tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post1346430021893846504..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: "Democracy" vs. "Republic"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-41734934183796476692013-04-17T06:46:34.033-04:002013-04-17T06:46:34.033-04:00600M eyes and 300M minds... ha, ha, ha. No we see...600M eyes and 300M minds... ha, ha, ha. No we see, think, decide, and act as individuals, granted 300M of them, not as a unit, "the people". However, I am concerned that so often in our public discourse, we talk as if abstract entities (the government, right and left media, churches, businesses, NGO's, PAC's, etc were living entities that could see, think, decide, and act. Only individuals within these abstract entities can do the seeing, thinking, deciding, and acting. To give the organization such characterisits obscures the responsibility of those individuals who corrupt and manipulate the organizations. Without responsiblity, we cannot have liberty.<br />OscarAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-75906807941802657732013-03-31T02:59:17.248-04:002013-03-31T02:59:17.248-04:00Pete: I didn't quote the entire entries on de...Pete: I didn't quote the entire entries on democracy and republic from the Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedias; they were too lengthy. The Library of America edition of Madison's writings includes all his Federalist papers, and virtually everything else he wrote. I have that same series on Jefferson, and also a two-volume LOA on "The Debate on the Constitution," all of which I picked up in a second-hand bookshop ages ago, together with most of my library of Revolutionary period books. It's unfortunate that the term "capitalism" had to wait until I think Marx coined it in the 19th century, and not current in the Founders' time. Had it been, it might have saved us a lot of problems and bother. And, you're right, I can't think of a single politician alive today who could make a distinction between democracy and republic, which is why I characterized political discourse between leaders and politicians today as infantile babbling. The MSM is even more ignorant. Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-19672397031962596342013-03-31T01:07:49.740-04:002013-03-31T01:07:49.740-04:00I apologize if my comments seem out of place. I wa...I apologize if my comments seem out of place. I was merely trying to enrich the discussion on your chosen subject of "Republic vs Democracy".<br /><br />I was very much surprised to find definitions on Wikipedia that, while not perfectly apt, seemed at least more so than the classical Encyclopedias you cited. That also reminded me of a study from several years ago, which found an average of four errors in the articles on Wikipedia and three in Britannica. So maybe we give the classical outlets more credit than they merit. <br /><br /><br />There is hardly a man alive today who understood and could articulate the distinction between a Republic and a Democracy better than the Founders. One of my favorite quotes on the subject is James Madison's:<br /><br />"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." (James Madison, Federalist Papers, the McClean Edition, Federalist Paper #10, page 81, 1788)<br /><br /><br />In this context, it might also be helpful to attempt a definitional differentiation between a Constitutional Republic and Capitalism. Since two constitutions may very well differ from each other, it seems fair to conclude that a Constitutional Republic is a necessary precondition for Capitalism, but not a sufficient one. A Democracy on the other hand can never be a viable framework for Capitalism. The only sufficient precondition for Capitalism is a Constitutional Republic, based on the ethics of Individualism and the political principles of Natural Rights.Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13091301520696891611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-51242765981207934882013-03-30T05:41:27.000-04:002013-03-30T05:41:27.000-04:00Pete: I cited the best dictionaries available. Th...Pete: I cited the best dictionaries available. The purpose of a dictionary is to define concepts by their essentials, and not cause one to suspect that the definitions are inadequate or imprecise and consequently send one to other sources or reference works. Further, I have two rather heavy encyclopedias, the Britannica and the Columbia, whose articles are written by scholars and experts. Wikipedia has a reputation for sloppy or discredited research, and given the subject matter, it was the last thing I would turn to for reliable information. Besides, my purpose was to discuss why the terms "democracy" and "republic" were and still are carelessly equivocated, in the Founding period and today. <br /><br />Your first post more or less repeats the same errors as I pointed out in the column. Your second post is more illuminating in terms of history, but doesn't complement the theme of my column. Thank you anyway for the comments.<br />Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-42139998448118627472013-03-30T01:58:54.620-04:002013-03-30T01:58:54.620-04:00I think the best way to illustrate the difference ...I think the best way to illustrate the difference between a republic and a democracy is to contrast the ancient Athenian Democracy with the republican institutions that were developed in Rome between 494 and 264 BC.<br /><br />If Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) had lived in Rome at the time, his story might have ended quite differently. In Athens there was no legal recourse for him to take, once the assembly had voted to have away with him.<br /><br />In Rome, however, there was the Tribunate and the Laws of the Twelve Tables. If a Plebeian Assembly or a Patrician Consul had decided to kill Socrates for "corrupting the youth of Rome", he could have sought refuge in the house and person of a Tribune. The person of a Tribune was sacrosanct and any man who interfered with a Tribune was immediately outlawed. This gave the Tribune the power to extend his inviolability to a person that he thought was unjustly persecuted by the executive consuls or a raging mob. He could have said in effect:<br /><br />"You can wave your torches and vote all you want, but I won't let you touch him!"<br /><br />And this sacrosanctness of the office of Tribune (elected for a year) held true in Rome until 134 BC. Tiberius Gracchus (a tribune himself) tried to save the Republic, which was dying from a terminal case of Imperialism. In his eagerness to champion the cause of the Plebeians, he violated the person of another tribune (Marcus Octavius) who opposed him. His justification was that Octavius was not acting for the good of the people and henceforth all Tribunes could at any moment be subjugated to majority whim. What followed Tiberius' act of making the most important republican institution in Rome more democratic was a whole century of bloody civil wars, which only ended after Augustus Caesar had put the final nail into the Republic's coffin.<br /><br /><br /><br />Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13091301520696891611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-76859019627905579852013-03-30T01:53:30.490-04:002013-03-30T01:53:30.490-04:00I think Wikipedia does a better job at distinguish...I think Wikipedia does a better job at distinguishing between republic and democracy than the dictionaries you cited, Ed.<br /><br />Democracy:<br /><br />"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination."<br /><br /><br />Republic:<br /><br />"A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names."<br /><br /><br />For true, the term 'Republic' is mostly used today to denote the absence of a monarchy. And most modern dictatorships are most eager to make the term "Republic" part of the name of their regime, in order to project a false image of legitimacy. <br /><br />Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13091301520696891611noreply@blogger.com