3 ms·

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631... The

by ak39 9y ago

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631... The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

cryoshon 9y ago
we couldn't keep it because we thought we could just leave it in a corner and do nothing with it turns out democracy is hard work
- geggam 9y ago
  Democracy != Republic They aren't even close to the same Republic : Rule of Law Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority
  - dennis_jeeves 9y ago
    >Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority Thanks! That's accurate. Majority= asses.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      First, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Second, doesn't matter whether a person is an ass or not. When it comes to deciding things that affect their life too, they should have a say. And that's the whole point of actual democracy. It's not for deciding on some BS "best course" (which doesn't even exist, different people want different things and see them as best), but of giving people an equal say to public matters. Saying: these people shouldn't have a say because they're "asses" is not really different that saying these people shouldn't have a say because they are blacks, women, etc.
      - geggam 9y ago
        Couple reasons why direct democracy is terrible and your concept of people being able to care for themselves to the point they should influence society as a whole is also terrible. “Men never do good unless necessity drives them to it; but when they are free to choose and can do just as they please, confusion and disorder become rampant.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli “Men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        coldtea 9y ago
        If anything, those examples, negate your argument. Machiavelli offered this advice to the "Prince" -- that is, to an authority who rules outside of democracy. And he told the prince that it's easy to dupe men. That more of a reason for democracy -- direct and real, not representative. In which, there are neither princes, nor representatives to try and dupe people for their own interests. And where, if people find out someone duped them (eg. someone that they appointed to do something), they can immediately arrange for their removal (not after a 4 year term).
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    The senate didn’t used to be elected by the people What we have now is much closer to rule of majority than what Benjamin Franklin was referring to
  - archgoon 9y ago
    If we're going to argue definitions, might as well see what more conventional definitions from the dictionary look like (from Google's Dictionary) re·pub·lic /rəˈpəblik/ a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. de·moc·ra·cy /dəˈmäkrəsē/ a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Now, the next thing we should probably figure out is in what sense did Franklin mean it? Did he believe that the word 'Republic' conveyed merely that the country would be governed by Rule of Law? That seems extremely unlikely.
    - geggam 9y ago
      You would do well to do more research than a simple google dictionary lookup. But you likely wont put the work or the effort into understanding the difference nor would you understand the inherent dangers of democracy I believe this grand experiment of a constitutionally bound republic has ran its course and what follows will be more misery for the poor. Property rights, free markets, individual rights.... these are the eroded cornerstones folks are crapping on ... while reaping the benefits of them
  - cygx 9y ago
    And here I thought res publica meant something like common good, and describes a system of government that derives its power from the people.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Democracy: actual equal access to decision making for everybody, majority decides. Republic: from latin, res-publica, elected representatives manage public affairs, once removed from the people (and cozy with powerful interests). (Law still "rules" in both democracy and a republic -- to the extend that special interests don't bribe and influence their way into it, which is easier in a republic than in an actual democracy ancient-Athenian style, where people directly vote).

by ak39 9y ago

cryoshon 9y ago

we couldn't keep it because we thought we could just leave it in a corner and do nothing with it turns out democracy is hard work

geggam 9y ago
Democracy != Republic They aren't even close to the same Republic : Rule of Law Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority
- dennis_jeeves 9y ago
  >Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority Thanks! That's accurate. Majority= asses.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    First, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Second, doesn't matter whether a person is an ass or not. When it comes to deciding things that affect their life too, they should have a say. And that's the whole point of actual democracy. It's not for deciding on some BS "best course" (which doesn't even exist, different people want different things and see them as best), but of giving people an equal say to public matters. Saying: these people shouldn't have a say because they're "asses" is not really different that saying these people shouldn't have a say because they are blacks, women, etc.
    - geggam 9y ago
      Couple reasons why direct democracy is terrible and your concept of people being able to care for themselves to the point they should influence society as a whole is also terrible. “Men never do good unless necessity drives them to it; but when they are free to choose and can do just as they please, confusion and disorder become rampant.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli “Men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - coldtea 9y ago
        If anything, those examples, negate your argument. Machiavelli offered this advice to the "Prince" -- that is, to an authority who rules outside of democracy. And he told the prince that it's easy to dupe men. That more of a reason for democracy -- direct and real, not representative. In which, there are neither princes, nor representatives to try and dupe people for their own interests. And where, if people find out someone duped them (eg. someone that they appointed to do something), they can immediately arrange for their removal (not after a 4 year term).
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  The senate didn’t used to be elected by the people What we have now is much closer to rule of majority than what Benjamin Franklin was referring to
- archgoon 9y ago
  If we're going to argue definitions, might as well see what more conventional definitions from the dictionary look like (from Google's Dictionary) re·pub·lic /rəˈpəblik/ a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. de·moc·ra·cy /dəˈmäkrəsē/ a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Now, the next thing we should probably figure out is in what sense did Franklin mean it? Did he believe that the word 'Republic' conveyed merely that the country would be governed by Rule of Law? That seems extremely unlikely.
  - geggam 9y ago
    You would do well to do more research than a simple google dictionary lookup. But you likely wont put the work or the effort into understanding the difference nor would you understand the inherent dangers of democracy I believe this grand experiment of a constitutionally bound republic has ran its course and what follows will be more misery for the poor. Property rights, free markets, individual rights.... these are the eroded cornerstones folks are crapping on ... while reaping the benefits of them
- cygx 9y ago
  And here I thought res publica meant something like common good, and describes a system of government that derives its power from the people.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Democracy: actual equal access to decision making for everybody, majority decides. Republic: from latin, res-publica, elected representatives manage public affairs, once removed from the people (and cozy with powerful interests). (Law still "rules" in both democracy and a republic -- to the extend that special interests don't bribe and influence their way into it, which is easier in a republic than in an actual democracy ancient-Athenian style, where people directly vote).