View Full Version : Government 101
09-14-2009, 06:23 PM
To me it is tragic and evident that these basic principals and past history are not understood. Through the guise of compassion, the government wants more control through exaggerated interpretation of the Constitution and Preamble, with total disregard to the 10th amendment. Our politicians have dragged us into a Democracy, positioning one group (the “haves”) against another (the have-nots”), mob rule with no sense of rule of law, with the next step, Oligarchy.
Democracy or Republic
> Do you know the difference between Democracy and Republic?
> Our Founding Fathers wanted a Republic not a Democracy, here's why.
09-14-2009, 07:42 PM
More people need to be educated on this fact.
09-14-2009, 09:03 PM
it's beyond sad to say, but IMHO, the Constitution, as it was conceived, is really, really dead.
09-14-2009, 09:18 PM
Yeah, all governments are inherently Leftist. That's why the first thing fascists do when they gain power is kill all the commies, socialists and liberals. Cause they're all on the same side. God, I'm getting tired of propaganda.
09-14-2009, 11:56 PM
Not a bad video though a little naive. It takes relatively extremist examples of anarchy and democracy compared with a modern republic. Seems like a libertarian video in large part.
However it oversimplifies things IMO.
1) Anrachists rarely believe in absolutely no government - the principle idea as I understand it is that anarchists argue that workers should control the means of production and that in general leadership should be a sort of revolving position that is held for a relaitvely short period by a worker who after his term would be obligated to return to his prior position. There are some merits to this system as it tends to avoid the career beaurocrats and politicians that plague the modern system. I haven't researched this enough to look into the arguments against some of the inherent weaknesses of the system - nevertheless I don't think it really matches to what this video tries to show.
2) Democracy itself hasn't really existed - the Athenians for example had a democracy that was composed of free citizens and no others. The video implies that the marjority are rather stupid oafs incapable of foresight. There is no convincing argument here. Democratic forms and institutions exist and I think should have more power particularly in matters of foreign policy.
3) Republic = rule by a set of laws, which are created in our society by a plutocracy in many ways immune to public opinion. So yes its a republic in one sense and a feudal nobility in another. When the laws are unjust then the Republic has outlived its usefullness. Democratic action is required to restore the proper balance. I believe that REpublic and democracy must coexist, though sometimes uneasily, and the best governance has a mixture of both.
4) Plutocracy - I like the way he portrayed similarities between communism/fascism though he doens't mention the essential difference which is who owns the means of production - the state or private individuals.
09-15-2009, 07:18 PM
I wanted to address some of the above comments, yes the video is simplistic in explanation, and didn't go into detail on the different types of Oligarchy, however it is a scale of control from 0 to complete, or Anarchism to Monarchy.
This video definition of anarchism is "the absence of the state", in line with extrema libertarian beliefs, low side of the scale. Not to be confused with "socialist anarchism" that rejects private property reflecting communism, or collectivism. The later fits Kappy's definition in item 1, and falls in the very high government control section of the scale.
Very few countries ever attain anarchy (as explained in the video) with only Somalia and Catalonia as recent examples that I could find.
Democracies, or Direct democracies have existed in small scale (due to their nature, if they were larger more disputes would erupt. Having lived on the Western slope of Colorado, it seemed like a democracy since the eastern slope would get whatever they wanted to stick us with!) and are tempered by rule of law or a constitution that provides rights and freedoms of individuals. Switzerland is the closest country to having a direct democracy with several elections a year determine most of their laws.
A true Republic, a form of government which the head of state is not a monarch, further ruled by a set of laws. The set of laws needs to be adopted by the people and ratified, so there is public opinion. In the video, they use a republic defined by a set of laws, the constitution. Reading James Madison's beliefs on the republic (since he fathered the constitution) he felt the republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.
Since a Republic is governed by a set of ratified laws, the Constitution has provisions providing a voice for public opinion, limiting the power of Congress, Executive, and judiciary. (even though they have been subverted at times!) The republic will fail if we don't abide by the rules put forth.
Fascists are still a single party state and suppress any opposition. There is government control over business and labor (remind you of GM and the banks, or health care?) or a corporate state with limited property rights (whatever the state deems you can own).
Communism has government control over everything, there is no property rights.
The point is what is how much government intervention is needed. If we are governed by laws, then where is the law stating my rights and property can be diminished or taken then given to another?
In the video which direction have we been progressing towards? (while I don't smoke, is it right to ban places where smokers can smoke, and tax their cigarettes to pay for other programs? Sounds to me like mob rule.) Is this a good thing? Where will it stop?
09-16-2009, 10:38 AM
A few points, in this definition of the republic, the republic is either an oligarcy or democracy in effect. Since the republic in this defition is the rule, it becomes the rule of those who wrote the law and those who wrote the law will either be an oligarcy like the founding fathers who were a little group of people who wrote the laws and in effect ruled the country through the laws or it will become a democracy as is the case today when the laws are written by democratically (more or less) elected individuals.
Simply replacing an individual, a group of individuals or majority elected representatives with the laws do not make a new form of government. Any state is ruled through laws, it is who write the laws that make the difference. In a democratic state it is popularly elected officials, in a single party state or true dictatorship (and those have existed) it is a set group of individuals or a single individual. The best example of a dictatorship is Napoleons France.