Privatizing Our Rights; Calling BS on "The USA is a republic, not a democracy"

[Land Shark]

I wish to keep the memory of what democracy's supposed to be about alive:

First, the brief BACKGROUND:

Today, unlike the years around 1776, "democracy" means the same thing as "republicanism." Simply put, the dominant (but not only) definition of (representative) democracy today is the same as for a republic: Democracy and republics both feature elected representatives and enforceable rights that simple majorities can not infringe.

However, back around 1776, almost everyone opposed "democracy" because it meant something it no longer means today - to anyone, really: Back then, "Democracy" meant pure majority rule and no Freedom of Speech or any other right. Without rights, and their "countermajoritarian" function (majorities can't legitimately say "no free speech for specified people) a majority could and probably would do anything it wanted to, leading critics of this special, restricted definition of "democracy" to the derogatory term "mob rule." Even today, if "democracy" were understood as zero rights plus absolute majority rule, the vast majority of Americans would be opposed to "democracy" just like around 1776 and 1789.

Thus, whenever the ignorant or malicious say that "Founders" "opposed democracy," they either forget or omit the distinction in meaning of "democracy" that applied back then, and doesn't apply any more today. The fact is, by around the mid-1840s, the popular understanding of the term "democracy" along with dictionary definitions had shifted so that the American republic was a democracy because it was a republic. Both republics and democracies share the same critical foundation: all legitimate and all ultimate power has its source only in the people, who are sovereign, and for whom the government exists only to serve, i.e., to be "public servant" to.

Whenever someone says "It's a republic, not a democracy" they are historically misleading and deceptive, and what's worse, they are intending to deny the spirit of democracy or suppress the spirit of democracy that animates our country's better moments.

The Intent & Spirit of Democracy & Civic Republicanism

I think the goal of democracy can't be any end-product of any system, because focusing on ends or results would deny the basic freedom of the people: Free people among other things MUST be able to make mistakes, even serious ones, otherwise they are not free and are simply being managed or controlled "for their own good."

Thus, representative democracy, and even direct democracy, as understood today can not be defined by end results, and is also not best defined even by PROCESS-end-results like "reaching agreement" or "ending or resolving debate" -- especially if the process-result involves "finality." Democracy means endless debate, as to any question people want to debate.

Instead, I'd describe the purpose and "goals" of representative democracy or civic republicanism as follows:

Human beings are social, political animals. (Aristotle) Political life finds its most authentic expression whenever citizens gather together - thereby creating a public space for purposes of thinking, deliberating and deciding about matters of collective mutual concern or disagreement. Political life in a representative democracy or republic is not valued because it leads to any given resolution, result, or agreement, but because each person is able to exercise and improve their social, political and organizational skills in service of their freely decided conception of the common good. In the course of this process, people exercise and further develop their capacities for sound judgments and concerted social action, both of which help create happier and more efficacious lives outside of politics. Each person's basic equality and human dignity is both seen and respected when they vote or participate in debate, with victory in politics producing some measure of political efficacy, but in all cases of honest processes the dignity of the losers of the debate is respected if they participate and have a seat at the table of public space.

The opposite of the equality, participation, and dignity accorded in the Public Space is privatization in many various forms. Privatization in its broadest form exiles us to a kind of "house arrest" so to speak with nuclear families, it hides in secrecy the public deliberations, actions and/or laws, and privatization denies the dignity and equality of democracy to all but a ruling elite or a set of oligarchs or plutocrats, where it is renamed aristocracy or similar. Outside this core group of privileged persons, everyone else is always disdained, and ultimately expendable in every way.

Although all rights have come under attack and been violated by aristocrats and oligarchs of various sorts, some are even sustaining wholesale violations that continue to this day.

I said "violations" that are wholesale and continuing because our rights are not truly "lost" - they are stolen and they are violated. Dictators grant rights and can truly take them away -they're truly just privileges, but free governments GUARANTEE rights that already exist, but can fail to enforce them or make them real

Example: A piece of personal property like a diary is something we have a right to possess, and if it is stolen the diary is still ours, rightfully ours. If the police do not investigate and the courts do not prosecute, the diary is still rightfully ours. If the legislature passes a law saying the diary is not ours, it is still ours. In all these cases, our rights are being violated either directly or through non-enforcement and similar means, but our rights still EXIST, they are just being massively violated.

Why stress this distinction and insist that our rights are only being massively violated long-term, instead of "lost?" Because, if our rights are "lost," we're likely to say goodbye to them and accept the injustice and move on to serfdom without protest.

However, if we say our rights are being continuously and massively violated, we will highly tend to say so, to meet with others in public space of some sort, and decide and deliberate what to do. If they're lost, if we meet at all it's not in a public space, it's in a private space in which we bemoan the loss.

