@cnkraeh A republic is as much a democracy as a male creature is a sheep. They are overlapping sets on a venn diagram, but not identical. We've been over this. You're using a set of definitions to suit your own purpose - what I'm trying to figure out is what possible purpose you could have that depends so desperately on what it, at best, a shaky half-truth.

So, spill. What's the big deal?

@jankoekepan they are identical. .. I have shown u the etymology and Jefferson which you have not countered...

I also asked you before you asked me why you are so set on a difference.

those who find a difference fall into two categories generally...one I have little problem with ..one I do as it grants, or could, "representatives" too much power

see how Trump tried to have state legislators overrule a public vote

@cnkraeh Because demo-kratia (rule by the people) is not the same as res-publica (public things), because the structure (as I already pointed out) of the old roman republic was not like that of the athenian democracy, because there are cases in history and present practice where the two do not overlap (the UK, for example), because the respective implications in the post-colonial era of the governing forms aren't what they were in Jefferson's time ... how much do you want spelled out in toots?

@jankoekepan and as I already pointed out, and you in a way also with your Shakespeare reference . .. .the words arent meant to be all that specific . . .all roman citizens could in theory gather at the forum and make law.

the way of looking at republic that defines it as merely an absence of a monarch is superficial. . . I have less of a problem with that as one definition

but ....


Jefferson's definition of republic, as a founder of both the nation and its first Republican party, must be followed when considering the structure of the United States


Why is Jefferson magically the eternal lexicographer? Why should we ignore centuries of development in political science, political economics and practical application since then? What possible gain are you extracting from that decision?

But you know what, great, let's find other words. Let's call the two things Amecracy and Rerican. They have different aspects in definition and function. The USA is one, not the other, by functional description. Now what?

@jankoekepan I think historians would generally consider Jefferson the founder closest to the people and their lexicon. . there was a reason he was tapped to write the declaration of independence.

things are named, generally, at their origin. the only development that should change a word's meaning is public usage.

extracting gain?. . .I am extracting no gain except the general gain I see for all

now what?. .now we strive for a structure that is fair and does the best for the most


Historians would then start with the civilisations of antiquity, and also see whether there are meaningful contrasts in the different uses.

And there were. And there are.

Public usage: references to a republic in the political discussions of western world have differed massively from those to democracy, and for key reasons of state.

Trying to pretend that they are one and the same is, in measurable terms, a falsehood. A lie. You are propagating a lie. Why?


it is no lie....

smart historians would see the etymology and realize these are large encompassing words of ideology...and not to nitpick based on various regimes that used them

I have told you already why it is important to see them as they are, the same.

because if you dont some will use it as an excuse to bypass the public. as Trumps lawyers have (do you side with Trumps lawyers?)

and as some law cases have in regard to initiatives and referendums


Just because Trump's lawyers said something doesn't make it false. They'd probably also on any given day admit that the sky could be blue - not suddenly turned false because they said so.

A constitutional monarchy can be democratic without being a republic. Several in western Europe already are, today. History and present aren't on your side in this.

Seriously, you're making Trump's lawyers look good. Is THAT your plan?


so, it seems you are on trumps side,tho you wish not to say it

to the extent a constitutional monarchy is democratic it is also republican.

you didn't address the initiative and referendum statement, Some, who I suspect think like you, have brought suits against initiatives saying "we are a republic not a democracy" . . ...all such suits have failed, struck down by the technicians of the law. So I can say that that statement is "technically" wrong.


Nope. Don't care for him. Didn't vote for him. I'm quite capable of saying that someone got a definition in political science correct without agreeing with them about just about anything else.

I'm not really interested in the initiative and referendum statement, I'm interested in a definition, and how it differs from another definition.

@jankoekepan well, I'm sticking with Jefferson's definition. . .and I think the courts should and have , showing that there is really no difference between the words in an operational or functional sense


You know, when people on the left stick to bizarre, otherworldly, self-serving definitions of things, they make us all look bad.

I'm not going to tell you what to do.

But I want you to know that you, unwittingly, are serving our enemies.

I hope that in future you will make better choices.


it is a definition held by Jefferson and Lincoln.

by one of the most prominent modern political scientists, Robert Dahl

it certainly isn't bizarre or [lol] " otherworldly"

it is no more self-serving than you-serving

I dont see how it is "serving our enemies"

but merry Christmas to you

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!