Freedom, Democracy, and the Republic

[Koldo]

It's not irrelevant.

Democracy means, in essence, the will of the majority of the people. If it's not the will of the people, but is instead restrained by law, then it's a Republic.

But the law is sustained by the people, that is what makes it democratic.
If the people elect sufficient representatives to do away with any given law, it will be done.

 

[buddhist]

But the law is sustained by the people, that is what makes it democratic.
If the people elect sufficient representatives to do away with any given law, it will be done.

The process of law itself must be followed to do away with law (Republic), not merely the will of the people (Democratic). The will of the oligarchs, or the will of the people is channeled through and transformed by the process of law. Until that process of law itself is done away with, it stands as a Republic, and that's what makes it a Republic. If it was purely the will of the people, then I'd agree with you that it's a Democratic form of government.

 

[Koldo]

The process of law itself must be followed to do away with law (Republic), not merely the will of the people (Democratic). The will of the oligarchs, or the will of the people is channeled through and transformed by the process of law. Until that process of law itself is done away with, it stands as a Republic, and that's what makes it a Republic. If it was purely the will of the people, then I'd agree with you that it's a Democratic form of government.

Once again, the law is sustained by the people.
The 'process of law' must be followed because that is the 'will of the people'.

 

[buddhist]

Once again, the law is sustained by the people.
The 'process of law' must be followed because that is the 'will of the people'.

And you just described and reaffirmed what a Republic is.

 

[Koldo]

And you just described and reaffirmed what a Republic is.

A democratic republic.

 

[buddhist]

A democratic republic.

A few parts of it, maybe.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am simply concerned with the final word, which is "Republic", where the Law rules the People.

Adding "democratic" as a qualifier to "Republic" seems to confuse many more than it informs, in my experience. As it stands, the majority of people I encounter thus seem to falsely believe this is a Democracy, and from the way they describe it to me, they also equate that word with "Freedom".

In any case, it's rarely democratic at all. A great portion of the regulations governing citizens actually come from unelected administrators in various executive-branch agencies who enact policies to rule over their subjects among the territories of the United States. In this sense, I would argue that if you do feel pressed to use a qualifier, the term "oligarchial Republic" might be far more accurate instead.

I agree its an oligarchical republic in function but not by system. A true oligarchy is outright states that those with money have votes and others do not. Currently we have a lax regulation that allows us to play this illusion of democracy. But the intended system, and it can be created as such with enough public backing, is still a democratic republic.

What does a democratic republic mean? Why is it different than any other kind of ruling government? It comes down to the fact we can vote for our representatives via popular vote. We can elect whomever we want BY POPULAR VOTE.

However the issue is if they don't vote how we want there is nothing we can do except vote them out next time. However people don't track what their representatives vote for and continue to vote for the same people 90% of the time.

 

[buddhist]

I agree its an oligarchical republic in function but not by system. A true oligarchy is outright states that those with money have votes and others do not. Currently we have a lax regulation that allows us to play this illusion of democracy. But the intended system, and it can be created as such with enough public backing, is still a democratic republic.

What does a democratic republic mean? Why is it different than any other kind of ruling government? It comes down to the fact we can vote for our representatives via popular vote. We can elect whomever we want BY POPULAR VOTE.

However the issue is if they don't vote how we want there is nothing we can do except vote them out next time. However people don't track what their representatives vote for and continue to vote for the same people 90% of the time.

Those so called "representatives" and administrators often vote according to the will of those willing to bless them from their deep pockets (corporations, billionaires, other countries, etc.), making it an oligarchial republic.

Like you said, it's an illusion otherwise.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Those so called "representatives" and administrators often vote according to the will of those willing to bless them from their deep pockets (corporations, billionaires, other countries, etc.), making it an oligarchial republic.

Like you said, it's an illusion otherwise.

The law of the system is still a democratic republic. Only those who win the vote are in office. However the nomination process that has been carved out functions as an oilgarchy.

 

[buddhist]

The law of the system is still a democratic republic. Only those who win the vote are in office. However the nomination process that has been carved out functions as an oilgarchy.

An illusion of a democratic Republic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

An illusion of a democratic Republic.

Functionally yes. Architecturally no.