Why is a Constitutional Republic more proper than a democracy?
- Thread starter Libhater
- Start date
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.
Feynman Lives!
Active member
I TOLD you I tend to ignore posters who have proven to not be serioius. Athens was NEVER the way the poster I resonded to described.
Of course it was! But not by YOUR definition.
Athens had a complex government with many levels, some elected, some selected at random. They HAD a constitution (which you claimed doesn't exist). The Constitution was written by Aristotle (maybe you want to claim Aristote didn't exist?)
This is what the Athenian Government lookd like according to its CONSTITUTION.
I didn't "duck" it. I ignored it because, even for you, it's particularly stupid. Not to mention that obviously you don't even know what it means.
Start by researching what the terms you use MEAN... and MAYBE... I will take what you post seriously.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. Since we are not a democracy, it cannot mean simply that we are not a dictatorship. A dictatorship is only one thing that a democracy is not. Democracies are also not theocracies. Democracies are also not gynocracies.
We are a republic and we are not a democracy.
... and it means that we are not an oligarchy, and it means that we are not an plutocracy, etc.
All current tyrannical oligarchies are headed by "Presidents."
Too funny. Those countries are constitutional monarchies, in which the "monarchy" component is entirely euphemistic because the "monarchy" is symbolic (without power) and whose responsibilities are entirely ceremonial, like that of an honor guard.
The United States of America is a republic that is not democractic.
The modern concept of "democracy" came from the ancient Greeks and was practiced in the city states.
Neither hamburgers nor the inability to pronounce the word "hamburger" ever had anything to do with forging models of democracy.
Litmus
Verified User
i have.
it says oligarchs are the real victims.
it's bunch of fascist corporate worship dummy stuff.
Into the Night
Verified User
It seems that you don't know why States conduct a popular vote for "President".
While only the legislature of a State can certify such a vote, and any such vote is purely advisory, all States conduct a popular vote for "President". What you are actually voting for is which slate of electors to send. Again, that vote is purely advisory to that State legislature.
There was no election in 2020. Too many States never chose their electors. That election faulted to due election fraud by Democrats.
Election fraud by Democrat occurred AGAIN in 2022, faulting several elections.
* Pennsylvania broke the law multiple times, for example, by not holding the election on the day specified by Congress, passing ex-post-facto laws DURING the election, and violating both their own constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
* Most of the fraud occurred within the election offices themselves. Many have come forward with affidavits filed to testify of election fraud taking place behind closed doors in election offices. Those affidavits were filed by election workers both Republican and Democrat.
* Every "vote" being counted after hours was for Biden, a mathematical improbability so high as to be ridiculous.
* Other States made unconstitutional changes to their election law, violating their own State constitutions.
* Several States had more "voters" registered than eligible voters in that State. Some of them have been going through and purging their roles.
There is some hope.
Quite a few States have changed procedures to stop this kind of shit, giving their legislatures a better measure of the opinion of their constituents. They have been actively cleaning up their voter roles to eliminate dead people and people that have moved out of their jurisdiction.
There are quite a few more people taking a critical look at the election process than before, including watching for fraudulent behavior by election workers and providing an extra measure of ballot chain of authority.
We now face the following situation:
1) If the 2024 election cycles successfully, and Kamala is elected, you can look forward to full blown communism and fascism, along with it's attendant shortages in everything and unchecked crime and likely WW3. Keep yer powder dry!
2) If the 2024 election cycles successfully, and Trump is elected, you can expect violence from Democrats (they have already stated they are going to do this!). Trump will be more aggressive at enforcing the law this time than before to keep cities from being burned and looted, but...keep yer powder dry!
3) If the 2024 election faults again, there will be civil war. Keep yer powder dry!
The Democrats have called numerous times for civil war. They WANT civil war. They think they can win such a civil war. They don't realize they are trying to start a war they cannot win.
Into the Night
Verified User
Not possible. "Atlas Shrugged" was never translated into your language.
Oligarchs are not victims.
Random words and phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.
Litmus
Verified User
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.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
That just means that you have no intention of engaging in any serious discussion. You are clearly only here to preach, i.e. one-way lecture, ... not to listen and not to learn ... and it's a pity too because you have a shitload to learn.
How old are you?
How particularly stupid of you. Ignoring it is ducking it.
Look who's talking.
Nope. You will never take any differing views seriously. You didn't even bother to research the terms you use to know what they mean. There is no reason any rational adult should take you seriously.
Publius
Well-known member
A consitutional republic is a representative democracy.
The government says so.
Encyclopedia Britannica says so.
Every professor I have ever met in the halls of academia, both liberal and conservative, say so.
In fact, the term 'democracy', is now the general term for 'representative democracy', given the simple
fact that the type of direct democracy Madison referred to, and sought to avoid, simply does not exist in any of the 50 or so western liberal democracies.
The founders weren't against democracy, they believed in voting and majority rule. 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
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'.
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.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Fascism again, right?
Parliament could strip all that away.
I think you need to brush up on your reading a bit. In 2023, Parliament reduced the Crown Estate’s net profits allocated to the Sovereign Grant to 12% from 25%.
... unless Parliament says "No." All of the top military brass report directly to the Secretary of State for Defence, a member of Parliament.
The powers of the monarch are limited by the Constitution, in Magna Carta fashion.
Publius
Well-known member
What she said about what?
The "Money" speech in "Atlas Shrugged" is the single most important essay on the nature of markets in history.
{“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find.}
"Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand | Capitalism Magazine
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money?"www.capitalismmagazine.com
"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.
