Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 23: Line 23:  
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either.  The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
 
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either.  The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
 
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elcted legislature.  A republic is different.  A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly.  In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job.  A republic takes the strong points of democracy, (no tyrants, self government...) without some of the problems, (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government.  that said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)
 
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elcted legislature.  A republic is different.  A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly.  In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job.  A republic takes the strong points of democracy, (no tyrants, self government...) without some of the problems, (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government.  that said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
'''Comment'''
 +
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.
 +
 +
::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)
4,994

edits

Navigation menu