[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[Korwin]

So Democracy is not a synonym for rule of the majority. (See President Bush and Trump)
I stand corrected...


Edit:
I do agree that the US had an enourmous contribution in bringing Democracy to Europe after WW1 and 2.

[Blade]

Democracy means that the People rule (most of the time they'll delegate this to some people by voting for them), Republic means that politics are a public matter (and not the private property of some people).

It's hard to imagine having Democracy without Republic : if politics aren't a public matter, the People will have a hard time ruling. However, there are many historical examples of non-democratic Republics (like the mercantile Republics in the late Middle Ages).

[Thaluikhain]

Democracy means that the People rule (most of the time they'll delegate this to some people by voting for them), Republic means that politics are a public matter (and not the private property of some people).

It's hard to imagine having Democracy without Republic : if politics aren't a public matter, the People will have a hard time ruling.

Not so. Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second is the head of state of lots of places, which prevents them from being republics, but she doesn't prevent those places from being run by democratically elected governments.

[EightWave]

So Democracy is not a synonym for rule of the majority.

Simple majority rule is mob rule and doesn't form a functional or lasting government. Democracy requires some level of delineated rights for all citizens and protections for minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

[Orca]

So Democracy is not a synonym for rule of the majority.

Simple majority rule is mob rule and doesn't form a functional or lasting government. Democracy requires some level of delineated rights for all citizens and protections for minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Sounds like an oversimplification. Governments where those rights arise indirectly out of laws, legal precedents and uncodified traditions may also be democracies; see NZ or Australia. There are few countries which don't have any such, many which really aren't democracies have some rights for all citizens, delineated formally or otherwise.

[Longes]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... bi-leaving

[Stahlseele]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... and-speech

He is also the guy supposedly in charge of protecting the german constitution.

[tussock]

So Democracy is not a synonym for rule of the majority.

Simple majority rule is mob rule and doesn't form a functional or lasting government. Democracy requires some level of delineated rights for all citizens and protections for minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Nah. Constitutions are bullshit. Trump just kept passing the same Muslim ban until he found a judge who agreed it was constitutional. Also, he appoints the judges.

When NZ had a radical socialist govt. in the 30's create the national healthcare system, funnily enough the courts full of old classic liberals couldn't stop them, unlike in the US, where the healthcare is stuck with useless century old laws because of their stupid fucking constitutional protection from the will of the majority.

The majority in the US want voting rights for everyone, they want that massive secret corporate funding of elections gone, they want an end to Gerrymandering, they elected a democratic house, senate, and president in 2016 and gave them a much bigger majority in 2018. The majority now want free state healthcare, they want way less wars, they want the state to protect their water and food and air, they want the state to fucking do something about climate change. And their Constitution totally blocks all of that, the same as it blocked a thousand other decent things and stopped exactly zero horrors perpetuated by the majority against minorities.

Because constitutions are bullshit. The majority wants things to be better, that's the only reason democracy works at all. Why it doesn't work is because of populism, and constitutions have never stopped populists.

[Zinegata]

Nah. Constitutions are bullshit.

That Americans keep pretending and posturing that their Constitution was some kind of democratic triumph is really a stark demonstration of how completely delusional most Americans are about their history and government; and why every attempt to transplant it elsewhere has failed miserably. Quite simply, American democracy never "worked" as advertised and the idea that learned, democratically-elected men wisely created a great Republic is utter bullshit.

In reality the Constitution was drafted by a rich Federalist cabal that wanted to greatly limit individual rights and liberties in order to be able to maximize their own profits. This was why the whitewashed and glorified history of the Constitution includes that uncomfortable portion where "every state except Rhode Island signed off on it"

Rhode Island was in fact protesting what they saw to be a sham of a constitution - because the convention was NOT supposed to form a strong Federal government but merely revise the Articles of Confederation. Moreover the convention was boycotted by the Anti-Federalists, who were the proponents of individual rights.

That's why the Bill of Rights - the things actually guaranteeing most freedoms Americans cherish - are amendments and not in the original constitution. Indeed the first one wasn't signed until 1791 well after the constitution had been "ratified" (meaning that the US Constitution did not even guarantee free speech for a while). This was when it was becoming clear that the Constitution would end up ignored and torn up unless the Federalists gave in on the demands of the anti-Federalists and made sure that individual liberties were protected (which in any case owes a lot to the French Revolution for its ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, as opposed to this ridiculous idea that the British Parliament and its rotten boroughs were really democratic).

This is why looking to the American model for democracy is frankly just a recipe for failure. It was never really a democracy, it's merely a mythology used to justify the control of an oligarchy.

Democracy instead happens all the time at the grassroots level, because most societies are not cults led by a handful of "charismatic" leaders but are instead filled by individuals who must negotiate and compromise with one another for the common good. You will frankly find more democracy in a local community than you will ever find in the US Constitution.

