4 ms·

> avoided democracy, as strictly defined Only a pedant insists that every else restrict themselves to the strictest of definitions. Definition change over 200

• Synaesthesia 11y ago
  It's a form of democracy, a weak form though.
  • dalke 11y ago
    Why is "weak" a useful adjective?
    • Synaesthesia 11y ago
      Let me be more precise, I think representative democracy is a weaker form of democracy than direct democracy, and less desirable. The amount of real democracy we have these days is virtually nil, as in say over the affairs of our daily lives.
      • dalke 11y ago
        I don't think it's meaningful to use 'weaker' or 'pure' because it carries with it a moral dimension that says more about the speaker's views than the underlying social desirability or effectiveness. I do not know enough to give a meaningful view on nuances of different forms of democratic governance. I will point out that much of the affairs of our daily lives take place in command hierarchical, aka, the workplace. The pressure (from corporate media and rich people) is often to run government more like a business. It should be to run a business like a democracy.
        • Synaesthesia 11y ago
          I don't think it was the wrong adjective, my statement was maybe with too little context, but I think "weak" is correct. Perhaps meaningful democracy would be a better choice. I agree absolutely with you on the workplace, more people should start realizing that.
          • dalke 11y ago
            Yes, I think you think 'weak' is correct. Now tell a lower-r republican that their political system is weak and not meaningful, and see if the response is a knee-jerk reaction to the term 'weak' or a more thoughtful inquiry on how it might be improved. "Weak" is also a broad term. Even if you come in with the terms first, you shouldn't use definitions that can easily be transformed to mean the opposite. Many people do not think that a direct democracy can scale beyond a few thousand people. They may therefore say that direct democracy is "weak", because of that failing, and that it's "meaningless" for a large country like the US.
            • Synaesthesia 11y ago
              Ok, point taken. It depends on context, if people are in the mood for constructive discussion in the first place. What's interesting is that Lincoln and the Republican Party in the 19th century fought to democratize industry, they condemned wage labour as wage slavery.
              • dalke 11y ago
                "if people are in the mood for constructive discussion in the first place" Partially, yes. But even if they are in the mood, an antagonistic first comment can change the mood. Calling a preferred form of government "weak" can easily be seen as antagonistic, and it sets up the initial discussion to be about the correct term, rather than what you want it to be.
• taejo 11y ago
  This quote by Madison seems to be the whole source of the pedantry, because it's an affliction which only seems to afflict Americans. Since the US is neither the source nor the subject of this report, it's particularly irrelevant. Most of us are happy to say "direct democracy" or "Athenian democracy" if that's what we mean. On the other hand, a popularly-elected dictatorship would be justified in calling itself a republic. It's useful to have a term which includes direct and representative democracies, while excluding dictatorships, and "democracy" is the commonly accepted term.
  • dalke 11y ago
    And of course "German Democratic Republic", "Democratic Republic of Vietnam", "Democratic Republic of the Congo", and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic