It's a pity that the speaker, (who is miked up) didn't repeat the questions from those who asked them, who weren't. He is an experienced speaker and should have catered for that problem. None the less, it was a very enlightening speech, very polished and fluid. Thank you for posting this.
I just tried to argue this to my left leaning coworker. We need to make the distinction because the definition of Democracy and Republic has been changed, coupled with how many things we have that go against the will of the majority put in place as checks and balances for every Man and Women whether part few or majority. He phrased his argument as such "A square can also be called Rectangle as it has 4 sides" My argument is "A square is a square because the constraints of the definition made it so each side needs to be the same length as the sides it connects to. It can also be a rectangle due to its definition but it is a square first and foremost"
Your square and his rectangle are descriptively constrained by their structure. A square is a square by definition, as is a rectangle or a parallelogram. They are both quadrilaterals, a four sided 2 dimensional shape, unique to it's dimensions and internal angles. A rectangle cannot be a square, and a square cannot be a rectangle. Two opposite sides of different lengths does not make a square.
Definitions are important. When most people say "we are a Republic not a Democracy", they are usually relying on Democracy meaning exclusively "pure democracy". And yes, under that definition, we are not a pure democracy, and I don't think anybody thinks we are, nor do they want that. That would necessarily entail getting rid of Congress, the Presidency, the Courts, Governors, State Legislatures, Mayors, City Councils, etc. When people say "America is a Democracy", they mean ultimate authority is in the people at large, as opposed to wealthy noble families, aristocracy, or a single person, monarchy. The people can wield that authority directly (pure democracy), or through representatives legally accountable, directly or indirectly, to the people themselves (representative democracy). A government of the people, by the people and for the people. Under this definition, I would hope that we would agree, the United States of America is a Democracy. Now some people will say "hold on, the Founders never used that definition!" That's not true. Both themselves and their philosophical progenitors did. In Fed 10, Madison takes great pains to make clear by specifically defining the type of democracy he was talking about was "pure democracy". Why would this be necessary if his intended audience ONLY used democracy to mean "pure democracy"? Hamilton gave a speech to the New York Ratifying Convention on July 12, 1788 on this very subject. He starts this speech, ironically, by telling the Convention that word "Republic" can apply to Rome under the Kings, Sparta and Carthage through a Senate for life, Netherlands through hereditary nobles. He makes clear that this is NOT the type of Republic the Constitution intended to establish. He then defines "Democracy" using the latter definition from above: "the whole power of the government [is] in the people, whether exercised by themselves, or representatives chosen by them either mediately or immediately and legally accountable to them." Hamilton then goes on to say that the type of government the Constitution sets up is a "REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY" (he unlined that phrase twice in his handwritten notes). This definition is wholly consistent with how others, such as Madison and Franklin, would have understood the term "Republic". That term was popularized in the mid-late 1700s by Charles Montesquieu. Montesquieu wrote The Spirit of the Laws and this was the origin for concepts such "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". Montesquieu is the ONLY person to be cited directly in the Federalist Papers, with about 1/3 of Fed 9 being a direct citation of The Spirit of the Laws and Madison in Fed 47 called him "The Oracle who is always consulted and cited" (he's cited a few more times in different Fed Papers). According to Montesquieu, there were 3 types of governments: Republics, Monarchies and Despotism (tyranny/autocracy). Of Republics, he says there are two forms: Democracy and Aristocracy. He defines these two forms as "WHEN the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, this is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy." (The Spirit of the Laws, Book 2, Chapter 2). Under this understanding of Republic, I would hope that we would agree, that the United States of America is a Republic, whose form is Democracy. If you want to define "Republic" in such a way that it is exclusionary to ALL forms of Democracy, you are free to do so, but that isn't how the Founders understood the words "Republic" nor "Democracy". Additionally, and this is my biggest concern with this whole debate (which you didn't necessarily do), is that if we say we are a Republic and in no way, shape or form a Democracy, then we must necessarily exclude the definition that defines Democracy as a form of government where the ultimate authority is The People. If the ultimate authority isn't the People, then who is? Who would benefit by convincing The People that they shouldn't be the ultimate authority? I would say people who want to take that authority from We The People, so that they can keep it for themselves.
The USA are BOTH and NONE of the two. Because depending on how strict or broad the definitions are interpreted the system of governance vs the system of attaining such governance aren't mutually exclusive but rather a Venn diagram with quite large sections of overlap. What's happening here is the typical dumbing down to the lowest common denominator by the intellectual right wing. It's claimed that both democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive. Which they aren't. Especially as neither of them can be seen to be absolutely pure versions of their original definitions. However the far right intends to fracture the USA into even more splintered factions as those are far easier to manipulate and control.
Hey Rusty, what you claim the right intends to do. The left perfected years ago. And they do it by race baiting every 4 years and then doing nothing for those who are baited. All they have to do is call the other side racist and call it a day. They don't even have to promise them anything. And honestly , I'm sick of looking at it. The left acts royal and treats constituents as subjects to be manipulated and it's not hard to see if you look. Because all left policies are rooted in control based on the human experience. They're not planning for a dystopia. They intend to rule.
Right? Why is this even a real question in 2024? Read Montesquieu and Hamilton's speeches to the New York Ratifying Convention. Much better sources than someone who came along almost 200 years after the fact.
Democracy fueled by Capitalism leads to corporate power and corruption in government policies and less freedom for the individual and a Constitutional Republic has the checks and balances to prevent the government from being a corporate structure and more freedoms for the individual and a government for the interest of the people and not the corporations that are funding it , like the Federal Reserve
Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented. Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Dan Smoot 1966 ~ Constitutional Republic versus a Democracy ~ find the vid on here YT .. a very worthy listen
..Long Live the Republic
💪❤☮
Oh, yes, that must be the one i just referred to
It's a pity that the speaker, (who is miked up) didn't repeat the questions from those who asked them, who weren't. He is an experienced speaker and should have catered for that problem. None the less, it was a very enlightening speech, very polished and fluid. Thank you for posting this.
