A Lesson on Republics

[GenSeneca]

I encourage everyone to vote against me, vote to ban me... I alone will have the only vote against the majority.

In a Republic, decisions are made by a majority but those decisions are not allowed to violate the rights of the minority. Therefore even if I am the only one to vote that I should not be banned, and the other 99% of votes are for me to get banned, I still have rights which cannot be violated, no matter how large the majority against me.

So vote to ban me, I take pride in knowing that as a Republic, my rights as a minority are protected against the violations of the majority.

 

[Dr.Who]

A great exercise for all to see. I voted to ban you, even though I value your input and would hate to see you go, just so that your exercise works.

But if you, yourself, are the one who gets to decide that you stay even though the majority wants to ban you is it not then an example of a monarchy?

What we need is a group of moderators who would decide that you stay even though the majority wants to ban you because they are following the rules.

 

[Apathy]

I encourage everyone to vote against me, vote to ban me... I alone will have the only vote against the majority.

In a Republic, decisions are made by a majority but those decisions are not allowed to violate the rights of the minority. Therefore even if I am the only one to vote that I should not be banned, and the other 99% of votes are for me to get banned, I still have rights which cannot be violated, no matter how large the majority against me.

So vote to ban me, I take pride in knowing that as a Republic, my rights as a minority are protected against the violations of the majority.

In a republic how do you ensure these rights are protected?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In a republic how do you ensure these rights are protected?

the one with the guns always wins...if they are willing to.

Also I voted for no...as is my right to Gen wants..and will use my free speech to make the point.

Free Speech in time, kills bad ideas...some take longer then others though.

Authoritarian rule, hardens bad ideas, and ingrains the bad ideas..as there is no one to suggest they are wrong.

 

[GenSeneca]

But if you, yourself, are the one who gets to decide that you stay even though the majority wants to ban you is it not then an example of a monarchy?

I was making the analogy of banning as a violation of rights. In a republic, the rights of the individual are protected no matter how large the majority in favor of violating those rights. A Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.

So no, it is not a Monarchy. That system is nothing more than a dictatorship where only the Monarch has a vote Everyone is allowed to vote in this poll.

Pockets post about authoritarian regimes would be a better example of dictatorship, no one is allowed to vote in his thread, he had the only vote and prevented all others from participating. Call that a Monarchy, or Authoritianism, but one man casting the only vote that counts is a dictatorship.

 

[GenSeneca]

In a republic how do you ensure these rights are protected?

How do you ensure your rights are protected under Anarchy?

 

[Apathy]

How do you ensure your rights are protected under Anarchy?

Ill answer your question when you answer mine.

 

[PLC1]

I encourage everyone to vote against me, vote to ban me... I alone will have the only vote against the majority.

In a Republic, decisions are made by a majority but those decisions are not allowed to violate the rights of the minority. Therefore even if I am the only one to vote that I should not be banned, and the other 99% of votes are for me to get banned, I still have rights which cannot be violated, no matter how large the majority against me.

So vote to ban me, I take pride in knowing that as a Republic, my rights as a minority are protected against the violations of the majority.

Good one, Gen.

In a Republic, the rights of the minority are protected from the will of the majority. In this one, the supreme law of the land is not the will of the people, as so many think, but the Constitution.

A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

 

[Dr.Who]

In a republic how do you ensure these rights are protected?

No system ensures rights completely. But in a system with checks, balances, competing voices, and a moral population rights have the best chance of being honored.

I believe that the US ensures rights to a very high degree but used to ensure them to a much higher degree (unless you were a slave). We could take the best of what we have now and combine it with the best of what we used to have.

 

[Dr.Who]

How do you ensure your rights are protected under Anarchy?

I like your question and I will answer it too.

Every individual has the responsibility to protect his own rights or not as he sees fit. The pacifist anarchist is at the mercy of all others but thinks that when they see the injustice they do him their hearts will be melted and they will stop.

Now my commentary on my answer: In an anarchy every individual often hates the concept of governments of any kind because they are always stronger than the individual. Pacifism is a powerful too that was used well by Ghandi (within a government of sorts) but it has its limitations

The formation of governments cannot ever ever be stopped but the formation of better governments can counter the actions of bad ones.

 

[Apathy]

1)No system ensures rights completely. But in a system with checks, balances, competing voices, and a moral population rights have the best chance of being honored.

2)I believe that the US ensures rights to a very high degree but used to ensure them to a much higher degree (unless you were a slave). We could take the best of what we have now and combine it with the best of what we used to have.

1) Rubbish, if the American experiment has proven anything it is that the system that you described does not work. So why keep trying it?

2) Wrong again... Alien and Sedition Act (1798) Espionage Act (1917) Sedition Act (1918) Schenk Vs. US (1919) Prohibition (1920) Patriot Act (2001) Suspension of Habeas Corpus (1861) Theft via Taxation (1783-present)

The list is longer than the line at disney world.

 

[Apathy]

I like your question and I will answer it too.

Every individual has the responsibility to protect his own rights or not as he sees fit. The pacifist anarchist is at the mercy of all others but thinks that when they see the injustice they do him their hearts will be melted and they will stop.

Now my commentary on my answer: In an anarchy every individual often hates the concept of governments of any kind because they are always stronger than the individual. Pacifism is a powerful too that was used well by Ghandi (within a government of sorts) but it has its limitations

The formation of governments cannot ever ever be stopped but the formation of better governments can counter the actions of bad ones.

The formation of governments can easily be stopped... No money no guns, no guns no coercion, no coercion no state.

 

[dogtowner]

The formation of governments can easily be stopped... No money no guns, no guns no coercion, no coercion no state.

there are always guns, either here or across the border.
as long as power exists, there are those who will covet it.
and power qwill always exist even if its just who has the bigger stick.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I like your question and I will answer it too.

Every individual has the responsibility to protect his own rights or not as he sees fit. The pacifist anarchist is at the mercy of all others but thinks that when they see the injustice they do him their hearts will be melted and they will stop.

Now my commentary on my answer: In an anarchy every individual often hates the concept of governments of any kind because they are always stronger than the individual. Pacifism is a powerful too that was used well by Ghandi (within a government of sorts) but it has its limitations

The formation of governments cannot ever ever be stopped but the formation of better governments can counter the actions of bad ones.

Pacism works great...so long as the other side is not willing to pull the trigger.

all the peaceful protests in Egypt would have been over in days if government had not had the world watching...so it could just open fire on them.

 

[dogtowner]

Pacism works great...so long as the other side is not willing to pull the trigger.

all the peaceful protests in Egypt would have been over in days if government had not had the world watching...so it could just open fire on them.

peaceful ?