New efforts!

[Brigadine]

No politics please.

Can we have one place where I don't have to hear about Trump or Hillary or Republithugs or Libtards? I am exhausted with the lot of you angry partisans. the hate is bad for our democracy.

We aren't a democracy we are a republic with elected officials. Go read the Federalist papers yo.

[Brigadine]

I have an idea for yet another new effort to get CoX back.  I think it's got as much chance of succeeding as the ongoing efforts already underway.

We need to invent a cosmic treadmill type device to allow us to travel to an alternate earth where CoX was never shut down.

Easy peasy.

And if we can find one where the outcome of the last election was different, to boot, all the better.

First we would need to figure out who the employee was that caused to 'personal conflict' that caused the sale to fall through when the game was active.... assuming we want the time machine approach. Alternate realities could get a bit hairy.

[Taceus Jiwede]

We are VERY short of snow here in Southern California. Can you send some our way?

I'll send you a truck load, although it might just be water by the time it gets there.

Call me a weirdo then, but there's no such thing as too much snow! Never want it gone. The more, the better.

I have a strange relationship with snow.  I love it in the mountains where it belongs - and when it doesn't snow (much) here its upsetting, as it use to always snow a lot when I was kid and while it still does every year - its often much less snow then it use to be.  However this year we got a bunch and it reminds how freakin long it sticks around.  Its beautiful and winter wonderlandy at first, and then it just becomes a hybrid of snow/slush/mud that gets tracked everywhere.  That is the point when  decide I am ready for the sunny skies again.  Ugh and the shoveling, you can spend all day shoveling only to do it all again the next day.  But the night of when the sky glows orange  and the morning after when everything is still and untouched, for those brief moments its perfect.

For perspective it hasn't snowed for about a week now and my front yard still has enough snow to go up to my knee and because its a north facing house it wont be going anywhere anytime soon.

[Arcana]

We aren't a democracy we are a republic with elected officials. Go read the Federalist papers yo.

You are conflating "democracy" with what is properly termed a "direct democracy."  The United States Constitution describes a democracy.  All democracies invest ultimate political power with the citizens (or a qualified subset of them).  In direct democracies citizens exercise power to make decisions directly.  In representative democracies citizens elect representatives to make those decisions.  The Federalist Papers refer to direct democracy as "pure democracy."  What they refer to as a "republic" is what we would today call a representative democracy.

It should be noted that James Madison advocated for a representative republic because he felt that having a large number of representatives each representing a large number of people's interests would make it difficult for large factions to remain stable. which would dilute the biggest objection to direct democracy (tyranny of the majority).  In other words, representatives were intended to reduce the power of political parties.  In that he turned out to be entirely wrong: they had the opposite practical effect.

[Kassandros]

.

[rookery.]

You are conflating "democracy" with what is properly termed a "direct democracy."  The United States Constitution describes a democracy.  All democracies invest ultimate political power with the citizens (or a qualified subset of them).  In direct democracies citizens exercise power to make decisions directly.  In representative democracies citizens elect representatives to make those decisions.  The Federalist Papers refer to direct democracy as "pure democracy."  What they refer to as a "republic" is what we would today call a representative democracy.

It should be noted that James Madison advocated for a representative republic because he felt that having a large number of representatives each representing a large number of people's interests would make it difficult for large factions to remain stable. which would dilute the biggest objection to direct democracy (tyranny of the majority).  In other words, representatives were intended to reduce the power of political parties.  In that he turned out to be entirely wrong: they had the opposite practical effect.

https://i.imgur.com/qR4Bebh.jpg

[Arcana]

I have a strange relationship with snow.  I love it in the mountains where it belongs - and when it doesn't snow (much) here its upsetting, as it use to always snow a lot when I was kid and while it still does every year - its often much less snow then it use to be.  However this year we got a bunch and it reminds how freakin long it sticks around.  Its beautiful and winter wonderlandy at first, and then it just becomes a hybrid of snow/slush/mud that gets tracked everywhere.  That is the point when  decide I am ready for the sunny skies again.  Ugh and the shoveling, you can spend all day shoveling only to do it all again the next day.  But the night of when the sky glows orange  and the morning after when everything is still and untouched, for those brief moments its perfect.

