Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The American Form of Government

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrew Walker

Andrew Walker

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Bozeman, MT
Website
599productions.com
I'm not trying to start some big political debate or anything like that. I just found this video and though I would share it. Its interesting to me because I didn't really know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy until I watched this.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
 
mildly cheesy at times, but very well put together. I didnt know the difference between them before either. I definitely know that 6 wolves and 4 lambs voting on dinner isnt a good idea.
 
interesting watch, thanks for sharing :)

Good luck not starting a nasty political debate though. What do ya think, 24 hours?
 
This is where we are today ...
Oligarchy is the "natural order" for human society.
It takes men of the caliber of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams et al to preserve freedom ...
We have Pelosi, Ried, Frank, Obama ....

when Cheny's criticisms are mentioned on CNN Caferty tells a Jay Leno Rush Limbaugh joke ....

Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. etc. knew that first the citizens must be disarmed.
 
Nice little piece and very informative.

BUT please don't take it to seriously since it's very subjective from an "American Republic" perspective.

To place Socialism that far right is very misleading and also don't forget that enforcement of laws is still in practice even if it's in a government that practice for example Socialism hahaha

Not saying that you don't have a great theoretical system it's just that it's by far perfect and it's funny for us outsiders to see these things when they're very "directed" to one point of view.

No matter what, as I said it's very informative, just a little dramatic :weight_lift:.
 
weirdcrew said:
BUT please don't take it to seriously since it's very subjective from an "American Republican" perspective.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse republic with republican. The United States is a Federal Republic. The republican party is a political group who's political views and policies move and change with time, until potentially it's not recognizable by it's founders, like any party.

This video motivated me to look up democracy on wikipedia and they seemed to be fairly accurate. I like this quote:

"The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority"."

I'm a godless socialist myself, so I need my rights protected from the tyrannical majority. :)
 
That was a fun watch, though I must say I thought it was misleading, inaccurate and over-simplistic.

He had only a basic grasp of some of the principles and then twisted them to suit his argument. Where I come from we call that propaganda.
 
Liam Hall said:
That was a fun watch, though I must say I thought it was misleading, inaccurate and over-simplistic.

He had only a basic grasp of some of the principles and then twisted them to suit his argument. Where I come from we call that propaganda.
Click to expand...

Everything's propaganda. What part didn't you agree with?
 
Found it to be on the mark, thanks for sharing.
 
I find it well made. Even from the perspective of a left-liberal European. All modern democracies have that: A constitution and a law that regulates the executive authorities. It's important to know who actually is creating the law. It must be the people through the parliament otherswise it's only a Republic.

This actually he missed: What would be a republic without a parliament, a legialtive democratic authority: An Autocracy of the law, of the courts would be the result. The res publica must be dynamically updated by democracy to remain the res publica, the thing of the people. Otherwise people would begin to dislike their goverment, the goverment would strike back with the executive authorities (military and police forces) and in the end we would have either a revolution and then an oligarchy or a beaten revolution and a even stronger Autocracy beeing entirely an oligarchy because the question is: Who does benefit from an anaemic judiciary (parliament)?

Eisenhower saw the danger of the industrial-militray complex, an iron triangle. It's still active and more powefull than ever. With the financial crisis it's even more obvious that a few can hurt the many severely. We need a strong democracy steering the republic in the right direction.

Hans
 
A more in depth reply...

The filmmaker is confusing a number of important elements, deliberately so in my opinion, to arrive at the conclusions he has.

Firstly, his definition of the American system of government is over-simplistic. It can more accurately be described as a Federal Constitutional Republic or a Representative Democracy. The republic part simply means there is no Monarch. But a monarchy can also have a constitution and the rule of law.

You could also argue that the USA is oligarchic or more accurately, plutocratic.

