3 ms·

We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. For a guy who's name comes from Cicero, you don't seem hot on the legal or organizational distinction. [edit]

We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. For a guy who's name comes from Cicero, you don't seem hot on the legal or organizational distinction. [edit] You say the point is that the same underlying principle applies in both cases; I don't agree. Geography doesn't have anything to do with personal characteristics. If you own land, you are tied to it. It's not easy to move, and we don't usually want people to move because if you stay in a place, you tend to improve it. I'm not sure why you brought up that most people arguing about something tend to pick the side that benefits them. I live in New York City. This does not benefit me. When I referred to rural vs urban population distribution, balanced meant an even distribution. What else would it have meant? Your sympathy or lack thereof isn't the point. The point is that we have a system that works pretty well - part of the reason is that it was created without depending entirely on people's better nature. Ideological consistency doesn't really play into that.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. We live in both these things. Well actually I live in Germany at the moment, but I'll be coming back someday! > Geography doesn't have anything to do with personal characteristics. Don't be ridiculous, where you choose to live doesn't count as a personal characteristic? You can find endless examples of people who disagree, just ask. > If you own land, you are tied to it. It's not easy to move, and we don't usually want people to move because if you stay in a place, you tend to improve it. There are both upsides and downsides to people being tied down. You're right, people who own in a place are more invested in it. On the other hand, we want a certain amount of labor fluidity as different metros and industries rise and fall. There are people who insist on staying in their hometown even though the jobs have all left and aren't coming back anytime soon, and often that's not great for them or the government. > I'm not sure why you brought up that most people arguing about something tend to pick the side that benefits them. I live in New York City. This does not benefit me. I'm talking about what I've usually seen. I'm not saying it applies 100% of the time. > When I referred to rural vs urban population distribution, balanced meant an even distribution. What else would it have meant? That's absurd. If I talk about "people who live in a major city vs people who don't", then suddenly it's the people living in major cities (proper, not metro area) who are a "minority". The lines here are completely arbitrary. Or take farmers vs not-farmers. Oh no, it's imbalanced because only like 2% of people are employed in farm work! > The point is that we have a system that works pretty well It works reasonably well, but it would still work well, and likely better, if representation was simply one person, one vote, without any special handouts based on where you live or who you are or what you do for a living.
- ameister14 8y ago
  >That's absurd. If I talk about "people who live in a major city vs people who don't", then suddenly it's the people living in major cities (proper, not metro area) who are a "minority". The lines here are completely arbitrary. >Or take farmers vs not-farmers. Oh no, it's imbalanced because only like 2% of people are employed in farm work! I wasn't saying that balance was good and imbalance was bad - I was saying that it had an extremely uneven population distribution, which it does. It's not an 'oh no!' situation, it's another variable. >It works reasonably well, but it would still work well, and likely better, if representation was simply one person, one vote, without any special handouts based on where you live or who you are or what you do for a living. I don't know any place that follows that rule, and theoretically I can find some ways that it wouldn't work better or at all if it was a much more direct democracy without subsidies of any kind.
throwawayjava 8y ago
> We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. Geographic distribution of voting power is not an essential component of Republicanism. Although unequal voting power was a feature of traditional Roman Republicanism, that distribution was a hereditary distribution, not a geographic distribution. More to the point, the US system is so different from the patrician/pleb system of Rome that calling our system Republican while calling (our system minus geographic distribution) not Republican is a pretty freaking arbitrary line in the sand. Also, it's worth noting that Cicero's greatest effect on Roman politics was foiling a somewhat Haysian rebellion. > I'm not sure why you brought up that most people arguing about something tend to pick the side that benefits them. I live in New York City. This does not benefit me. I won't presume to know your political beliefs, but it's worth noting that you could increase the power of your preferred coalition while weakening your own vote.
- ameister14 8y ago
  >More to the point, the US system is so different from the patrician/pleb system of Rome that calling our system Republican while calling (our system minus geographic distribution) not Republican is a pretty freaking arbitrary line in the sand. That wasn't the line in the sand I was drawing. I was saying that a system of direct democracy doesn't support the Kantian Republic we set up, but a system where there is uneven distribution of power based on region does.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. The Soviet Union was a nondemocratic federal republic—a federal republic that is not a democracy. Many Americans would prefer the US to be a democratic federal republic, that is, a federal republic that is also a representative democracy. A nondemocratic republic is not a goverment of, by, and for the people. It is, at best, just the last of those three.
- ameister14 8y ago
  The reason I focus on Republic over Democracy is because we do not live in a system with complete and proportional representation. We live in a system where the Executive and Legislative is separated and where there is a somewhat uneven distribution of power in terms of population.