I remember a trip I took to a cabin near Sequoia National Park.  Knowing exactly nothing about how to function in an off the grid cabin back then, I was fortunate to get some help from a park ranger who did things like help me prime the water pump and hand me actual firewood for the fireplace.  He showed me a beautiful picture of his own cabin covered in snow.  I remember the snow came up to about a foot above the threshold to the front door.  Then he told me that wasn't the front door, that was the second story window.

[Brigadine]

You are conflating "democracy" with what is properly termed a "direct democracy."  The United States Constitution describes a democracy.  All democracies invest ultimate political power with the citizens (or a qualified subset of them).  In direct democracies citizens exercise power to make decisions directly.  In representative democracies citizens elect representatives to make those decisions.  The Federalist Papers refer to direct democracy as "pure democracy."  What they refer to as a "republic" is what we would today call a representative democracy.

It should be noted that James Madison advocated for a representative republic because he felt that having a large number of representatives each representing a large number of people's interests would make it difficult for large factions to remain stable. which would dilute the biggest objection to direct democracy (tyranny of the majority).  In other words, representatives were intended to reduce the power of political parties.  In that he turned out to be entirely wrong: they had the opposite practical effect.

The Constitution describes a Democratic Republic. I agree the Republic part has faded a bit, but never the less that's what was intended. All my Poly Sci professors refer to us as a democratic republic. The 'representative' part is a Republic idea.

[ukaserex]

In a lot of ways we are a Democracy. And a Republic.

Consider this as a more accurate description: Each state is a democracy, but the country is a Constitutional Republic.

I thought the topic of politics was taken off the table?

[Arcana]

The Constitution describes a Democratic Republic. I agree the Republic part has faded a bit, but never the less that's what was intended. All my Poly Sci professors refer to us as a democratic republic. The 'representative' part is a Republic idea.

Actually, the practice of elected representation precedes the modern concept of the republic.  Ancient Sparta had elected representative officials and is usually considered to be a hybrid democracy, not a republic.  The key idea of "republic-ism" the founding fathers were most interested in was Constitutionalism.  In a pure direct democracy, the people have literally unlimited governing power.  The people could decide to do anything.  In a republic, the government is regulated by a constitutional framework of laws which the people and their representatives are limited by.  To illustrate, in a pure direct democracy 99% of the people could vote to put one person to death.  In a republic, even if 99% of the people want someone to die they can't just vote them dead unless the law proscribes the death penalty for a specific reason.

[Arcana]

In a lot of ways we are a Democracy. And a Republic.

Consider this as a more accurate description: Each state is a democracy, but the country is a Constitutional Republic.

Actually, I consider the term "democracy" to refer to a process, and the term "republic" to refer to a structure.  They don't describe the same things.  So really the question of whether something is one or the other is a slight non-sequitor.  A particular country can be either or neither independently because they are not explicitly linked.  The United States is structured as a democratic republic (as is most of the modern western world).  There are non-democratic republics.  I would argue that China is a non-democratic republic.   There are also democratic non-republics.  Your high school class president was elected to a democratic non-republic - because your high school is not a republic.  In terms of countries, technically speaking England, or more precisely the United Kingdom, is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy.  In practice, it is effectively a democratic republic because the reigning monarch currently doesn't really exercise authoritative power (mostly).  But on paper, while (a part of) Parliament is elected by the people, they rule in the name of the crown, not the people.  To radically over-simplify, on paper Parliamentary elections in England are not an exercise of the power of the people, they are the reigning monarch asking the people who they want to send to the capital to work in the government for the Queen.

Interestingly, this isn't a mere word-quibble.  There's actually a law on the books in the UK called the Treason Felony Act of 1848.  Its literal wording states it is a crime to commit any act hostile to the monarchy, and this was actually litigated recently (as in: 2001-2003) where the legal challenge and arguments for and against the Act specifically framed the Act as implying that discussions of a conversion to "republicanism" were illegal**.  Legally, then, the UK is not a republic.

Incidentally, all 50 states of the United States have democratically elected governments but cannot be republics by definition because they are not sovereign states, any more than your high school would be.

I thought the topic of politics was taken off the table?

I'd consider this social science, not politics.



** Most legal scholars seem to agree that actual prosecution of mere discussion or peaceful advocacy of an abolition of the monarchy would not survive a modern court room

[Brigadine]

In a lot of ways we are a Democracy. And a Republic.

Consider this as a more accurate description: Each state is a democracy, but the country is a Constitutional Republic.

I thought the topic of politics was taken off the table?