His argument is based on the Rule of Law being the most important part of US Government, but I would argue it is the separation of power that is the most important part of the US system. Also, every part of the US sysyem uses democracy to some degree. Even in the film, the example he used to show the rule of law in action (the cow boy saved by the Sherif) actually showed democracy in action, ie an elected representative uses his power to impose the rule of law and is backed by a jury using democracy to determine the final outcome. The film maker was confusing mob rule with modern democracy to suit his argument.

I could go on, but it's someone else turn now...
 
It doesn't really make sense to oppose republic and democracy. Both are needed in order to protect both the common interest and civil rights. The republic gets its legitimacy from democracy. It is a strange particularism of the US that the two main opposing parties are called "democrats" and "republicans", when in fact both are... both.
 
The filmmaker was attempting to clean up the definitions of terms that people are determined to keep muddled. I found it to be very simplistic and hyper accurate, one might call that 'pure'. Without accurate definitions the social tool known as communication breaks down, and human interactions become disfunctional.

Unfortunately some words have expanded from a pure definition to cover a broader topic. For example, 'socialism' is as much an economic system as it is a form of government. It is unfortunate that the English language does not have a different term for the economic definition of 'socialism' because it confuses the issue when someone is said to be a 'socialist'. Perhaps other languages make the distinction...

Bob
 
I watched about 30 seconds of this. Enough to see that this guy is just another Republican idiot peddling the lie that America is not a Democracy.

"The U.S. is a democracy -- just not a direct one. Every branch of our government -- executive, legislative, judicial, monetary -- ultimately derives its power from majority rule or approval. By making our democracy indirect instead of direct, the Founders prevented unrestrained mob rule, allowing a more reasonable pace of majority rule, and greater room for compromise.

Conservatives continually point out that America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. This is a quibble over definitions, because a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Democracy comes in two forms: direct and republican. In a direct democracy, the people vote directly on proposed laws, and government (to the extent that it exists) serves only to put their laws into action. By contrast, a republic is a representative democracy, where laws are passed not by the people, but their elected representatives. Adding the term "constitutional" to the word "republic" is frivolous, since all nations have constitutions."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm
 
kmikami said:
I watched about 30 seconds of this. Enough to see that this guy is just another Republican idiot peddling the lie that America is not a Democracy.

"The U.S. is a democracy -- just not a direct one. Every branch of our government -- executive, legislative, judicial, monetary -- ultimately derives its power from majority rule or approval. By making our democracy indirect instead of direct, the Founders prevented unrestrained mob rule, allowing a more reasonable pace of majority rule, and greater room for compromise.

Conservatives continually point out that America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. This is a quibble over definitions, because a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Democracy comes in two forms: direct and republican. In a direct democracy, the people vote directly on proposed laws, and government (to the extent that it exists) serves only to put their laws into action. By contrast, a republic is a representative democracy, where laws are passed not by the people, but their elected representatives. Adding the term "constitutional" to the word "republic" is frivolous, since all nations have constitutions."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm
Click to expand...

Except that in a straight democracy there is no standard by which things are judged. Here in the US we have the Constitution which is the basic law of the land. With a straight democracy (which should be properly titled as just a "democracy") there is no "standard" and therefore people just make the laws as they feel. The US is a republic. Yes, it has some "democracy" in it, but so do many other systems. Just because you have a constitution doesn't mean jack. It could just say "blah blah blah" and that's it.

Matthew
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Except that in a straight democracy there is no standard by which things are judged. Here in the US we have the Constitution which is the basic law of the land. With a straight democracy (which should be properly titled as just a "democracy") there is no "standard" and therefore people just make the laws as they feel. The US is a republic. Yes, it has some "democracy" in it, but so do many other systems. Just because you have a constitution doesn't mean jack. It could just say "blah blah blah" and that's it.

Matthew
Click to expand...

Its true that people need some set of rules to say not to infringe upon other peoples' rights. Personally I believe this country moved away from being a Republic some time ago and it going through the final stages of Democracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top