TulliusCicero 8y ago

> We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. We live in both these things. Well actually I live in Germany at the moment, but I'll be coming back someday! > Geography doesn't have anything to do with personal characteristics. Don't be ridiculous, where you choose to live doesn't count as a personal characteristic? You can find endless examples of people who disagree, just ask. > If you own land, you are tied to it. It's not easy to move, and we don't usually want people to move because if you stay in a place, you tend to improve it. There are both upsides and downsides to people being tied down. You're right, people who own in a place are more invested in it. On the other hand, we want a certain amount of labor fluidity as different metros and industries rise and fall. There are people who insist on staying in their hometown even though the jobs have all left and aren't coming back anytime soon, and often that's not great for them or the government. > I'm not sure why you brought up that most people arguing about something tend to pick the side that benefits them. I live in New York City. This does not benefit me. I'm talking about what I've usually seen. I'm not saying it applies 100% of the time. > When I referred to rural vs urban population distribution, balanced meant an even distribution. What else would it have meant? That's absurd. If I talk about "people who live in a major city vs people who don't", then suddenly it's the people living in major cities (proper, not metro area) who are a "minority". The lines here are completely arbitrary. Or take farmers vs not-farmers. Oh no, it's imbalanced because only like 2% of people are employed in farm work! > The point is that we have a system that works pretty well It works reasonably well, but it would still work well, and likely better, if representation was simply one person, one vote, without any special handouts based on where you live or who you are or what you do for a living.

ameister14 8y ago
>That's absurd. If I talk about "people who live in a major city vs people who don't", then suddenly it's the people living in major cities (proper, not metro area) who are a "minority". The lines here are completely arbitrary. >Or take farmers vs not-farmers. Oh no, it's imbalanced because only like 2% of people are employed in farm work! I wasn't saying that balance was good and imbalance was bad - I was saying that it had an extremely uneven population distribution, which it does. It's not an 'oh no!' situation, it's another variable. >It works reasonably well, but it would still work well, and likely better, if representation was simply one person, one vote, without any special handouts based on where you live or who you are or what you do for a living. I don't know any place that follows that rule, and theoretically I can find some ways that it wouldn't work better or at all if it was a much more direct democracy without subsidies of any kind.

throwawayjava 8y ago

> We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. Geographic distribution of voting power is not an essential component of Republicanism. Although unequal voting power was a feature of traditional Roman Republicanism, that distribution was a hereditary distribution, not a geographic distribution. More to the point, the US system is so different from the patrician/pleb system of Rome that calling our system Republican while calling (our system minus geographic distribution) not Republican is a pretty freaking arbitrary line in the sand. Also, it's worth noting that Cicero's greatest effect on Roman politics was foiling a somewhat Haysian rebellion. > I'm not sure why you brought up that most people arguing about something tend to pick the side that benefits them. I live in New York City. This does not benefit me. I won't presume to know your political beliefs, but it's worth noting that you could increase the power of your preferred coalition while weakening your own vote.

ameister14 8y ago
>More to the point, the US system is so different from the patrician/pleb system of Rome that calling our system Republican while calling (our system minus geographic distribution) not Republican is a pretty freaking arbitrary line in the sand. That wasn't the line in the sand I was drawing. I was saying that a system of direct democracy doesn't support the Kantian Republic we set up, but a system where there is uneven distribution of power based on region does.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. The Soviet Union was a nondemocratic federal republic—a federal republic that is not a democracy. Many Americans would prefer the US to be a democratic federal republic, that is, a federal republic that is also a representative democracy. A nondemocratic republic is not a goverment of, by, and for the people. It is, at best, just the last of those three.

ameister14 8y ago
The reason I focus on Republic over Democracy is because we do not live in a system with complete and proportional representation. We live in a system where the Executive and Legislative is separated and where there is a somewhat uneven distribution of power in terms of population.