The same exact "space," be it the town square or the internet, can be "public" or private at the same time, depending on the spirit in which people gather. It hinges on whether we are using "agency" or action, deliberation or only conversation, votes or merely venting thoughts. Lost rights lead to privatized discussions if they lead to discussion at all, but violated rights lead to the path of justice, because the injustice inherent in "violated" calls out for discussion, deliberation and action.

Thus, "lost" is the pathway to inaction, but "violated" is the path to action, and the path where each person is able to exercise and improve their social, political and organizational skills in service of their freely decided conception of the common good, regardless of whether they win or lose. In contrast, using the term "Violated" is the path of concerted social action, basic equality and human dignity. It's the path of action and possible restoration of enforcement of the rights, which are ours at all times, because they're inalienable rights.

When "lost" we are off of our path, when "violated" in our rights, we get on the path of justice however we can.

Of course there's no outcome-guarantee in this process of curing the violations of our rights, but there isn't any outcome-guarantee in a perfectly running democracy or republic, either.

I know many mean "violated" or the like when they say or write the word "lost" in regard to rights, but our efforts and the situation since 2000 demands the use of the stronger term that leads to more action. In turn, the stronger term helps us to recall that the DUTY TO SPEAK is also being violated, and if that duty is violated less, the wheels of justice begin to turn...

You have the right to remain silent. Is that the only right you wish to exercise?

on edit: The USA is the first nation founded on IDEAS. THESE IDEAS have NOT become ideas of tyranny -the ideas and principles are just being VIOLATED. Yeah, I know we're not free nor do we have a properly functioning democracy right now, it's a continuing violation. But I won't say the USA "is" an oligarchy because if that's what it IS, hey, a snake can only behave as a snake. What the USA IS involves ideas, and those ideas haven't changed, they've been violated.
on further edit: I realize that for many of you I'm "preaching to the choir" but it is the choir that needs "preaching" or reminders/reinforcement of their spirit and motivation the most. The choir has to sing out, loud and proud.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K&R (that one always drives me nuts!)

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Land Shark,

This is a critical discussion because it is an argument I've been hearing for more than ten years. Extreme right-wingers have made that claim. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. But they use it to justify things like State's Rights and property rights. Of course, "States Rights" is just a way to weaken rule from Washington D.C. -- and then "property rights" is a way to weaken the rule from the State.

When you get to the base of the people who are making these claims, in Florida you're usually looking at anglo-American Republicans who are very attached to land issues. Judges and lawyers who own land, law firms who handle real estate issues. This is the source of the groups who are controlling the State legislature. And, at least one in Central Florida has been operating in a quasi-secretive way.

I like that you brought the issue up, but it may be too abstract to be applied easily.

[Land Shark]

5. It's readily applied by rebutting ideas contrary to the OP when they come up, for example

"It's a republic, not a democracy" is readily rebutted, and if one doesn't know how, read or re-read the OP or other source(s) and glean what one needs to one is ready.

Assuming you're right and the OP touches an important issue, then things along this line are justifiably read more than once on account of that importance so the key points can be most fully absorbed. That being said, I know what you're saying.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. I understand what you're saying, but I've seen many right-wingers

abstractly talk themselves out of the rights they claim to hold so dearly. Then they don't know who to blame.

That's why I prefer more plain talk. For example, while a shopping center was being built, the city tried to establish standards so that the shopping center would not befall the fate that we see today, of many shopping centers. However, this shopping center was built in the heart of a property rights organization. The City had great many difficulties negotiating these standards since there were many right-wing onlookers that ridiculed the City's attempts to establish a style and look, and impose them on the property owners.

Long story short. The Shopping Center was compromised into oblivion. It is now failing and these same right-winger who ridiculed the City, are now blaming the City for the lack of standards.

These right-wingers do not see how they contributed to the problem.

That's why I don't care for too abstract an explanation.

[Land Shark]

14. Oh, it can be made more concrete. But, I never expect opponents to be left speechless

and at a loss for words. Tearful breakdowns with confessions only happen in the movies. In that sense, when somebody (else) says "but the RWers will say blah blah blah" -HEY - they GOTTA say something. The mere incidence of a comeback is truly nothing. A weak comeback is a good sign. Even friends usually change their minds, (if they do at all) or give up the fight later on - sometimes years later on - after having suitable time to cool and reflect. With a friend they might change their mind on the spot but that is relatively unusual but not unheard of.

Tell me specifically what you want more concrete and I'll make it more concrete. In this OP I tried to make it universal and therefore it's more abstract.

Gotta give opponents some time though, and friends. Think of a sports game, any close call (read: debatable proposition) and every fan knows which side of the coin to argue and is prepared to flip flop according to what position benefits their team. They're willing to be quite unfair along the way in oterms of overall consistency. but given a little time and space and they'll be MORE reasonable, though still not perfectly reasonable.