I just tried to argue this to my left leaning coworker.
We need to make the distinction because the definition of Democracy and Republic has been changed, coupled with how many things we have that go against the will of the majority put in place as checks and balances for every Man and Women whether part few or majority.
He phrased his argument as such "A square can also be called Rectangle as it has 4 sides"
My argument is "A square is a square because the constraints of the definition made it so each side needs to be the same length as the sides it connects to. It can also be a rectangle due to its definition but it is a square first and foremost"
Your square and his rectangle are descriptively constrained by their structure. A square is a square by definition, as is a rectangle or a parallelogram. They are both quadrilaterals, a four sided 2 dimensional shape, unique to it's dimensions and internal angles. A rectangle cannot be a square, and a square cannot be a rectangle. Two opposite sides of different lengths does not make a square.
Definitions are important. When most people say "we are a Republic not a Democracy", they are usually relying on Democracy meaning exclusively "pure democracy". And yes, under that definition, we are not a pure democracy, and I don't think anybody thinks we are, nor do they want that. That would necessarily entail getting rid of Congress, the Presidency, the Courts, Governors, State Legislatures, Mayors, City Councils, etc. When people say "America is a Democracy", they mean ultimate authority is in the people at large, as opposed to wealthy noble families, aristocracy, or a single person, monarchy. The people can wield that authority directly (pure democracy), or through representatives legally accountable, directly or indirectly, to the people themselves (representative democracy). A government of the people, by the people and for the people. Under this definition, I would hope that we would agree, the United States of America is a Democracy.
Now some people will say "hold on, the Founders never used that definition!" That's not true. Both themselves and their philosophical progenitors did. In Fed 10, Madison takes great pains to make clear by specifically defining the type of democracy he was talking about was "pure democracy". Why would this be necessary if his intended audience ONLY used democracy to mean "pure democracy"? Hamilton gave a speech to the New York Ratifying Convention on July 12, 1788 on this very subject. He starts this speech, ironically, by telling the Convention that word "Republic" can apply to Rome under the Kings, Sparta and Carthage through a Senate for life, Netherlands through hereditary nobles. He makes clear that this is NOT the type of Republic the Constitution intended to establish. He then defines "Democracy" using the latter definition from above: "the whole power of the government [is] in the people, whether exercised by themselves, or representatives chosen by them either mediately or immediately and legally accountable to them." Hamilton then goes on to say that the type of government the Constitution sets up is a "REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY" (he unlined that phrase twice in his handwritten notes).
This definition is wholly consistent with how others, such as Madison and Franklin, would have understood the term "Republic". That term was popularized in the mid-late 1700s by Charles Montesquieu. Montesquieu wrote The Spirit of the Laws and this was the origin for concepts such "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". Montesquieu is the ONLY person to be cited directly in the Federalist Papers, with about 1/3 of Fed 9 being a direct citation of The Spirit of the Laws and Madison in Fed 47 called him "The Oracle who is always consulted and cited" (he's cited a few more times in different Fed Papers). According to Montesquieu, there were 3 types of governments: Republics, Monarchies and Despotism (tyranny/autocracy). Of Republics, he says there are two forms: Democracy and Aristocracy. He defines these two forms as "WHEN the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, this is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy." (The Spirit of the Laws, Book 2, Chapter 2). Under this understanding of Republic, I would hope that we would agree, that the United States of America is a Republic, whose form is Democracy.
If you want to define "Republic" in such a way that it is exclusionary to ALL forms of Democracy, you are free to do so, but that isn't how the Founders understood the words "Republic" nor "Democracy". Additionally, and this is my biggest concern with this whole debate (which you didn't necessarily do), is that if we say we are a Republic and in no way, shape or form a Democracy, then we must necessarily exclude the definition that defines Democracy as a form of government where the ultimate authority is The People. If the ultimate authority isn't the People, then who is? Who would benefit by convincing The People that they shouldn't be the ultimate authority? I would say people who want to take that authority from We The People, so that they can keep it for themselves.
song in beginning?
The USA are BOTH and NONE of the two. Because depending on how strict or broad the definitions are interpreted the system of governance vs the system of attaining such governance aren't mutually exclusive but rather a Venn diagram with quite large sections of overlap. What's happening here is the typical dumbing down to the lowest common denominator by the intellectual right wing. It's claimed that both democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive. Which they aren't. Especially as neither of them can be seen to be absolutely pure versions of their original definitions. However the far right intends to fracture the USA into even more splintered factions as those are far easier to manipulate and control.
Hey Rusty, what you claim the right intends to do. The left perfected years ago. And they do it by race baiting every 4 years and then doing nothing for those who are baited. All they have to do is call the other side racist and call it a day. They don't even have to promise them anything. And honestly , I'm sick of looking at it. The left acts royal and treats constituents as subjects to be manipulated and it's not hard to see if you look. Because all left policies are rooted in control based on the human experience. They're not planning for a dystopia. They intend to rule.
i was with him till he said. regulate my liberty.
Is this a real question? See Dan Smoot
Right? Why is this even a real question in 2024? Read Montesquieu and Hamilton's speeches to the New York Ratifying Convention. Much better sources than someone who came along almost 200 years after the fact.
Democracy fueled by Capitalism leads to corporate power and corruption in government policies and less freedom for the individual and a Constitutional Republic has the checks and balances to prevent the government from being a corporate structure and more freedoms for the individual and a government for the interest of the people and not the corporations that are funding it , like the Federal Reserve
Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented.
Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.