Why is a Constitutional Republic more proper than a democracy?

[IBDaMann]

Ibdaman is a troll. And a very stupid person.

Says the wooden marionette who wants to become a real boy.

 

[Hume]

Says the wooden marionette who wants to become a real boy.

you're a dope

 

[Uncensored2008]

lol sure it does. I just posted one. You just don't read well. All eligible voters is not the same number as registered voters. Only 62% of eligible voters registered.

You did? What message number.

Again, cite your source.

 

[Into the Night]

According to your definition, there have never been. Or you would have named one.

I've already named several, twit.

In fact, what you say is nonsense.

The definition of a word is not nonsense.

Language evolves. If it doesn't evolve it's a dead language.

You can't redefine words that way!

What was considered a democracy in ancient times (which is NOT nor has it EVER been what you describe) is not what is described today in political science.

The definition has not changed, twit. Science has no politics. There is no such thing as "political science".

The rest of your post is just you blurting out unsubstantiated nonsense.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEMS ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!

As if "words" had some sort of "magical" property to create reality.

Random words. No apparent coherency. Try English. It works better.

Words DESCRIBE things that exist.

Language is a useful tool to communicate. What politicans, political scientists, English speakers UNDERSTAND by a word is what it eans. And the consensus of what the word "democracy" means is clear: a government in which the people elect, in one way or another, who governs them. In other words, the opposite of a dictatorship. Plain and simple.

DON'T TRY TO PLAY WORD GAMES WITH ME!

I don't want to give you links to THOUSANDS of pages in which not a SINGLE supports your claim. Just use google, if you still have any doubts.

Words are not defined by websites or Google (except the word "Google"). False authority fallacy.
Your problem is that you don't know English.

 

[Uncensored2008]

you're a dope

You're showing us you're a master debater again..

 

[Into the Night]

Of course it was! But not by YOUR definition.

I did not define 'democracy'.

Athens had a complex government with many levels, some elected, some selected at random.

A democracy is not a complex government. There are no representatives in a democracy.

They HAD a constitution (which you claimed doesn't exist).

Athens had no constitution when it was a democracy.

The Constitution was written by Aristotle (maybe you want to claim Aristote didn't exist?)

Athens had no constitution when it was a democracy.

This is what the Athenian Government lookd like according to its CONSTITUTION.

Athens had no constitution when it was a democracy.

 

[EdwinA]

You did? What message number.

Again, cite your source.

You quoted it. Find it yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

lol sure it does. I just posted one. You just don't read well. All eligible voters is not the same number as registered voters. Only 62% of eligible voters registered.

Argument from randU fallacies. Void reference fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

What is your source?

 

[EdwinA]

Argument from randU fallacies. Void reference fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

What is your source?

Ah, another Into The Night fallacy fallacy. Already did post one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You quoted it. Find it yourself.

As noted - you can't back up your claim.

"I said so" isn't a valid citation.

 

[Into the Night]

the monarchies are still totally in control.

they still own all the land they lease out in 99 year leases.

parliament serves at their pleasure and can be disbanded at any time.

the royal family can take over direct control of the military at any time.

insider trading with the monarch is just the price of being in imperial favor and allowed to exist.

it still works like this.

What monarchy are you referring to?

 

[EdwinA]

As noted - you can't back up your claim.

"I said so" isn't a valid citation.

Well, your opinions are obviously shown to be confused, so no problems; I understand why you can't admit you can't read well. The Peanut gallery can easily see my source even if you need to pretend there isn't one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, your opinions are obviously shown to be confused, so no problems; I understand why you can't admit you can't read well. The Peanut gallery can easily see my source even if you need to pretend there isn't one.

Just admit you made it up - everyone already knows it.

 

[EdwinA]

Just admit you made it up - everyone already knows it.

Okay! lol ...

 

[Into the Night]

A consitutional republic

Redundant. All republics have a constitution.

is a representative democracy.

No such thing. Democracies have no representatives and no constitution.

The government says so.

The government does not get to redefine these words.

Encyclopedia Britannica says so.

False authority fallacy. The Britannica does not define any word.

