5 ms·

"Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm?" America is, in theory, a representative democracy and not some kind of plutocracy or aristocracy. T

"Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm?" America is, in theory, a representative democracy and not some kind of plutocracy or aristocracy. That is your answer.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> America is, in theory, a representative democracy ... America was once a republic, precisely to avoid the madness we are talking about in this thread. One by one the protections against mob rule have been dismantled.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > > America is, in theory, a representative democracy ... > America was once a republic The two are not incompatible. And it pretty unquestionably still is a republic and, in form at least, is also a representative democracy.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    A country with a Supreme Court that believes threshing wheat is interstate commerce is not a republic. Ditto for a country with federal bunny rabbit inspectors.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > A country with a Supreme Court that believes threshing wheat is interstate commerce is not a republic. Ditto for a country with federal bunny rabbit inspectors. I know of no reasonable definition of "republic" under which either of these statements is defensible. "Republic" doesn't mean a system of government that produces exclusively outcomes that meet with Daniel_Newby's approval.
      - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
        Government is not an averaging process. You cannot add oligarchy to mob rule, divide by two, and get a republic.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        that's a non-sequitur. "Republic" isn't the average of oligarchy and mob rule, or anywhere in between those. It's orthogonal to them. You certainly can have a system with strong elements of both that is a republic (as demonstrated by the essentially prototypical republic, that of Rome.) You seem, again, to be conflating what you like with what a Republic is.
true_religion 13y ago
Being a representative democracy simply means that everyone who can vote gets an equal vote. It doesn't mean that one person cannot be more influential than the other due to charisma, logical reasoning, or by using money to simply have their message heard by more people. For instance, no matter how rich you are and how many TV spots you buy out, you're unlikely to convince the population to do something that they inherently dislike. In a true plutocracy, the rich don't need to convince anyone of their feelings, their power is written into the system.

"Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm?" America is, in theory, a representative democracy and not some kind of plutocracy or aristocracy. That is your answer.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

> America is, in theory, a representative democracy ... America was once a republic, precisely to avoid the madness we are talking about in this thread. One by one the protections against mob rule have been dismantled.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> > America is, in theory, a representative democracy ... > America was once a republic The two are not incompatible. And it pretty unquestionably still is a republic and, in form at least, is also a representative democracy.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  A country with a Supreme Court that believes threshing wheat is interstate commerce is not a republic. Ditto for a country with federal bunny rabbit inspectors.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > A country with a Supreme Court that believes threshing wheat is interstate commerce is not a republic. Ditto for a country with federal bunny rabbit inspectors. I know of no reasonable definition of "republic" under which either of these statements is defensible. "Republic" doesn't mean a system of government that produces exclusively outcomes that meet with Daniel_Newby's approval.
    - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
      Government is not an averaging process. You cannot add oligarchy to mob rule, divide by two, and get a republic.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        that's a non-sequitur. "Republic" isn't the average of oligarchy and mob rule, or anywhere in between those. It's orthogonal to them. You certainly can have a system with strong elements of both that is a republic (as demonstrated by the essentially prototypical republic, that of Rome.) You seem, again, to be conflating what you like with what a Republic is.

true_religion 13y ago

Being a representative democracy simply means that everyone who can vote gets an equal vote. It doesn't mean that one person cannot be more influential than the other due to charisma, logical reasoning, or by using money to simply have their message heard by more people. For instance, no matter how rich you are and how many TV spots you buy out, you're unlikely to convince the population to do something that they inherently dislike. In a true plutocracy, the rich don't need to convince anyone of their feelings, their power is written into the system.