Is Democracy really the ideal form of goverment?

[susanann]

I hope you understand that you negate your own argument by stating numbers 1 and 2.

You're going to have a hard time proving that the United States is not a federal republic.

Quote
Form of government:
federal republic with two legislative housesQuote
Government

Federal republic.

QuoteUnited States of America, popularly referred to as the United States or as America, a federal republic on the continent of North America...

You dont understand your own posts.

...and you are the one who brought up 1 and 2.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic.

A constitutional republic, is a republic, but there are many different kinds of republics.

Our Constitutional Republic has a constitution which specifies two legislative houses.

The very idea of having two legislative houses comes from our Constitution, and that is where it is specified.

You could have a Constitutional Republic with two legislative houses, or one, or more, that is irrelevent to our government being a Constitutional Republic.

You also seem to be confused with what "federation" means. The Constitutional Republic of the United States has its constitution specifying a federal government. i.e a federation of states, rather than a national bonding.

The Constitutional Republic of the United States is a federation of states.

You need to learn that there are huge differences between various republics, and that a Constitutional Republic is vastly different from others.

 

[susanann]

Quote Originally Posted by: susanann A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.

Different Constitutional Republics afford their citizens different Constitutional rights. The problem with discussing Constitutional Republics as a form of government is that how ideal it is is based on what rights are protected and how the election process is defined in each case.

Correct.

 

[Pseudonym]

You dont understand your own posts.

...and you are the one who brought up 1 and 2.

No...look at your post. You said yourself that you posted the article from Wikipedia about constitutional republics. That was your point 1. Then you said that Wikipedia isn't legitimate because anyone can add to it or change it. This was your point 2. Your entire argument is based on an article that you yourself say is not credible because, and I quote, "anybody can put stuff in there." Simple logic...very simple.

A constitutional republic, is a republic, but there are many different kinds of republics.

Agreed.

Our Constitutional Republic has a constitution which specifies two legislative houses.

Reread this statement and realize that you are being redundant. Is there any constitutional republic that does not have a constitution? This is the beginning of why you are confused.

The very idea of having two legislative houses comes from our Constitution, and that is where it is specified.

Agreed, but this is irrelevant.

You need to learn that there are huge differences between various republics, and that a Constitutional Republic is vastly different from others.

The term "constitutional republic" is too vague; it encompasses federal republics, democratic republics, federal democratic republics, parliamentary republics, confederated republics, federative republics, et al. It doesn't accurately describe the type of government we have in the United States. Many countries have a constitutional republic: Austria, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, and the United States. To say that they all exercise the same type of government however is simply erroneous. It is not unique or even rare for a country to have a constitutional republic. What makes the United States almost unique (almost, because Austria shares our exact form of government) is that we have a constitution-based FEDERAL republic.

The term "constitutional" does not describe the type of government, it describes the means by which the government was formed, specifically a constitution. Austria, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, and the United States all have constitutional republics because they all have various forms of the republic system that was defined by their own constitutions. But to say that the United States practices the same form of government as Brazil or Iceland or Peru because they're all "constitutional republics" is ignorant. You're using an umbrella term to define a specific individual. You might as well be claiming that apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both round.

Also as I reread my last post I realize that I was a bit crass. I apologize. When I wrote it I just got off from work (I work from 10pm-6am) and was very tired. I'm just trying to help you understand why the United States is more accurately defined as a constitution-based federal republic than a constitutional republic.

 

[applepowerpc]

If we're talking the ideal government, the ideal is a benevolent theocracy, with Jesus Christ sitting on the throne.

 

[Pseudonym]

I agree.

The best form of government is a monarchy with a good King.

I'm going to have to one-up you by saying that the most ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, as opposed to a monarchy. Monarchs rarely actually rule. Since they are chosen by divine intervention it is usually considered beneath them to actually participate in the country's government. Therefore the legislative, judicial, and most of the executive duties of a monarchy are delegated to other people. The United Kingdom and Canada for example delegate the Queen's power to a Prime Minister, a Supreme Court (a very new Supreme Court for the UK), and a House of Lords and a House of Commons.

In a dictatorship the dictator has complete and absolute rule. He has the final say in all legislative, executive, and judicial affairs. This makes the dictatorship incredibly efficient. Industrialization occurs at phenomenal speeds in most dictatorships and there is no need to wait months for a goofy Congress to reach decisions on important issues.

The only problem with a benevolent dictatorship is that it does not ensure longevity of the government. While the first dictator will be benevolent, the second or third dictator could be anything but. That's where there's a real advantage to the republic system that the United States uses. Whether the President is really nice or really mean, he can't screw things up too terribly and the longevity of our government is almost a sure thing.

 

[PETE_]

If we're talking the ideal government, the ideal is a benevolent theocracy, with Jesus Christ sitting on the throne.

I was just going to point out that we will one day the ultimate form of govt.---a monarchy. When He returns to rule, He will be the perfect King. It will not work today bcause we cannot find even a near perfect king.

