Credit to Bush!!!

[Rogue Nine]

Perhaps because the official name of our type of government is a democratic federal republic. We exercise the principles of democracy by having power (more or less) come from the people through voting and electing. The republic part of it, in the general sense, means that we have an elected head of state serving for a limited term. Thus, a democratically elected republic. The federal part indicates that we are a collection of states united by a central federal government.

 

And Larz, you are falling into your nasty habit of replying to everyone who posts in a thread. Not just this one, but all the threads I've seen you post in. And not with quality content, but bull**** intended to raise your post count. Knock it off.

[SkinWalker]

Democracy and republic are in no way mutually exclusive terms. The United States is a democratic republic. We vote for representatives to act in our behalf by voting in proxy. In a government the size of ours (necessarily so), it would be extremely inefficient to require all governmental decisions to be decided by the the people. It is hard enough to convince people to go to the polls once every four years. Imagine if they should have to do it several times a day to cast their votes on city, county, state, and federal decisions!

 

The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) defines republic as: "A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler."

 

The same source defines democracy as: "Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them."

 

The United States is a democratic republic.

[Spider AL]

The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) defines republic as: "A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler."

 

The same source defines democracy as: "Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them."

 

The United States is a democratic republic.

I think your definitions prove quite the reverse. They prove that the US is neither a true republic, nor a true democracy.

 

Very little power rests in the people of America, and their representatives cannot be said to be fairly elected. Therefore, (strictly in terms of that particular narrow definition,) not a true republic. Considering the dynastic supremacy of the Bush clan at this time, it's closer to a monarchy.

 

Neither can the US be said to be a true democracy, since "one man, one vote" is not the order of the day.

 

At best I'm afraid, we can claim to live in a sort of retrograde machiavellian monarchic court system, where power shifts every so often from one group of scheming people to another, similar group of scheming people. Without, mark you, much direct interference from the public.

 

We vote for representatives to act in our behalf by voting in proxy. In a government the size of ours (necessarily so), it would be extremely inefficient to require all governmental decisions to be decided by the the people. It is hard enough to convince people to go to the polls once every four years. Imagine if they should have to do it several times a day to cast their votes on city, county, state, and federal decisions!

If the American public did vote on state legislation regularly, you might have

 

a: A better educated, more politically aware and responsible populace, and

 

b: Legislation that was more representative of the will of the majority.

 

Instead, you in the US and we in the UK elect a king and his court for the next half-a-decade, and then we wash our lazy hands of the whole matter for that period.

 

Oh, we complain though. We all complain about it.

 

Maybe we should all be put up against the wall and shot for participating in such a sham, instead of our evil leaders.

[toms]

In theory the most democratic system should also be very similar to the most communist system. (Maybe a bit like the way the far left ends up resembling the far right).

 

A totally democratic system would have every citizen giving a view on every issue.. with equal weight given to all. This could work just as well (if not better) in a communist society where possesions were more evenly shared so people weren't totally voting in their own financial interests.

 

I can't see why a communist country (still say it is an economic system) couldn't have entirely elected officials. Nothing in communism says all people must be unelected leaders. In that way if people wanted OUT of a communist system they would just vote for people who also wanted out.

 

I agree that no (to my knowledge) communist countries have turned out that well, but that is because the "communists" messed with the political system as well as the economic one.

 

However we have ended up with a remarkably similar situation in capitalism as we had in communism. An elite group of people who have (and are born into) power and influence and do everything they can to keep the rest of the population ignorant, sedated and controlled.

Its just that they are an economic elite rather than a governing one. (Though corporations have so much influence on elected officials that the line is blurring).

 

There is a novel called Jennifer Government that looks quite interesting, about an extreme capitalist society where people take the last names of their company, the government has almost no influence and you have to buy police and ambulance services. Hpefully i'll get to read it somewhere, but it kind of shows that ANY economic philosophy WHEN TAKEN TO EXTREMES breaks down.

 

----------------------------------------

 

As for an improved democracy... I don'tknow how to do it.

Having everyone vote on everything would quickly lead to chaos and/or apathy just like the current system.

 

Forcing everyone to vote makes uninformed people vote poorly on issues, not forcing everyone to vote means small but vocal extreme minorities effectively hold power. Grrr!!

 

Until we get a hive mind, i'd say we need to mostly stick to elected people making decisions for us... but we need to change who/how and why they are elected and the way they work once they are elected.

 

I'm sure, with the benefit of years of political history behind us some smart people (politics experts and sci-fi writers) should be able to come up with a much improved system which allows both fast decision making and the people to feel involved.