Many states are no more or less democratic than the federal government. Some States actually model their State Legislatures after the Federal Gov. Two state congressional chambers and the Governor is kinda like the President.

[Twisted Toon]

I'll send you a truck load, although it might just be water by the time it gets there.

We're in a drought, we could use that too.

[Brigadine]

Actually, the practice of elected representation precedes the modern concept of the republic.  Ancient Sparta had elected representative officials and is usually considered to be a hybrid democracy, not a republic.  The key idea of "republic-ism" the founding fathers were most interested in was Constitutionalism.  In a pure direct democracy, the people have literally unlimited governing power.  The people could decide to do anything.  In a republic, the government is regulated by a constitutional framework of laws which the people and their representatives are limited by.  To illustrate, in a pure direct democracy 99% of the people could vote to put one person to death.  In a republic, even if 99% of the people want someone to die they can't just vote them dead unless the law proscribes the death penalty for a specific reason.

I guess our main difference is I view them both as a framework first. Our value in a constitution is a republic concept as is our differing election timetables for various officials. The Senate is the more republic like chamber due to the 6 year term. They aren't nearly as subjected to elections as their House brethren due to all House officials being up for reelection every 2 years. They were meant to be the peoples chamber.

Before someone asks when Arcana and I are referring to republican and democratic we aren't referring to parties we are referring to a core government structure such as communism, tolatarianism etc.

[Brigadine]

I'd consider this social science, not politics.

I agree, as someone in a Political Science program it is actually a recognized science.

[Arcana]

I guess our main difference is I view them both as a framework first. Our value in a constitution is a republic concept as is our differing election timetables for various officials. The Senate is the more republic like chamber due to the 6 year term. They aren't nearly as subjected to elections as their House brethren due to all House officials being up for reelection every 2 years. They were meant to be the peoples chamber.

I believe it is worth asking why you believe constitutions are a republican concept.  The fact that constitutions predate the concept of a republic would seem to preclude that notion to me, but maybe there's an alternate logic at play.  There is a distinction to me between pure democracies which are not bound by the rule of law and modern democracies in which the rule of law is a prerequisite for sustaining a democracy.  Therefore, the constitutional rule of law can equally be said to arise from the practicalities of indirect democracies or alternatively as a natural consequence of republican structures of governance.  What makes constitutionalism exclusively republican (exclusive of democratic evolution)?

The notion that the (US) Senate is more "republic-like" due to its longer term length is also interesting to me.  It begs an interesting question: how would you define a "democratic republic?"  It almost sounds like you would consider that an oxymoron.

[AmberOfDzu]

It begs an interesting question: how would you define a "democratic republic?"  It almost sounds like you would consider that an oxymoron.

To be fair, most of those have "People's" up first.

[Arcana]

To be fair, most of those have "People's" up first.

As I understand the term, most don't.  Most western democracies are democratic republics, as I've always understood the term to mean academically.  I was asking the question to clarify someone else's definition which might differ significantly from the one I understand.

The term "People's Democratic Republic" or "Democratic People's Republic" sound like they are close to "democratic republic" but actually describe significantly different things, because those terms have historic meanings different from the generic academic meanings.  When someone names their country the People's Democratic Republic of whatever, they are implying that their government is a proto-socialist republic democratically dictated by the (presumably majority) working class people.  They are not describing democracies as we normally define them in the west, where political power rests with individual people on an ongoing basis.

The catch on "democracy" is that it is a western democratic notion that "the people" who are supposed to have power in a democracy refers to each individual person making up "the people."  In other systems, such as those deriving from Soviet socialistic or communist doctrines, "the people" refers to the collective group of citizens, and not individuals who make it up.  That distinction allows for ideas that are likely very strange sounding to people not accustomed to them.  For example, there's such a thing as a "people's democratic dictatorship."  The principle is codified in the constitution of China.  The idea is that the government is empowered by "the people" to act in the best interests of "the people" but that can require the government to exercise unlimited power against individuals who are a threat to "the people."  In such a system, "the people" have rights and those rights override the rights any one individual might have.

In the west, it is a presumptive truth that personal freedoms are important enough to pay significant social costs to maintain.  You are generally free to, for example, criticize the government, or stage a protest, or even disrupt the lives of people around you to some extent.  That has a social (and often economic) cost that others have to bear when you exercise that right.  Western governments to varying degrees allow individuals to take these actions even though others will have to pay for them to preserve that individual freedom.  But in China, the (my social interpretation) same idea is processed differently.  The government's responsibility is to the people as a whole, not to you as an individual.  So when you try to exercise some right that extracts a social cost from others without their permission, it is the role of the government to put a stop to it because it is their job to protect "them" from you.  They recognize no right you have to extract that social cost.  They see it as supporting the democratic principle that "the people" chose them (the government) to secure their rights collectively, and protect it from individuals who would damage it.