Every professor I have ever met in the halls of academia, both liberal and conservative, say so.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

In fact, the term 'democracy', is now the general term for 'representative democracy', given the simple

Democracies have no representatives.

fact that the type of direct democracy

There is no such thing as a "direct" democracy. A government is a democracy, or it is not.

Madison referred to, and sought to avoid, simply does not exist in any of the 50 or so western liberal democracies.

There are no currently no democracies anywhere in the world.

The founders weren't against democracy,

They certainly were, and said so, and why.

they believed in voting and majority rule.

WRONG. They created constitutions.

Even Hamilton tells us this in Federalist #22:
",..the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail" -- Hamilton

No, it doesn't.

Actually, the term 'Republic' is the broader term, because it refers to any nation that is not a monarchy, though it could be dictatorship, a theocracy, or a democracy. A 'constitutional republic' generally means 'representative democracy'.

Nope. A democracy is not a subset of a republic. They are two completely different forms of government. Set fallacy.
A republic is not a negative. It is government by law (a constitution). A republic is not a democracy. A democracy is not a republic. Redefinition fallacy.

Democracies have no representatives.

See, they feared direct democracy where it could allow factions to take over the government, But, that was in the days of small states. With an electorate of some 135,000,000 people, all we have now are a consortium of factions, and given the size, the size of our current electorate is so large now that factional control is well nigh impossible. And by 'faction', they weren't thinking of political parties, they were thinking of associations, guilds, unions, and the like.

 

[Into the Night]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." --John Rogers


Ayn Rand, you’ve woven a philosophical fantasy that pretends to elevate money to some sacred, untouchable force of moral good. But let’s rip away the gold-plated veneer and see it for what it truly is: a thinly veiled defense of greed masquerading as virtue.

First, you claim that “to trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will.” Well, what a convenient illusion! You forget to mention that money doesn’t just flow from mind to mind or effort to effort—it flows through the hands of those who manipulate the system, rig the rules, and monopolize power. Money, in your utopia, is an innocent bystander. In reality, it’s a weapon, and those who wield it most effectively often do so not with virtue, but with ruthless cunning.

Let's be clear, money is not speech, it is POWER.

You glorify money as if it were a pure reflection of one’s effort and talent, as though the marketplace is some kind of moral arbiter. But here’s the bitter truth: money is just as often the tool of exploitation, the prize for those who can bend the system to their will, whether through monopolies, corruption, or sheer force of capital. The “unforced judgment of the traders”? Give me a break. The scales are already tipped in favor of the powerful, the connected, the ones who’ve already won the game before you even sat down at the table.

Your idealism falls apart when you ignore the vast disparities and injustices that money perpetuates. You talk about money permitting no deals except those to mutual benefit—yet how many millions are trapped in poverty, trading their labor for a pittance, while the wealthy, already bloated with more than they could spend in ten lifetimes, continue to accumulate? Where’s the mutual benefit in that? Your reverence for money sounds like a convenient justification for an economic order that prizes profits over people.

You demand recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury—yet the world you describe is one where the powerful profit from the injury of others, cloaked in the language of ‘value’ and ‘reason.’ And that’s the crux of it, isn’t it? Your philosophy doesn’t liberate—it just shifts the chains from one wrist to another, while pretending they’re not there.

So, Ayn Rand, let’s not pretend that money is some noble tool of freedom. It’s a tool, yes, but one that’s been wielded to reinforce inequality, justify exploitation, and mask the true nature of power. Your essay is a fantasy—a gilded lie wrapped in the language of moral righteousness, but at its core, it’s just a defense of the same old greed and indifference that has plagued humanity for centuries.

Obviously, you've never read any of her books.

 

[Litmus]

Not possible. "Atlas Shrugged" was never translated into your language.

Oligarchs are not victims.

Random words and phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.

that's what gay Atlas Shrugged says.

 

[Into the Night]

worse.

monarchy..

the parliament serves at the pleasure of the queen or king.

Often there is no parliament in a dictatorship.

you don't understand what words mean, evidently.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

that's what gay Atlas Shrugged says.

No such thing.

 

[Litmus]

Often there is no parliament in a dictatorship.

LIF. Grow up.

in the dictatorship called mornachy there is a semi real parliament that can function as long as the queen agrees with it's doings.

it can be disbanded at any point.