LIBERTAS (What Pope Leo XIII wrote about Liberals)

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 01:14 PM']To emphasize republic as if it were something other than a democratic rule of government is disingenious.  You know this and you know that our form of government falls under the scope of democracy.  Our form of democracy is certainly a representative form of democracy, but it is a democracy nonetheless.

Incidentally, our form of government is still very much in the minority as far as world government is concerned, regardless of what Predident Bush would propose.  The only other countries that employ our form are Austria, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany (since 1918), Nigeria, USA (since 1789), and India (since January 26, 1950).

So, I think that it is a little inaccurate to make that statement about the "Pledge."  We are affirming the whole of the United States and the Flag.
[right][snapback]883946[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Republic's more accurate than representative democracy here...Democracy is a voting of the people while a republic is where we elect our officials to vote for us.

Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy. They're very different.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 11 2006, 11:26 AM']I hope you've never pledged allegiance to the flag, because it represents liberalism, political and economic (namely, democracy and capitalism).

The corresponding conservative ideals would be Monarchy and Marxist collectivism.
[right][snapback]883871[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I much prefer monarchy anyways.

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 11 2006, 03:21 PM']Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy.  They're very different.
[right][snapback]883968[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please tell President Bush to stop spreading democracy, then.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 11 2006, 03:21 PM']Republic's more accurate than representative democracy here...Democracy is a voting of the people while a republic is where we elect our officials to vote for us.

Ironmonk is correct in defending that we are a republic over a democracy.  They're very different.
[right][snapback]883968[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely incorrect. That is NOT accurate.

A representative democracy is a form of democracy founded on the exercice of popular sovereignty by the people's representants. It is a theory of civics in which voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily according to their voters' wishes, but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. Another form of representative democracy involves impartial selection of representatives through sortition.

This is exactly what type of government we employ. It was Benjamin Franklin who philosophized this form first, based upon an Iroquois model.

Another name of this type of government is republican democracy. One meaning of the word republic is "object for the people," which embodies the notion of a democracy, making the term "republican democracy" redundant. An alternative definition of republic is any government that is not a monarchy, and by this definition there are abundant examples of states that are republics but that are not democracies, and of states that are democracies but not republics.

Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. I agree with Era Might on this...Bush needs to get his terms straight, as do most Americans.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 11 2006, 03:23 PM']I much prefer monarchy anyways.
[right][snapback]883969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Move to Great Britain, then. The United States was founded to be free from that form of suppressive government.

(I am not speaking of the papal monarchy, incidentally.....)

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 11 2006, 07:08 AM']I agree with IM on most of what he's posted. However many of the "liberals" on the board have been deemed liberal by others.  No one in the real world who knows me would ever dream of calling me a liberal.  Yet I get called this regularly around these parts.  (It makes me chuckle)

Are there some that come on PM who are truly liberal?  Sure but they are few and far between.  Many are called liberal pejoratively simply because others don't agree with their opinions.  Its an easy way to avoid a thoughtful conversation.
[right][snapback]883770[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I basically agree with Al's answer.

Typically what happens is someone posts something, aimed at no individuals in particular, decrying some aspect of liberalism. Then others act as though this is a personal attack against them, and start defending liberal views or attack "conservatism."
Then they later complain about being labeled "liberal."

And what is considered "liberal" or "conservative" varies by location, and in what circles a person is in.

Unfortunately, in a lot of urban "blue-state" parts (what some would call "the real world"), anyone who has any respect at all for traditional religion or morality or opposes abortion or euthanasia, is automatically labeled "conservative" (or even "ultra-conservative" or "extreme-right.")

Simply being pro-life or Catholic/Christian does not necessarily make one a conservative in my view.

There are plenty of well-meaning liberals.

And 50 years ago, opposing abortion or public endorsement of homosexuality would not have been seen as "conservative" or "right-wing" - it would simply be regarded as normal and decent. These issues were not yet even controversial.

And if one wants to take the term "liberal" to be perjorative, that's their problem. If someone calls me a conservative, I don't consider that perjorative.

I think the fact that people consider the word "liberal" a slur says more about the morally bankrupt state of modern liberalism than anything else.

I tend to refer to "liberals" in debates to collectively refer to the people taking the liberal position in the debate - not to make a personal statement about those people.