 

I could probably do it if i could be bothered.

[Spider AL]

I agree that no (to my knowledge) communist countries have turned out that well

FYI, many independent commentators have stated that Cuba's standard of living has improved immeasurably under Castro's communist regime from the days of Batista. Some say it has the best overall quality of life in its respective geographic area. Sounds like a success to me.

 

But that's not the point, since Cuba's not a true communist country. There HAS NEVER BEEN a truly communist country. There has never been a truly DEMOCRATIC country either.

 

Just because they call themselves communist states, and we call ourselves democratic states, doesn't make it so.

[toms]

Originally posted by Spider AL

FYI, many independent commentators have stated that Cuba's standard of living has improved immeasurably under Castro's communist regime from the days of Batista. Some say it has the best overall quality of life in its respective geographic area. Sounds like a success to me.

 

Don't worry! Bush will soon putan end to that nonsense! Soon they will all have macdonalds, starbucks and be obese... just like they should be...

 

-------------

 

It is interesting to consider that everywhere a communist country sprang up (or tried to spring up) it was as a result of a popular uprising by people who were unfairly treated under the existing system... which usually gave all power to a tiny minority of rich or titled individuals and nothing to everyone else.

 

Many of the "communist" (or in reality just freedom related) causes that tried to spring up in the 80s in south america looked to be far more fair, just and humane than the corrupt systems that existed at the time.... but reagan's terror over "commies" meant that the US supported those corrupt, undemocratic regimes in putting down the popular (and therefore democratic?) attempts at giving the people a voice.

 

Who knows, if any of those revolutions had been allowed to take place we might have actually had some sucessful communist states instead of the still exploited people that there are in alot of those countries now.

 

As it was, the only regimes that could survive the intervention of the CIA were those that were the most controling and dictatorial.

[Wilhuf]

Look at China's regime. It is always on the verge of breakdown like the Soviet Union.

 

You're joking, right?

 

I can assure you the Central Committee are quite well indeed in control of Chinese politics, the military, and economic policy.

[lukeiamyourdad]

They are in control because they're a totalitarian regime. If it shifted, we would get a USSR #2, where there would be seperation of China into several smaller countries, all of whom would suffer from economical problems at first.

 

Not all of China wants to be part of China. It's not a single people as some believe. There are many different sub-cultures in China, a lot who would like their own country.

Had regime fallen, there would be no China as we know it now.

[Wilhuf]

Yes there are separatist movements, especially in western China. China isn't one big monolitithic block of sameness. It's never simple, of course.

 

they're a totalitarian regime.

 

Precisely the reason the US wants to block arms sales to China. The US views China as a potential peer threat, obviously.

 

On a related tangent:

The Chinese are directly involved in arms and security provision to the Sudanese regime's efforts to kill civillians in Darfur. China has invested significantly in oil extraction infrastructure in Darfur, and they've sent in arms to the Sudanese government to ensure their investment is 'protected.' Such 'protection' also includes the deopopulation of entire villages by Sudanese-backed militias, armed with Chinese weapons.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by toms

To my surprise he spoke up AGAINST resuming arms sales to china (which a number of european countries have been campaigning for).

 

Why does that surprise you? That's clearly US interests.

 

Anyway, the lifting of that embargo will probably be largely ceremonial.

 

He also made some valid points about the EU refusing to let countries like the Ukraine in (mainly because it would upset russia, but there are a few valid concerns too).

 

Ukraine was, until recently, something resembling a dictatorship. The EU has standards - economical and political - that a country must conform to for it to be allowed in. Economically, Ukraine is still far off, and politically, it was not close until a few months ago. It takes years of negotiation and observation before a prospect member can even hope of joining. Give the Union a little time...

 

Besides, from a European PoV, a pissed off Russia is a very valid concern

 

And finally he made a few points I would agree with to Putin about how he is basically a dictator who is pretending to be a democrat, due to his control of the media, etc...

 

Hmmm, that wasn't what I heard.

 

I just thought that considering all the stick i have given him for his (mostly) bad decisions he deserved a bit of credit for getting a few things right this time.

 

Heh. From this side of the Pond, his trip looks decidedly hollow... Considering his attempts at 'neo-connification' of the UN burocracy...

 

Who knows, if any of those revolutions had been allowed to take place we might have actually had some sucessful communist states instead of the still exploited people that there are in alot of those countries now.

 

I wouldn't have held my breath... Not only do failed revolutions always look more rosy than successful ones, but the majority of the promising ones in that region were social democrats more than communists... In fact, I could name a couple of Danish PMs who'd have been 'vaporised' by the CIA if they had lived in South America...