat the sheep for dinner because that would violate the sheep's equal right to treatment under the law. The law protects the rights of the minority to the same degree as the majority.
Our country, however, was founded by rich, white, slave owners. Of course they were scared of democracy and equality. Madison, in particular, wanted an oligarchy and was scared that democracy might put an end to the privileged lifestyle him and the rest of the opulent enjoyed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWvIWxh2yRs&feature=player_detailpage#t=511s
What you just described is not democracy but Republic. Equal protection under the law is not a part of democracy only republican government offers that.
Democracy means equal power. You cannot have a democracy if you do not have equal protection under the law.
A popular vote is just a popular vote. It is not a democracy.
Equal protection under the law is not a tenet of a democracy. Seriously I think I'm done. Go look it up on a reference site other than Wikipedia please.
you will get more thorough information from an encyclopedia than a dictionary
Sure but Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia. Meaning anyone can post information to it. Which is fine for finding loose bits of information on a celebrity you are interested in but try to cite Wikipedia on a term paper and see how far that gets you. It's a bad source.
The common understanding of the term republic is a country that isn't a monarch. But it could be a democracy or an oligarchy or aristocracy.
The founders, interested in preserving their power, chose a republic because they were interested in an oligarchy. Aristotle warned that a representative democracy where the wealthy would be the only ones able to get people elected to national office will become an oligarchy and gain control of the government. That is exactly what we have.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic No disagreement in the fact that what we have now is more of an oligarchy than a republic.
An oligarchy is a republic.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. You didn't even bother to click on the link they are not one and the same. They are two completely different systems of government.
You will get a more thorough understanding of republic if you read its wiki entry.
Really? I give you the dictionary and you give me Wikipedia?
Here here.
Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.
So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform in the 1st link. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.
You really are just spamming this board
First, everyone has the right to reply -- once -- to a new thread, and then again to anyone who responds therein again. That's called free speech; to do otherwise is to walk down the slippery slope toward dictatorship. Is dictatorship what you really want?
Second, put yourself in my shoes, it's very tough when you need to get 100,000 people to join a group web site so that, at exactly the right time, you can email them to give 100,000 support clicks at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform. As such, OWS can't be about mere words, like so MANY groups in the past have been. It has to be about ACTIONS.
You do not have the right to reply with spam!!!!!
Your need to advertise is not our problem. Just because you need to advertise doesn't mean you can spam.
And not having people spam is not a dictatorship. This is a forum for discussions.
This is not your forum for advertising
Democracy is two men and one woman voting on whether to have sex.
If the two men want to have sex with each other then what gives that woman the right to oppose them? Because it goes against her religion?
If the men wanted to have sex with each other, I doubt it would make it to a vote :)
That's what you think!