[Jaime]

[quote]And if one wants to take the term "liberal" perjorative, that's their problem. If someone calls me a conservative, I don't consider that perjorative.
[/quote]

What are you kidding me? You're actually suggesting that people aren't using it as an insult?

How many countless comments have been posted comparing "liberal" to evil? And how many posts have referred to a person as liberal?

Give me a break

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 11 2006, 05:10 PM']What are you kidding me?  You're actually suggesting that people aren't using it as an insult?

How many countless comments have been posted comparing "liberal" to evil?  And how many posts have referred to a person as liberal?

Give me a break
[right][snapback]884129[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well somebody doesn't seem to be chuckling.

So which do you want, nobody to say anything attacking the ideas of liberalism, or for nobody to call anybody "liberal" who defends or promotes liberal views?

Anyways, I'm done with this thread - I can see it's just going to devolve into more whining and bickering.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:22 PM']Well somebody doesn't seem to be chuckling. 

So which do you want, nobody to say anything attacking the ideas of liberalism, or for nobody to call anybody "liberal" who defends or promotes liberal views?

Anyways, I'm done with this thread - I can see it's just going to devolve into more whining and bickering.
[right][snapback]884148[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've said it already. I think that when the term "liberal" is thrown around on this board its to avoid an actual discussion

"typical liberal thinking" = I can just dismiss it.

And I've said it on other threads, Conservatism does not equal Orthodox.

[Cam42]

[quote]And if one wants to take the term "liberal" to be perjorative, that's their problem. If someone calls me a conservative, I don't consider that perjorative.[/quote]

Considering that you don't consider being called a "conservative" pejorative, even when it is, I can understand your missing the point. However Socrates, the interesting part isn't that "the fact that people consider the word "liberal" a slur," but rather that people are so intolerant of others views, that they can't see that another view might have some merit.

Again, looking at what Era Might had to say, and what others have said on this and other threads, the pejorative use of "liberal" is not what the pervading thought is, but rather the thought that is imposed upon those who don't fall into a neat little box, which isn't so neat. There are some serious problems within the conservative regime in this country.......and there are some serious problems within the liberal regime.

What is pejorative? The attitudes of the so-called conservatives on this board. I don't hear this kind of language nor do I see this attitude much in the "real world" from the conservatives that are affiliated with the Republican party, outside possibly Rush Limbaugh and Bo Snerdly (who isn't real, btw.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 11 2006, 07:28 PM']I've said it already.......Conservatism does not equal Orthodox.
[right][snapback]884151[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yep.

[Nathan]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:02 PM']What is pejorative?  The attitudes of the so-called conservatives on this board.  I don't hear this kind of language nor do I see this attitude much in the "real world" from the conservatives that are affiliated with the Republican party, outside possibly Rush Limbaugh and Bo Snerdly (who isn't real, btw.)[right][snapback]884175[/snapback][/right][/quote]

That's because the Republican party isn't really conservative anymore; even compared to when Reagan ran the show, it's weak sauce. And it's getting weaker. Authentic conservatives -- people like, say, Senator Rick Santorum -- are considered too "controversial" or "extreme" to get anywhere near the position of speaking for the GOP.

[ironmonk]

We live (those of us in the USA) in a republic.

A republic has an elected president that can veto the senate. A democracy does not.

The US Constitution states it clearly.

My theory on Bush using the word "democracy" instead of "republic" is because the media has tainted the meaning of the word for constantly referring to America as a democracy - which is an error. Maybe he doesn't want to confuse people.

Bottom line... we live in a republic form of government.

[quote] Article. IV. Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to [b]every State in this Union [/b]a [b]Republican Form of Government[/b], and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

[url="http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html"]http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-...transcript.html[/url][/quote]



What James Madison had to say about it....
[quote]The Federalist No.10 (1787)
James Madison
[url="http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm"]http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm[/url]

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

[/quote]



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:30 PM']That's because the Republican party isn't really conservative anymore; even compared to when Reagan ran the show, it's weak sauce. And it's getting weaker. Authentic conservatives -- people like, say, Senator Rick Santorum -- are considered too "controversial" or "extreme" to get anywhere near the position of speaking for the GOP.
[right][snapback]884191[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Very true. Yet liberals tend to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them (including anybody remotely pro-life) as an "extremist."

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 11 2006, 08:38 PM']Bottom line... we live in a republic form of government.