[Zinegata]

That's fair. But also I really really hate this "the US is a republic and not a democracy" canard and I am absolutely not going to let it fly without mentioning that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison co-founded the Democratic-Republican Party (opposed by Alexander Hamilton et al's Federalists). People who claim that republic and democracy used to be distinct are not only willfully hopping back and forth between the modern definition of democracy and their alleged historical definition in order to obfuscate the discussion in favor authoritarianism, they're also just flat-out wrong. There are zero founding fathers (unless you take the term to include "political enemies of everyone you've heard of who were technically at the Constitutional Convention") who were opposed to democracy, and any quotes to the contrary have been taken out of context.

That's just American lawyer talk bullshit, emblematic of a rotten profession obsessed with believing its own lies.

The word "Republic" originates from the Latin translation of the work of Plato, namely Res Publica.

Thing is Plato hated democracy because he saw it as little more than mob rule. That's why "Republic" is more about justice and he concludes that an ideal government is one led by a philosopher king.

So what in the flying fuck are you talking about when you claim Republic and Democracy are the same?

"Republics" have been associated with oligarchies and not democracies since the Renaissance, who translated and referred to Plato's work. They may be enlightened, and they may style themselves as "serving the people", but they certainly did not feel the need to be all that democratic.

Indeed, the bullshit fairy tale Americans keep telling themselves about their Constitution is emblematic of how many of the Founding Fathers and their fanboys were full of themselves. People keep pretending the Founding Fathers were an enlightened group trying to be democratic - you know the philosopher kings that Plato talks about.

In reality the Founding Fathers were a very narrow spectrum of America - white, wealthy, and often slave-owning - who had vested commercial interests that often ran contrary to the public good. It was no some multiracial or inclusive group like what you'd see in Sid Meir's Colonization. What you'd see are largely the grandfathers of the assholes who would eventually form the Confederacy - an aristocratic, not democratic, elite.

The Constitution was designed to serve their interests, which is why the Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution to begin with especially in its original and incredibly undemocratic form that didn't even guarantee basic rights. And yet the modern fairy tale pretty much ignores their role in making sure modern Americans have basic rights, and instead demonizes them as the undemocratic ones!

[Chamomile]

So what in the flying fuck are you talking about when you claim Republic and Democracy are the same?

Quote any part of my post in which that claim was made.

[Zinegata]

So what in the flying fuck are you talking about when you claim Republic and Democracy are the same?

Quote any part of my post in which that claim was made.

"People who claim that republic and democracy used to be distinct... just flat-out wrong."

Edit: Emphasis mine. The Latin origin of Republic is in fact absolutely distinct with Democracy. Indeed an ideal Republic was supposed to be led by a king.

[Chamomile]

"Aha, if you quote one sentence out of context and also cut out most of the middle, it's misleading!" Fuck off.

[Zinegata]

"Aha, if you quote one sentence out of context and also cut out most of the middle, it's misleading!" Fuck off.

And you're a sniveling coward just like the rest of your lying-off-your-ass profession.

You don't have the first clue about the real difference between Republic and Democracy because your education is rooted in the American judicial fairy tale.

If you actually looked at the origin of the term - which is again the Renaissance in Europe that pre-dates Madison and Jefferson - then it's clear it was not synonymous with democracy.

Indeed Madison and Jefferson trying to fill the ideals of Plato's Republic means they were trying to be kings; but that goes against your fairy tale interpretations so your only come back is to pretend you're such a fine person who can say "Fuck off" to actual the reality of the Republic's origins from a global context.

[Chamomile]

I really don't know why it still hasn't sunk in for you that I never claimed republic is synonymous with democracy. Like, I accused you of quoting a sentence out of context while also cutting out the middle section that made my point clear, in order to misconstrue my position, and your response is founded on the assumption that this is definitely my position. But it's not. That middle bit you cut out makes it pretty obvious that I'm talking about people trying to redefine "democracy" to make it mutually exclusive to republic, and using the word "distinct" instead of "exclusive" doesn't actually make my point less clear, just more vulnerable to selective quotation idiot contrarians.

Also, the origin of the term "republic" comes from the latin "res publica," and was first applied to the Roman Republic, because obviously it was. The original Greek title for Plato's work was Politeia and had nothing to do with the origin of the word "republic" at all. It was not originally titled Republic and its re-titling was not the first use of the word "republic."

Also, also, are you under the impression that Italian republics were developed in the Renaissance? It sounds like you are - you're really pushing this idea that the term "republic" had its origins in the Renaissance - but Italian city states retained the same basic government structure from the High Middle Ages until they got conquered by assorted neighbors in the 16th century. If they were republics in 1500, they were republics in 1200.

Also, also, also, do you have any evidence that anyone thinks Americans invented the concept of republic, rather than the Romans (or earlier)? Like, "anyone" in the sense of a significant portion of the population, sure, but for starters let's go with "anyone" as in "literally even any individual person explicitly taking this position at all even if it's some crazy blog post."

Also, also, also, also, what made you think I'm a lawyer?

[Stahlseele]

Yeah, our resident Lawyer is Koumei right?