[truedelphi]

11. However, the argument that the nation is a Republic helps the cause of

Marijuana reform, and it helps those who do not want to lose their homes to eminent domain should a shopping center's "right to exist" look more favorable to the City Council than your lower income neighborhood where your house is located.

States' rights is an important notion. A Wisconsin governor used that as his argument that no one in his state would be reqwuired to serve in Vietnam.

[2 Much Tribulation]

12. I don't see any way in which"republic" helps that couldn't utilize defn's or equivalent terms

I've heard of "My kingdom for a horse' but not 'my democracy for a joint!" :) But, that's not exact or precisely responsive to what you said. I'm fairly conversant in law but fail to see how republic is indispensable or necessary to any of the listed efforts. I stipulate based on your post that it IS used somehow. Just don't know that it's necessary or precisely how it's used since I can think of plenty of ways to argue those issues without using the word "republic" (which confuses folks anyway)

[glitch]

3. It was one of Rush Limbaugh's talking points years ago. No doubt still is.

That's where my dittohead brother got it from anyway.

[gorfle]

4. The United States

There is a difference between what the STATE is and what the GOVERNMENT is.

The United States is a STATE that is known as a Constitutional Republic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

This state is GOVERNED using a Representative Democracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

[Land Shark]

7. "Representative Democracy" can be substituted for "Republic" because of overlapping equal definition

So the "STATE" is a "Constitutional representative democracy" that is GOVERNED using "representative democracy" (to use your terms). Because governance is control, and representative democracy as I define it and as dictionaries do includes the concept of rights, constitutional and otherwise, I don't see much power in the State v Governance distinction. How does a "state" control its governors other than through rights that can be altered only by super-majorities? Controlled governors are not governors, and whatever is "controlling" the people would not be anchored in the people themselves (if State and Governance are really distinct) and thus would lack political legitimacy, not only for not serving the people but also for violating the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that the ONLY source of legitimate political authority is the people.

Distinctions like this can be made, but I just don't see a lot of power in them. Similar to, but not as flagrant as, "republic" supposedly "Versus" democracy, making such distinctions, even if technically valid, ends up confusing and stalling the people instead of encouraging them to exercise their birthrights of participation and voting.

[gorfle]

9. Distinctions like this ARE made.

>Distinctions like this can be made, but I just don't see a lot of power in them.

Take it up with the world. I'm just telling you like it is, and provided citations for you. The United States is a Constitutional Republic governed through Representative Democracy.

"A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."

"Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to either autocracy or direct democracy."

[Land Shark]

15. I'd be real surprised if you had more contact with "the world" but perhaps you do

I'm teaching a class on rights tonight, writing 5 encyclopedia articles, one of which is on rights, read fairly broadly, have spoken in over a dozen states and innumerable groups including Kiwanis clubs and such of every political stripe - I don't hear the distinction you claim is out in the world much at all, and never with any passion when it is heard, and I still don't hear any persuasive power or specific authority other than wikipedia.

James Madison, toward the latter years of his life, agreed that the USA is a democracy. He had said otherwise, earlier.

[gorfle]

17. Whatever.

I don't hear the distinction you claim is out in the world much at all

There are these cool things called citations, which, conveniently, I provided for you and even quoted from for you, from Wikipedia, which draws contributions from a global base.

Whatever. All I hear from you is, "I'm not out of step, the rest of the army is". Fine. Fortunately for your students the information I provided is easy to find on the internet.

[Land Shark]

19. CIte anybody you want, it's not an IMPORTANT point with power.

[Land Shark]

20. If you want to continue the subthread, start with "this distinction is important Because..."

[annabanana]

6. I would not let an American Citizen out of

GRADE SCHOOL until he or she demonstrated that the subject of this thread was thoroughly understood!

[Land Shark]

8. The social price of lacking Continuing Competency in rights is Continuing Violations of rights

Normally, no single person can restore rights violations, so in that respect and in other ways, we NEED each other. If we were not social/political animals, we'd NEED to be! :)

Thanks for the kind reply: But, I've not known the subject of the OP thoroughly "since grade school" but naturally I can't object at all to that as a goal, so long as we also have a mechanism to see to it that the grade school lessons are not forgotten.

[Libertas1776]

10. Oh gawd I hate those people...

those morons con-notate "Republic" with Republican party and "Democracy" with the Democratic party, hence Republic good and Democracy bad, Despite the fact that we are a Democratic Republic. As history has showed, most democracies are Republics but not all Republics are democracies i.e. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

[appal_jack]

16. +1 for defending liberty!

