This unchecked expansion of executive power is happening all over the world. Enabled by technology, but also lack of public outrage, soft, welfarish* dictatorships are in the works. Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the democratic principle rests on a limitation of power. Currently, there is no limit, so long as the right language and people are targeted (whistle-blowers, traitors and ultimately, "terrorists"). The public is not yet aware of the danger and by the time they are it may be too late.
Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the democratic principle rests on a limitation of power.
No, democracy is unlimited power by the majority.
A constitutional republic is a system that allows the majority to exercise power within a restricted scope.
EDIT: I completely agree with your point, though. It probably _is_ too late, but for it to not be too late, people have to learn what's what. And for that to happen, people need to understand what a democracy is and why it's not the right solution.
The distinction between a democracy and a constitutional republic is not as real as you make it sound. The only difference is that the constitutional republic has an old piece of paper sitting in a museum somewhere. As we all know, paper has no physical power, so the supposed restrictions on government power still must be enforced (either by a willing government, while that lasts, or an armed populace).
No, it _is_ fully as real as I make it sound, but it is an _intellectual_ distinction. People who would like the government to have arbitrary powers argue that the difference isn't really real, and it's important to counter that.
The only difference is that the constitutional republic has an old piece of paper sitting in a museum somewhere.
No, the specific contents of that piece of paper also matter. Not every constitution establishs a constitutional republic, or a good one.
As we all know, paper has no physical power, so the supposed restrictions on government power still must be enforced (either by a willing government, while that lasts, or an armed populace).
I agree here, and this is the tricky part.
Hopefully more people will come to realize that while they may be in the majority on some issue for some window of time, overall, they need protection from arbitrary governmental power.
The tricky part is what makes all the difference. If majority are smart, democracy would suffice. If not, the constitution will just be treated as a piece of paper in a museum and being a republic would serve no purpose.
It’s an uncommon distinction, made only by very few people in that way.
“Democracy” never meant only majority rule. “Democracy” is more commonly used as an umbrella term, that can refer to majority rule, but also constitutional republics.
It’s all semantic pointlessness anyway, obscuring meaning by fighting meaningless bullshitting battles.
Why obscure meaning by insisting on making a difference between democracy and constitutional republic when it would be much easier to just directly contrast and compare “majority rule” and “constitutional republics” with each other? You don’t even have to use the word “democracy”.
It is all perfectly clear and using “democracy” to describe a constitutional republic is not some grand conspiracy.
It’s pseudo-intellectual semantic stupidity.
But if you want to embrace this semantic wankery then one thing is clear: democracy never only referred to majority rule. That’s completely absurd, it was always broader than that. (Looking only at Athens suffices here. That was never a constitutional republic, but it also was never a majority rule. For example, some offices were assigned randomly.)
So I just finished writing a comment about this here [1] that is highly relevant (moreso than the rest of this comment).
But I completely disagree with you. People use the term "democracy" constantly, so figuring out what it means (and what they mean by it) matters. So just ignoring it, as you suggest, is not a viable option at all.
From reading [1], you will pick up that I think we should define these terms by their essence, not (say) how closely some specific historical cases did or did not approach the ideal.
Moreover, it's been intellectually important for progressives to insist that the US is a democracy since the progressive movement began (1900s or thereabout), because democracy is necessary to implement their ideas. I'm not saying it was a grand conspiracy. Democracy is a core part of progressivism.
You are clouding the issue by not talking clearly about it. It’s semantic wankery, nothing more. And it’s irrelevant. Discussions about what words really mean always are.
We can use your weird definition of democracy, of course. That is perfectly acceptable. But you should also be aware that next to no one else is actually using that definition when they say democracy.
What is not possible is to define words in a certain (weird) way and then to infer from that what people are really thinking when they say democracy.
“Progressives” do not mean mob rule or majority rule when they say democracy. That is just absurd. Just because you define that word that way doesn’t mean everyone else is or wants to express what you defined they want to express.
You are just completely and utterly wrong, with a worldview clouded by ideological delusions.
(It really is an aside, but all progressives I know are strongly in favor of strong constitutional protections of rights that cannot be overridden by any majority, they are strongly in favor of a separation of powers and due process. When they say they want more democracy they most certainly don’t mean that they want to make it easier to abolish constitutional rights. You are attacking the most complete strawman ever.)
What is not possible is to define words in a certain (weird) way and then to infer from that what people are really thinking when they say democracy.
Agreed. People don't automatically follow your definitions. I'm not arguing that.
“Progressives” do not mean mob rule or majority rule when they say democracy.
They definitely do mean majority rule. Absolutely. What is democracy, if not majority rule?
You are just completely and utterly wrong, with a worldview clouded by ideological delusions.
You can't logically criticize my entire "worldview" based on how I think we ought to define the words "democracy" and "constitutional republic," and whether or not the definitions of words actually matter.
(It really is an aside, but all progressives I know are strongly in favor of strong constitutional protections of rights that cannot be overridden by any majority, they are strongly in favor of a separation of powers and due process. When they say they want more democracy they most certainly don’t mean that they want to make it easier to abolish constitutional rights. You are attacking the most complete strawman ever.)
Given that you use British Empire-style perjoratives (which are, by the way, rather harsh to my American ears), I don't think we're talking about the same thing by "progressives," because you're describing them incorrectly. According to Wikipedia, some parties in Europe have been using it to mean something different.
When they say they want more democracy they most certainly don’t mean that they want to make it easier to abolish constitutional rights.
The #1 hot progressive cause in America right now is gun control, which (in totality) requires abolishing the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Progressives also had to change the Constitution to permit income tax, which previously was a constitutional protection. So, you see, you're just wrong. These are seen as "democratic" reforms, by the way.
Democracy: A system of government in which every citizen is entitled to participate equally in government.