 

[susanann]

But since I'm sure you won't, let's see what some other sources have to say:
http://www.britannica.com/nations/United-States
Form of government:
federal republic with two legislative houses.

The very idea of having two legislative houses comes from our Constitution, and that is where it is specified.

Agreed, but this is irrelevant.

Then why are you bringing it up at all?

 

[susanann]

You said yourself that you posted the article from Wikipedia about constitutional republics. That was your point

Nope!

It was your point.

YOu are the one who brought up Wikipedia, and you gave your link but you didnt show the content.

I merely showed the content of what your Wikipedia said:



The United States is a Constitutional Republic.



------------------------------------------------
from your own source:
Constitutional republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. This characteristic is an important distinction to a Republic.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican. Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law; popular vote is limited to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself.

A constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy, but not all liberal democracies are constitutional republics. For example, monarchies may also be liberal democracies provided that elected representatives govern according to constitutional law (constitutional monarchy).

Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.
The notion of constitiutional republic origniates with Aristotle's Politics and his notion of the polity. He Contrasts the polity or repulican government with democracy and oligarchy in book 3, chapter 6 of the Politics.

Constitutional republics are advocated by classical liberals. The United States of America is the oldest constitutional republic in the world and the first comprehensive experiment in this conceived form of government.

 

[MoonlessNight]

And this is exactly why I didn't want to quibble over definitions.

All I personally care about is what you people think democracies and republics in general, what types of things you think work and what things don't, what might be a better option and so on and so forth. I could care less what you call any of it.

 

[susanann]

And this is exactly why I didn't want to quibble over definitions.

All I personally care about is what you people think democracies and republics in general, what types of things you think work and what things don't, what might be a better option and so on and so forth. I could care less what you call any of it.

Hopefully, the quibbling is over.


As far as democracies, how can any democracy prevent the majority from harming, infringing on the rights of, or otherwise hurting minorities?

It seems impossible for any democracy to not harm a minority.

When you are outvoted in any democracy, you always lose.

 

[Maxwell511]

I'm going to have to one-up you by saying that the most ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, as opposed to a monarchy. Monarchs rarely actually rule. Since they are chosen by divine intervention it is usually considered beneath them to actually participate in the country's government. Therefore the legislative, judicial, and most of the executive duties of a monarchy are delegated to other people. The United Kingdom and Canada for example delegate the Queen's power to a Prime Minister, a Supreme Court (a very new Supreme Court for the UK), and a House of Lords and a House of Commons.

In a dictatorship the dictator has complete and absolute rule. He has the final say in all legislative, executive, and judicial affairs. This makes the dictatorship incredibly efficient. Industrialization occurs at phenomenal speeds in most dictatorships and there is no need to wait months for a goofy Congress to reach decisions on important issues.

The only problem with a benevolent dictatorship is that it does not ensure longevity of the government. While the first dictator will be benevolent, the second or third dictator could be anything but. That's where there's a real advantage to the republic system that the United States uses. Whether the President is really nice or really mean, he can't screw things up too terribly and the longevity of our government is almost a sure thing.

I'm not sure. For modern monarchacies (sp?) this is the case but historically monarcharies were not different to dictatorships. I believe that in the pre-Cromwell era all kings were dictators.

 

[variant]

I'm going to have to one-up you by saying that the most ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, as opposed to a monarchy. Monarchs rarely actually rule. Since they are chosen by divine intervention it is usually considered beneath them to actually participate in the country's government. Therefore the legislative, judicial, and most of the executive duties of a monarchy are delegated to other people. The United Kingdom and Canada for example delegate the Queen's power to a Prime Minister, a Supreme Court (a very new Supreme Court for the UK), and a House of Lords and a House of Commons.

In a dictatorship the dictator has complete and absolute rule. He has the final say in all legislative, executive, and judicial affairs. This makes the dictatorship incredibly efficient. Industrialization occurs at phenomenal speeds in most dictatorships and there is no need to wait months for a goofy Congress to reach decisions on important issues.

The only problem with a benevolent dictatorship is that it does not ensure longevity of the government. While the first dictator will be benevolent, the second or third dictator could be anything but. That's where there's a real advantage to the republic system that the United States uses. Whether the President is really nice or really mean, he can't screw things up too terribly and the longevity of our government is almost a sure thing.

Benevolent or no dictatorships place a huge number of decisions on the vision of a single imperfect person.

This means that those this person favors with their decisions are going to be hugely rewarded, and those this person doesn’t favor will be hugely undercut.

So, even if your dictator is benevolent, the dictator may simply be incompetent to deal with every problem that the nation faces as a whole, and their expertise may not be trustworthy on all subjects, leading to huge mistakes. In fact they may not be trustworthy on very difficult matters like how to best grow an economy.

With no one capable of second guessing the dictator once that dictator’s mind is made up, this will unavoidably spread massive corruption and inefficiency.