To put it bluntly, in China the people have the democratic right to choose, but only from a set of choices the government decides are acceptable choices.  Because it is the government's job to protect the people from choosing poorly ("detrimental to the country as a whole," I think they would say).

[Brigadine]

I believe it is worth asking why you believe constitutions are a republican concept.  The fact that constitutions predate the concept of a republic would seem to preclude that notion to me, but maybe there's an alternate logic at play.  There is a distinction to me between pure democracies which are not bound by the rule of law and modern democracies in which the rule of law is a prerequisite for sustaining a democracy.  Therefore, the constitutional rule of law can equally be said to arise from the practicalities of indirect democracies or alternatively as a natural consequence of republican structures of governance.  What makes constitutionalism exclusively republican (exclusive of democratic evolution)?

The notion that the (US) Senate is more "republic-like" due to its longer term length is also interesting to me.  It begs an interesting question: how would you define a "democratic republic?"  It almost sounds like you would consider that an oxymoron.

It kind of is an oxymoron. A longer term length means the voters cant vote you out as frequently. That means the democratic process and public opinion has less of an influence on you. Republics don't have elections and therefor the person in question is fully insulated. My point is the longer term length brings the Senate in question that much closer to a republic standing than their house counterparts or the president for that matter.

As for constitutions predating republicanism that is debatable because the concept of a constitution is different for different societies and individual. Plato could be considered the god father of republicanism so idk. They both go back super far.

I guess it seems to boil down to my initial statement about us being a republic-democratic hybrid.

PS Rule of law is critical to both a democracy and a republic. :)

PSS. kind of a side point. Our Constitution is fairly unique in it tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do not the other way around.

[Zerohour]

As I understand the term, most don't.  Most western democracies are democratic republics, as I've always understood the term to mean academically.  I was asking the question to clarify someone else's definition which might differ significantly from the one I understand.

The term "People's Democratic Republic" or "Democratic People's Republic" sound like they are close to "democratic republic" but actually describe significantly different things, because those terms have historic meanings different from the generic academic meanings.  When someone names their country the People's Democratic Republic of whatever, they are implying that their government is a proto-socialist republic democratically dictated by the (presumably majority) working class people.  They are not describing democracies as we normally define them in the west, where political power rests with individual people on an ongoing basis.

The catch on "democracy" is that it is a western democratic notion that "the people" who are supposed to have power in a democracy refers to each individual person making up "the people."  In other systems, such as those deriving from Soviet socialistic or communist doctrines, "the people" refers to the collective group of citizens, and not individuals who make it up.  That distinction allows for ideas that are likely very strange sounding to people not accustomed to them.  For example, there's such a thing as a "people's democratic dictatorship."  The principle is codified in the constitution of China.  The idea is that the government is empowered by "the people" to act in the best interests of "the people" but that can require the government to exercise unlimited power against individuals who are a threat to "the people."  In such a system, "the people" have rights and those rights override the rights any one individual might have.

In the west, it is a presumptive truth that personal freedoms are important enough to pay significant social costs to maintain.  You are generally free to, for example, criticize the government, or stage a protest, or even disrupt the lives of people around you to some extent.  That has a social (and often economic) cost that others have to bear when you exercise that right.  Western governments to varying degrees allow individuals to take these actions even though others will have to pay for them to preserve that individual freedom.  But in China, the (my social interpretation) same idea is processed differently.  The government's responsibility is to the people as a whole, not to you as an individual.  So when you try to exercise some right that extracts a social cost from others without their permission, it is the role of the government to put a stop to it because it is their job to protect "them" from you.  They recognize no right you have to extract that social cost.  They see it as supporting the democratic principle that "the people" chose them (the government) to secure their rights collectively, and protect it from individuals who would damage it.

To put it bluntly, in China the people have the democratic right to choose, but only from a set of choices the government decides are acceptable choices.  Because it is the government's job to protect the people from choosing poorly ("detrimental to the country as a whole," I think they would say).

is there a topic you don't have a thesaurus-filtered opinion on?  good lord