Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thomas1599 t1_ir0agze wrote

Reply to comment by dog_superiority in [OC] How democratic are F1 venues over the years? by alison359

such as?

8

dog_superiority t1_ir0aqzp wrote

Constitutional republic.

−21

Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0fcww wrote

What does a republic that is no a democracy look like? How would governance be a public matter if people didn't get to vote? If people get to vote how is it not a democracy?

13

Terebo04 t1_ir0gzom wrote

republic just means there is no monarch, noth korea is also (still) considered a republic although the current leadership is starting to look a lot like a monarchy

1

Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0hwru wrote

Where do you get the definition from? It's not what I remember from school. Wikipedia says the same thing my teachers taught me:

>A republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a form of government in which "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives".

Do you disagree with that definition?

4

Terebo04 t1_ir0r0ru wrote

The line between definitions is definitely thin. but in a practical sense not every republic is a democracy. they might say they "rule for the people" but de facto it ends up being a tyranny/autocracy

2

Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0t66l wrote

>The line between definitions is definitely thin. but in a practical sense not every republic is a democracy.

I'm not asking you if there is a difference but what that difference is. I am sure every republic necessarily is a democracy. Res publicas: "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives". How could you get this without a democratic process?

> they might say they "rule for the people" but de facto it ends up being a tyranny/autocracy

How could you argue that it is a republic then? If it's not the people ruling than it's not a republic. North Korea calls itself democratic, I don't suppose you would believe them, would you?

Please excuse my impatience. I feel like we are running circles. Could you describe a state that is a republic - not by claiming to be one but by fulfilling the definition that the power lies with the people and their elected officials - but not a democracy?

1

Terebo04 t1_ir0tyxd wrote

the way i see it, a republic is a country without monarch (so no hereditary power), a democracy is when a country is ruled by the people or their representatives.
So if the ruler of a country is only chosen by a handful powerful people, i wouldn't consider it a democracy but i would consider it a republic.

1

Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0vmec wrote

That is a good explanation! I can see how that would apply to certain states that called themselves republics (Venice, Lübeck) and it's a definition that makes sense (although I would say that the word republic would imply something else to me). Thank you!

1

Caspi7 t1_ir0vwxa wrote

NKorea is authoritarian, whether you call yourself a republic or monarchy or even a democracy has nothing to do with the system that is actually in place.

1

dog_superiority t1_ir0lr5b wrote

A constitutional republic is a democracy with limitations. That even if a 90% majority votes to infringe on the rights of 10%, the constitution would not allow it (without due process like warrants, juries, etc.).

−2

Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0mier wrote

So what you meant here

>No, but there are better ones than democracy.

Was that a democracy is the best system but that it should also fulfil certain criteria?

3

dog_superiority t1_ir10dhf wrote

Well the criteria is very important. For example, no matter how the people, or representatives vote, they should not be able to restrict rights, unless that also expands rights. For example, infringing on the liberty of murderers (by throwing them in jail) protects more rights than to let them murder at will. But even then, the government must follow due process to do so.

0

Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir1f4g7 wrote

I don't see how having a constitution in itself would prevent this though or how a constitution would be necessary to prevent this.

The law defines due process. If a constitution said that the police could search any home at any time under any condition then random searches would be due process.

On the other hand you have countries like the UK that do not have a constitution in the literal sense but the powers of the executive are restraint anyway. Maybe (as above) not in the way you would want them to be but they could be. I don't see any reason why it should be impossible to have the restraints you mentioned without a constitution.

Where does the "constitution" in you constitutional republic come from?

1

dog_superiority t1_ir1gww3 wrote

You would need something like a SCOTUS (that actually does their job) too. If a state tried to change the law to say the police could search any home at any time, then the SCOTUS should shut that down. Of course, if everybody in government just ignored it, the the constitution would have no teeth nor a purpose. But of course the society would quickly go down the shitter too.

1

thomas1599 t1_ir0f6bs wrote

What's the difference?

4

dog_superiority t1_ir0lcqn wrote

In a pure democracy, the majority could vote themselves the wealth of the minority. It would be like 2 guys out "voting" a woman to gang rape her.

A constitution is meant to deny the government the ability to infringe on rights without strict due process (like warrants, juries, etc.) So in that condition, even if the guys voted to gang rape the woman, the constitution would disallow it.

−1

thomas1599 t1_ir0m4vx wrote

I am sorry, but nobody nowadays talks about democracy without meaning the one with a constitution. Can I ask you something, are you from USA?

2

BadBunnyYonaguni t1_ir0ovno wrote

Of course they are. Where else would you get these room temperature IQ takes.

2

dog_superiority t1_ir0ze1o wrote

LOL... The nation that created the most prosperous economy the world had ever known, sent men to the moon, etc.

−1

BadBunnyYonaguni t1_ir0zlxc wrote

Also the worst place to live in the developed world with an ever decreasing life expectancy with unhappy citizens. Great job for the shareholders 👍

1

dog_superiority t1_ir0zio4 wrote

Wrong... There are people on this very thread who say the Constitution is outdated and that we should throw it away. This sentiment is expressed often by the simpleminded.

1

thomas1599 t1_ir18jkg wrote

I am talking about the general type of constitution, not the Constitution of the USA. Many countries have them that set rules on what the government can and can't do.

1

Suolla t1_ir0pqlb wrote

A constitutional republic is still democratic is it not?

2

J0n__Snow t1_ir0wqe0 wrote

form of rule =/= form of government

democracy is a form of rule

constitutional republic is a form of government

1

dog_superiority t1_ir10y8c wrote

Not really. The US, for example, is not a direct democracy.

−1

J0n__Snow t1_ir137w7 wrote

so? My point still stands. You cant compare form of rule with form of government. Thats political science.

1