Your capability of thriving in this day and age with a dictator will depend on the vastness of your dictator’s expertise, the expertise of the advisers this person relies on, and how that combined expertise matches up with the problems facing the country.

Dictatorships avoid though, one of the problems with a representative democracy, which is specifically, the ability of people to vote and thus favor, completely contradictory notions, and the tendency of their representatives to appease this want to gain power for other reasons. This is of course if the dictator holds himself to consistent viewpoints, which is easier than a population doing so.

Our biggest example is that people when asked, want more government services/actions with fewer taxes. Which is understandable, but not entirely possible (I suppose efficiency can be increased). This becomes a problem when someone decides to appease voters by in fact, expanding government and reducing taxes, and even going so far as to rely (somewhat erroneously) on an economic theory that says this is swell. The problem being that your government is now massively running up deficits, and everything looks ok in the short term because the economy is getting better, but in the long term there has to be a theoretical limit as to how far it can be stretched. When all the issues are worked out what the people are really voting for is to pass on a huge amount of dept to “someone else” rather than paying for their own services themselves, which is easy.

 

[Maxwell511]

All I personally care about is what you people think democracies and republics in general, what types of things you think work and what things don't.

To be honest I think that any "Republic" that doesn't have proportional representation is not a Republic.

 

[Maxwell511]

Benevolent or no dictatorships place a huge number of decisions on the vision of a single imperfect person.

This means that those this person favors with their decisions are going to be hugely rewarded, and those this person doesn’t favor will be hugely undercut.

So, even if your dictator is benevolent, the dictator may simply be incompetent to deal with every problem that the nation faces as a whole, and their expertise may not be trustworthy on all subjects, leading to huge mistakes. In fact they may not be trustworthy on very difficult matters like how to best grow an economy.

With no one capable of second guessing the dictator once that dictator’s mind is made up, this will unavoidably spread massive corruption and inefficiency.

You assume that dictator's won't listen to their advicers.

 

[susanann]

So, even if your dictator is benevolent, the dictator may simply be incompetent to deal with every problem that the nation faces as a whole, and their expertise may not be trustworthy on all subjects, leading to huge mistakes. In fact they may not be trustworthy on very difficult matters like how to best grow an economy.

With no one capable of second guessing the dictator once that dictator’s mind is made up, this will unavoidably spread massive corruption and inefficiency.

Any government can be imcompetent, make mistakes, not be trustworthy, be corrupt, and be inefficient.

I dont see any difference in the end result whether you have a dicator or not.

Only when you have a country where the people are continually able to have a revolution at any time, is when the government effectively checkmated.




""God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are notwarned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Maxwell511]

Only when you have a country where the people are continually able to have a revolution at any time, is when the government effectively checkmated.

I know that this might sound like a weird and unrelated question, but do you think that the US can defeat the insurgency in Iraq?

 

[susanann]

I know that this might sound like a weird and unrelated question, but do you think that the US can defeat the insurgency in Iraq?

It all depends on the (any) peoples will to fight for self rule.

My guess from experience is, that arabs today are not total pacifists, and I dont think any european country, today, can run that country without constant and never ending insurgency. I also dont thing any european country can bring all 3 groups to love and live together peacably - so civil war is inevitable with or without the US being there.

In short: no.

YOu question is not unrelated, because "no government ever sits in power without the consent of its people".

 

[PastorMikeJ]

actually if you are looking to get things done in your country the worse form on gov. is democracy...the ideal form is a dictatorship...but to have the most rights it is a democracy...but we don't really have a democracy here in the States we have a republic... the majority doesn't rule here...unelected officials run the country as in the case of the Supreme Court, Gov. departments like State, Health, OSHA, Labor, etc...they actually run the country...these depts don't even consult the public they decide for us what we need...or what we don't..

 

[variant]

You assume that dictator's won't listen to their advicers.

No, I don't. I am simply debunking that benevolence is enough for a dictator to lead to a thriving country. Benevolence must be added to expertise, because the dictator is the ultimate authority on so many things. The dictator may simply not have competent advisors, or listen to the wrong ones opinions. You see, the dictator has to determine which advice is the best, even if he has the best advisors, and must pick his advisors according to the vision the dictator has. People are prone to bias, so your dictator is likely to pick advisors who agree with them, this is unwise, but it is almost inevitable.

If your dictator defers completely to advisors, you don’t have a dictatorship, but rather an oligarchic control by the advisors.

The issue is that the dictator is supreme, and even when wrong can be steadfast and thus unchallengeable except through execution. So the system overall is more prone to corruption through absolutely no check on the power of the dictator.

One of the main attributes of any democratic system is that the vision of one person is constantly checked and question by almost everyone, which is the benefit of a democratic system. It allows the freedom to change and challenge those in power constantly.

 

[Maxwell511]

In short: no.

Okay cool. I was just interested because you seem to think that the 2nd protects you and the US republic from governmental tyrants. You understand that if the 2nd was needed to protect you from the US government the US would not be able to exist anymore the best you could do was to make you region ungovernable and set up an independent nation.