Litmus
Verified User
worse.
monarchy..
the parliament serves at the pleasure of the queen or king.
you don't understand what words mean, evidently.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. I realize that you are desperate to shoehorn the word "democracy" in there ... but no, a constitutional republic, by having a constitution, is therefore not a democracy.
Yes, the founders were against democracy. The founders ensured that the words "democracy" and "democractic" did not appear whatsoever in the Constitution, and they ensured the Constitution specified a republican form of government.
The founders specifically prohibited majority rule of individual liberties, for example, precluding a democracy.
Do you see those preceding dots, i.e. "..."? That means there is a bunch of preceding and surrounding context that you omitted, which means that you are lying deliberately. I think we're pretty much done here.
Feynman Lives!
Active member
Yeah. It just means your premise is flawed.
I'm not making any of this up. I'd be famous if I had. But I just copy what political scientists say.
You would have to be more specific. All theocracies I can think of are dictatorships. If there is a mechanism by which the people elect who governs them, it's a democracy. If there isn't, it's a dictatorship.
Oh.... you mean like there is on Venus?
Sorry. I'm talking about reality. Not fantasy
A "Republic" simply means that we are not a monarchy. When the lady asked Dr Franklin if we would have "A Republic or a Monarchy", and Dr. Franklin replied "a Republic, if we can keep it" she wanted to know if we would have a President or a King.
Anyway... you don't have to go on and on: if the people elect who governs them, it's a democracy. If they don't, it's a dictatorship.
Plain and simple.
Feynman Lives!
Active member
I'm afraid you confuse me with somebody who gives a crap how you call it.
It's actually quite simple: post a serious point, ask a seriouis question, counter my arguments with a serious rebutal, make an informed point that you have researched and can document.... and I will respond. Behave like a troll and.... I will respond ONLY if I can come up with a way to make fun of you. But don't expect a serious answer.
Shouldn't be too difficult....
Ibdaman is a troll. And a very stupid person.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Ayn Rand didn't do this. Karl Marx demonized economics in this way, because he was a stupid, lazy and entitled rich kid who wanted everyone else provide for him while he sat comfortably on a sofa and complained.
You apparently fell for it.
Profit motive is what brings everything that is good to the world. That certainly makes it a virtue, and it makes it an indelible part of human nature, i.e. the desire to acquire resources and to pursue happiness.
There is no "the system." There are only those who are rewarded for adding value to society. You appear to be a loser who does not add any value to society, and who is thusly hurling petty insults out of dire envy at those who are successful in adding value.
Money is liquid wealth. Wealth is reward for adding value. The spending of wealth/money on desired goods and services is the truest form of expression.
You demonize wealth in "sour grapes" fashion because you are a loser who doesn't have any and who is frustrated because he can't get any, likely because you are too lazy to add value.
Explain to me, using the supply-demand curve, how that is.
There is no "the system."
What is that equation, i.e. sheer force of capital?
F = ?
Aaaah, you don't understand the concept so you lash out in blame.
Those who understand economics know that the supply-demand curve is a win-win proposition. Both players who sit down at the table win, but neither can win until both players have won.
You never knew what you were talking about, did you?
Explain.
You seem pretty stupid. How is the money in your wallet responsible for your poor financial decisions? You are just a loser who seeks to blame money for his own fuqk-ups.
Let's examine your example of an unskilled laborer, who never bothered to improve his ability to add value to society, sitting around starving. You are fine with this, as long as no one else helps him in any way, because you are a sadistic misanthrop who hates all life and happiness in others.
Now, if some successful, happy philanthropist decides to help that poor, starving individual, you begin to seethe in anger that the laborer won't be starving to death, but will be receiving money to buy food and other desired goods and services, i.e. happiness, and you find happiness in others to be totally unacceptable, especially when said laborer was just about to die of starvation and fill you with glee. You lash out in irrational rage, blaming philanthropists everywhere of "offering jobs" and "offering business loans" and providing others tools to bring value to society on a larger scale, to be more successful on a larger scale, and to bring happiness to the world on a larger scale. It's enough to make you vomit and to make you want to fly large aircraft into tall buildings. You scream out in front of the mirror "It's grand exploitation, I tell you! It's all just grand exploitation!" Translation: "God, I'm such a fuqking loser; somebody please just kill me now!"
Exactly. Everybody needs/wants resources, and everyone prioritizes acquiring resources over their concerns for you. You're a loser. Piss off.
A free market is necessary for a free society. Money enables a free market in the same way that electricity enables computation.
Please list your top five examples of money being wielded as a weapon and not being used to buy goods and services (or other financial instruments).
You never connected the dots, from "money" to "the true nature of power." In fact, you never defined any of your terms, i.e. you are raving incoherently.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. You simply haven't thought this through, probably because you aren't properly educated.
Oh, I know. You are simply regurgitating what your thought-masters have ordered you to believe.
You regurgitate the dogmatic sermons of your clergy.
Expand your imagination beyond what your thought-masters permit. Think Afghan jirgas, for example. History is replete with such examples, and the US is not any of them.
If the majority cannot override the minority, it's not a democracy.
False. It might be a constitutional republic.
No, I mean like the US is not.
Nice pivot, by the way. I suspect that this is the manner in which you are ultimately going to tip your king.
Now you are chanting. Your king is in check and you are simply holding off mate for as long as possible.
Anyway, you don't have to continue raving. If the majority cannot infringe on the rights of the minority, it's not a democracy.
... or it's a constitutional republic. You are just chanting, plain and simple.