The same exact "space," be it the town square or the internet, can be "public" or private at the same time, depending on the spirit in which people gather. It hinges on whether we are using "agency" or action, deliberation or only conversation, votes or merely venting thoughts. Lost rights lead to privatized discussions if they lead to discussion at all, but violated rights lead to the path of justice, because the injustice inherent in "violated" calls out for discussion, deliberation and action.


Thus, "lost" is the pathway to inaction, but "violated" is the path to action, and the path where each person is able to exercise and improve their social, political and organizational skills in service of their freely decided conception of the common good, regardless of whether they win or lose. In contrast, using the term "Violated" is the path of concerted social action, basic equality and human dignity. It's the path of action and possible restoration of enforcement of the rights, which are ours at all times, because they're inalienable rights.

When "lost" we are off of our path, when "violated" in our rights, we get on the path of justice however we can.

Of course there's no outcome-guarantee in this process of curing the violations of our rights, but there isn't any outcome-guarantee in a perfectly running democracy or republic, either.

I know many mean "violated" or the like when they say or write the word "lost" in regard to rights, but our efforts and the situation since 2000 demands the use of the stronger term that leads to more action. In turn, the stronger term helps us to recall that the DUTY TO SPEAK is also being violated, and if that duty is violated less, the wheels of justice begin to turn...

Some of the most important and well-articulated ideas I have ever seen posted at DU. K&R

-app

[Land Shark]

18. Thanks so much for this, appal_jack! n/t

[grantcart]

21. Very good for junior high level civics.

A constitutionally established Republic establishes certain fundamental understandings that cannot be challenged by a majority of the citizens, hence the bill of rights.

As a result the Court will from time to time strike down legislation that is supported by a majority because it contravenes the constitutional rights that are established.

In a pure democracy rights are defined by the majority.

The many cases of "ethnic" cleansing are examples of non constitutionally restrained "democracies" carrying out democratic wishes of the majority.

You have the right to redefine terms outside of their historical and commonly accepted use.

Its called the freedom of speech.

Its in the constitution and despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of experts on constituional government will not agree with you you have the right to be wrong.

Its in the constitution.

[Land Shark]

22. Your points about ethnic cleansing and redefining terms are off the wall

AS A RESPONSE to the OP they are off the wall. Otherwise the first 3 grafs are pretty mch agreeable, then you start talking about ethnic cleansing and redefining terms. In the OP I said most people today would not support a pure democracy without a bill of rights, consistent with what you say above. What precisely, if anything, do you think's been defined "outside of .. historical and commonly accepted use???"

Scratch that last question. Better: WHY do you think something's been redefined here? SPecifically what are you saying has been redefined?

[Gormy Cuss]

23. A Bill of Rights is somewhat limited in a pure democracy. The majority can change it

on a whim. If you want those rights to be more or less guaranteed it's important to have some facet of government that can overrule a majority vote in the interests of preserving the fundamental tenets of the nation.

[grantcart]

24. I didn't read the detailed minutae because your first sentence and the

premise of your OP is without basis.

Today, unlike the years around 1776, "democracy" means the same thing as "republicanism".

We have different words to convey different meanings.

People who confuse "democracy" and "republicanism" as being the same thing are simply intellectually lazy.



again your headline that you are

Calling BS on "The USA is a republic, not a democracy"

You can get angry that your point of view is not accepted by others but really its very silly to say that the US is not a Republic.

There is nothing Democratic about the United States Senate.

The State of California has 2 Senators. There are 20 low populated states that combined are less than the state of California, and they have 40 Senators.

A citizen in the state of California has 1/20 of the legislative power that a citizen in Idaho has.

These are indicators not of a democracy but of a republic.

Oh and by the way places that have 'perfected' democracy like Switzerland are not happy places. Cantons in Switzerland have tremendous power with local councils having huge 'democratic' power.

As a result they do a lot of stupid things in Switzerland, they don't join the UN, the prohibit the building of minarets because with exactly 4 in the country they are in danger of becoming over run by Mosques. Most poltical scientists argue that Switzerland has developed the most participatory democracy in the developed world. Cantons in Switzerland, for example, review exactly who is getting welfare and who should be denied. Switzerland also has the highest suicide rate in Europe.

You romanticize "Democracy" and you demonize "Republic" but equating them is something you could argue in junior high but would get you an "F" in college.

One of the keys of democratic discourse is that we have a common meaning for the terms we use. Your attempt to redefine the words doesn't advance any policy position, just confusion.

[cliffordu]

25. You shore killed the hell out of this thread.

Apologies to Wiiliam Munney, "unforgiven"

[JackRiddler]

26. Agreed. The first words in the Constitution are "WE THE PEOPLE"...

The people (demos) are sovereign, we are often mentioned in the Constitution, usually to emphasize protection of our rights and our powers as an electorate.