Republic: A system of government by the citizens, as opposed to a monarch, emperor, or dictator.
Constitutional republic: A republic in which the powers and functionining of government are restricted by the constitution.
I don't necessarily think "democracy" and "republic" are mutually exclusive.
I do think "democracy" and "constitutional republic" are exclusive.
For example:
In a democracy, someone else's wish to confiscate my property counts equally with my wish to keep my property.
In a constitutional republic, the government's powers are limited by the constitution, providing protection for citizens against arbitrary governmental powers.
Of course, you could have a constitutional republic with a poorly-functioning constitution, which in effect functions more and more as a democracy. So there are certainly mixed cases.
Some people would resist the definitions I have given, because I define concepts so clearly. But that is the very point of concepts: to capture the essence, not to capture the mixed cases. And objective concepts are a necessary part of rational thought.
You're limiting the definition of democracy to 100% pure direct democracy i.e. literal mob rule. I struggle to imagine what such a government would even look like (on a large scale, at least).
I tend to think of a republic as opposed to a principality (it's right there in the name, even!). That is, the machine of government is thought to be held publicly rather than privately, in a republic. Suffrage has nothing to do with it, although democracy is a common implementation of a republic. (Other examples might be a military government, a religious oligarchy, or a corporate oligarchy). It is a rather broad term.
Constraining what the citizens are allowed to do, or how they are allowed to do it, via fair voting representation in their government (that is to say, limiting the powers of their duly-elected government by a constitution) does not to my mind diminish the fact that it is a democracy. Nor does it diminish if they elect representatives rather than participating in endless referendums.
My thinking on this seems clear and objective enough to me.
So you don't like welfare, and you associate it with dictators for some reason, and it will look like democracy but really be something else, and some unspecified drastic action must be taken because after that all opposition will be snuffed.
It should be interesting that you have laid out a set of propositions which could persuade people to overthrow a democracy with violence (after all, it's not a real democracy and after all, if we don't stop it then THEY will snuff US, so we had better act first hadn't we?)
Be careful about who you support, if you build a machine to overthrow the government you might get more than you bargained for from that powerful new machine.
I don't think that's what he meant. The way I understood it is that by "welfarish" he means "ostensibly benign" as part of projecting a populist image.
> Dragging welfare into this doesn’t even begin to make sense.
If the state feels it's appropriate to take from one and give to another, then it must also feel that it is appropriate to simply take and eventually, not to merely take property but life itself. It's the taking mindset and mentality that's the problem.
I feel there’s an excluded middle here. The state could perfectly reasonably consider it ok to take taxes, but not life. Or to take life in some circumstances (war), but not others (death penalty). Your argument appears to be that because something is a bit true, it has to be completely true. I don’t find this to be the case in practice. There are plenty of partly true things in life.
Everything is ideology if you are consistent in your train of thought ("An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things").
You can't escape having an ideology, so no that's not the problem. The problem is with hypocritical, contradictory ideologies, e.g. your anti-ideology ideology.
No, the problem is stating (known to be) extremely controversial axioms of an ideology as self-evident truths without reason and justification. It’s unnecessary bullshit.
As in how you just stated as self evident your ideology that one must always provide reason and justification? What's unnecessary bullshit is your own wild-eyed hypocrisy.
Democracy does not rest on a limitation of power. For the better part of US history, there was almost no Constitutional check on state police power (since the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states until the 14th amendment was construed to make it so).
> For the better part of US history, there was almost no Constitutional check on state police power
Yeah, that was a mistake which was corrected.
You could just as easily say that democracy doesn't necessitate allowing all people to vote regardless of skin pigmentation, since at one point we had not yet recognized that it in fact does.
I realize you have preferences. I, too, wish the world were as perfect as I imagine it could be. But that doesn't actually provide any ground on which we can communicate and build from.
You only have to compromise your definition of democracy if you are starting from the assumption that we must necessarily be included in that definition. In normal conversation untainted by prejudices of patriotism we are perfectly capable of using terminology that represents a state never realized in reality.
Bland rhetoric? You are just accusing me of redefining a word beyond usefulness for refusing to compromise standards for the sake of historic revisionism. How is "I don't know" even a response to what you wrote? You didn't ask a question...
You said it's any democracy at all. And then you dropped a bunch of irrelevant drivel about patriotism because it furthered the pedantic argument you had with rayiner.
You never answered the question. Indeed, you refused to answer it.
> Democracy does not rest on a limitation of power.
Democracy doesn't, but liberty and civility does. It's not even about an explicit limitation of power, but a perceived limitation.
If something is unthinkable, it's irrelevant whether some piece of paper somewhere says you can't do it ... it's unthinkable, so it won't happen. The reason all of this is happening is that not only is it very thinkable, but it is outright tolerated by the populace at large ... even glorified.
To a certain degree, that's true, till someone interprets that as a loophole, thinks it and does it. It's why law constantly evolves --to adapt to new exploits (as well as for get rid of outdated laws.
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
The Bill of Rights was not conceived to limit states, only the federal government. It was the 14th amendment and some clever reading by SCOTUS that extended it to states a century later.
Maybe. This is federal actiom. Killing is deprivation of life. US citizens are generally construed to have due process rights anywhere in the world. So due process clause applies. The question, then, is what process is due? The clause means exactly what is said: people are entitled to due process, not more process than is due. Due process doesn't always mean a trial. It's a sliding scale. The more something looks like something that would require a trial, the more process is due.
What process is due when you go to Yemen and take up arms against the US? Should the government have to apprehend you abroad and bring you in for trial?
If it sounds fuzzy its because it is. The framers used a wiggle word like "due" to give interpretive leeway. If they had meant hard and fast judicial process they would have said so.
*In a "guns and butter" sort of way