This is Not a Democracy

[guido911]

Moron public official in Broken Arrow speaks out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fuq9UMXT0lU

[Elaine]

She was a top student in the school of George W. Bush.

[guido911]

She was a top student in the school of George W. Bush.

You funny....

[Gaspar]

So do we live in a Representative Republic or a Democracy?

Her response is poorly voiced, but she is correct, no matter what your elementary school teacher tried to tell you.  This is the definition that the US army used to use to train soldiers on the differences:



Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury.  From that moment on the  majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

1. an executive and
2. a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
3. a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
4.  certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference.  Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law.  This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.


So, long story short, anyone who says "this is not a democracy" is absolutely correct, no matter how it sounds.

[Red Arrow]

A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury.  From that moment on the  majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

Well, we haven't reached a Dictatorship yet.

[Gaspar]

Well, we haven't reached a Dictatorship yet.

Give it a couple of years.

[Elaine]

Yes, we elect officials to handle our business. However, we do expect a great deal of transparency, and we are entitled to disclosure of information. After the way that woman behaved in that clip, the entire town of Broken Arrow should be demanding disclosure.

[sgrizzle]

Yes, we elect officials to handle our business. However, we do expect a great deal of transparency, and we are entitled to disclosure of information. After the way that woman behaved in that clip, the entire town of Broken Arrow should be demanding disclosure.

I agree with her that you don't want disclosure on legal matters, not to mention it would violate every ethics law imagineable.

[Gaspar]

I agree with her that you don't want disclosure on legal matters, not to mention it would violate every ethics law imagineable.

This is the new era of change.  Ethics are unethical.

[TeeDub]

I agree with her that you don't want disclosure on legal matters, not to mention it would violate every ethics law imagineable.

It doesn't violate any ethics law for the clients to reveal what they discussed with the attorney...

Just the other way around.

[sgrizzle]

It doesn't violate any ethics law for the clients to reveal what they discussed with the attorney...

Just the other way around.

It does if there was a settlement or other confidential matter discussed. They can't get up there and say they consulted their lawyer after finding two students getting it on in the weight room. Think about it.

[TeeDub]

It does if there was a settlement or other confidential matter discussed. They can't get up there and say they consulted their lawyer after finding two students getting it on in the weight room. Think about it.

If you caveat your statements after the fact, it still doesn't mean they can't tell what has been discussed.