[right][snapback]884198[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not by definiton.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2006, 08:43 PM']Very true.  Yet liberals tend to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them  (including anybody remotely pro-life) as an "extremist."
[right][snapback]884204[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do you mean liberal in a pejorative sense? I wonder what Clint Eastwood would think of you......?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 08:47 PM']Not by definiton.
[right][snapback]884206[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




We live in a republic.



Maybe you don't want it to be a republic, but it is. It's just getting funny now... Socrates was right.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Nathan]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:43 PM']Yet liberals tend to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them  (including anybody remotely pro-life) as an "extremist."[right][snapback]884204[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh, absolutely. It's ridiculous and insane, but I hear it all the time. On my college campus, you'd win more popularity by declaring that you use newborn babies as firewood than by admitting a pro-life stance. I'm sure many view me as a "right-wing, neo-fascist, fundamentalist extremist" or whatever simply because I am pro-life.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Nathan

[Cam42]

Ironmonk, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I would suspect not.

The term republic is properly applied insofar as we don't have a monarch as our head of State.

Gee whiz, Ironmonk.

However, we live in a representative democracy. This is the case, precisely because we were founded on the exercice of popular sovereignty by the people's representants. But we are not a republic in the sense that you are speaking.

Benjamin Franklin knew this, as did most Americans of the day. This is based upon the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Most republics (in the sense defined above) and many constitutional monarchies are theoretically based on popular sovereignty. However, a legalistic notion of popular sovereignty does not necessarily imply an effective, functioning democracy: a party or even an individual dictator may claim to represent the will of the people, and rule in its name, pretending to detain auctoritas.

In U.S. history, the terms popular sovereignty and the equivalent but more disparaging squatter sovereignty refer generally to the right claimed by the squatters, or actual residents, of a territory of the United States to make their own laws, and in particular to the idea championed by Stephen A. Douglas that the residents of each territory were allowed to determine whether it would accept or reject the practice of slavery, for example.

This is why we are not a direct democracy nor are we a participatory democracy. We are a representative democracy, which is often called (incorrectly) a republic. Again, Ironmonk, we are a republic insofar as we have no monarch, but we are not a republic in the sense that you are proposing.

Remember the war cry of the Revolution: "Taxation without Representation."

Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected representatives speak for their constituents in the legislature. Generally, only citizens are granted representation in the government in the form of voting rights, however some democracies have extended this right further. In the United States and other democracies, typically the lower house of a bicameral (two-chamber) system is based on population - more or less - while the upper House is based on area.

If you think differently, show us how. And please stop laughing about this, you are wrong. You are the one looking foolish.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 07:18 PM']Ironmonk, did you even bother to read what I wrote?  I would suspect not.

The term republic is properly applied insofar as we don't have a monarch as our head of State.

Gee whiz, Ironmonk.

However, we live in a representative democracy.  This is the case, precisely because we were founded on the exercice of popular sovereignty by the people's representants.  But we are not a republic in the sense that you are speaking.

Benjamin Franklin knew this, as did most Americans of the day.  This is based upon the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Most republics (in the sense defined above) and many constitutional monarchies are theoretically based on popular sovereignty. However, a legalistic notion of popular sovereignty does not necessarily imply an effective, functioning democracy: a party or even an individual dictator may claim to represent the will of the people, and rule in its name, pretending to detain auctoritas.

In U.S. history, the terms popular sovereignty and the equivalent but more disparaging squatter sovereignty refer generally to the right claimed by the squatters, or actual residents, of a territory of the United States to make their own laws, and in particular to the idea championed by Stephen A. Douglas that the residents of each territory were allowed to determine whether it would accept or reject the practice of slavery, for example.

This is why we are not a direct democracy nor are we a participatory democracy.  We are a representative democracy, which is often called (incorrectly) a republic.  Again, Ironmonk, we are a republic insofar as we have no monarch, but we are not a republic in the sense that you are proposing.

Remember the war cry of the Revolution:  "Taxation without Representation." 

Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected representatives speak for their constituents in the legislature. Generally, only citizens are granted representation in the government in the form of voting rights, however some democracies have extended this right further.  In the United States and other democracies, typically the lower house of a bicameral (two-chamber) system is based on population - more or less - while the upper House is based on area.

If you think differently, show us how.  And please stop laughing about this, you are wrong.  You are the one looking foolish.
[right][snapback]884227[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ironmonk is right.

The U.S. was conceived as a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.
There is a difference.