[Kaelik]

"All those dumb lawyers tell the same fairy tale!"

He says about a non lawyer who didn't say that.

[erik]

Yeah, our resident Lawyer is Koumei right?

I think of her more as The GD Surgeon General. I look to her when I need health care answers that are either painkillers or end procreation/humanity.

[Stahlseele]

i'd thought one would go to Dr.Trollman for that O.o

[Maj]

Yeah, our resident Lawyer is Koumei right?

Nope. Kaelik.

[Eikre]

i'd thought one would go to Dr.Trollman for that O.o

What? Frank is a German I.T. guy.

[Stahlseele]

Yeah, our resident Lawyer is Koumei right?

Nope. Kaelik.

Ah, got my K's mixed up there it seems . .

i'd thought one would go to Dr.Trollman for that O.o

What? Frank is a German I.T. guy.

... now you are just messing with me right? <.<

[Zinegata]

I really don't know why it still hasn't sunk in for you that I never claimed republic is synonymous with democracy.

Because that's exactly what you did you lying piece of shit.

"People who claim that republic and democracy used to be distinct are not only willfully hopping back and forth between the modern definition of democracy and their alleged historical definition in order to obfuscate the discussion in favor authoritarianism, they're also just flat-out wrong"

Res Publica in fact advocated for a city-state led by a Philosopher-King, an enlightened but ultimately authoritarian leader. That's the goddamn original source material.

Moreover where the fuck do you think the "Founding Fathers" got their copies of Res Publica from? The long dead Romans and whose empire was obliterated by 1500 by the Ottomans? Or was it the Italians of the Renaissance who had an interest in all things classical that actually provided copies of Plato's "Republic" to Europeans?

Plato's original work was in fact called Politeia, because Rome was not yet a big deal when he was alive. That's why his theoretical city-state looked nothing like Rome where the power lay primarily with the Senate. That said the Romans liked his work (along with a lot of other greek work) which is why they translated it in Latin where it became Res Publica. Spoiler alert: After Plato died and Rome began to love all things Greek, they turned into an Empire. Gee I wonder where they got those ideas from?

Moreover unlike your fanfiction the Romans didn't call their country a "Republic". The proper term had always been "The Senate and People of Rome" or just "Rome". "Republic" was applied to them by later historians, especially English speaking ones. And in any case pretty much everyone agrees it was an oligarchy and not a democracy.

That's why Republic and Democracy absolutely used to be distinct terms and you're a sniveling coward hiding behind semantic gymnastics. Madison and Jefferson would have treated them as distinct terms. You'd know this if you actually had a fucking clue about actual world history instead of the American fairy tale about the piece of toilet paper they call their Constitution.

Also, also, also, do you have any evidence that anyone thinks Americans invented the concept of republic

Bull-fucking-shit. You don't get to pretend that when you're off posturing that Madison-Jefferson always intended America to be a democratic republic.

"I am absolutely not going to let it fly without mentioning that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison co-founded the Democratic-Republican Party (opposed by Alexander Hamilton et al's Federalists)"

If you weren't so busy worshiping toilet paper and take the time to actually think about the ideas contained within and compare the Constitution to the Articles of Confederation, you'd find that the Constitution that Madison signed off on reduced democratic freedoms.

The Articles guaranteed freedom of speech. The Constitution needed to be amended a whole year afterward to have it because otherwise not enough states would have ratified it.

All representatives were elected based on the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution by contrast had state-appointed Senators (up to the 20th Century) which had disproportionate representation all the way up to the present.

Hell, women could vote via the Articles of Confederation in New Jersey, whose constitution already granted woman's suffrage in 1776. But let's pretend that woman's suffrage was an exclusively "modern" idea and that the Founding Fathers weren't regressive dinosaurs who quashed it.

Indeed the most extreme position regarding the origin of the US Constitution holds that it's basically just a tool to enable the defrauding of Revolutionary War veterans. Said veterans were paid IOUs by the government, who had to sell these IOUs to speculators after the war because they were starving and needed money.

One fifth of the constitutional convention's delegates were speculators and who wanted the government to have the power of taxation so they could cash in those IOUs at full price.

But then again what can be expected from a sniveling coward who says one thing and then denies it the very next post? Really, Trump is a reflection of how most Americans - regardless whether they are Team Red or Team Blue, are too busy believing their own fucking lies.

America, since its inception, had always sought to limit actual democracy by labeling the structures that constrain it as "democracy", when Republics up to that point (and arguably even afterwards) were consistently oligarchies if not outright authoritarian in nature. It wasn't the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that invented this sleight of hand trick.

Also, also, also, also, what made you think I'm a lawyer?

The last time you lied about knowing international law when you were again fucking clueless? Glad you finally cleared up yet another one of your lies.

[Zinegata]

Yeah, our resident Lawyer is Koumei right?

Nope. Kaelik.

I thought it was K?

[erik]

I feel like this is the start of a matching game of jobs and usernames.