I'm coming to this conversation way late, but what I think RadicalRyushin was describing was the old Anglo-Saxon/Jewish division of society (very interesting account in The 5000 Year Leap). The jist is that you work your way up from the individual/familial level up to the national level and solve problems on the lowest level possible. This, I believe, is echoed by the Constitution granting only certain enumerated powers to the national govt and leaving everything else to the states or the people
@TheRadicalRyushin As I showed in the video (which you apparently didn't even watch), Democracy is the rule of men, while Republic is the rule of law. They are complete diametric opposites.
So instead of accusing me of lying, why don't you go and actually WATCH the video and see for yourself how wrong you are? If your mind hasn't already been firmly closed by your cult leaders, that is...
you can play semantics as to what you want to call it but James Madison himself called a republic a representative democracy which is it. You can call it banana cream pie but it doesnt change anything.
can someone explain what prevents majority rule in a republic? rights are inherent from who? the majority who voted to put them into the constitution?
explain how a republic isnt equally subjected to majority rule like a republic is. If we dont have majority rule in a republic, then you have an oligarchy, this is usually when a republic doesnt have democratic elections.
@bucnasty14 A republic has NO rule idiot. Simply representatives required to protect our personal liberties, we make our own rules and the leadership is supposed to protect that right. A democracy is you being the brainwashed slave you are paying a tax on every single money exchange possible, to a controlling govt. that clames 51% can rule 49%, if you want a democracy be prepared for the two wolves and your sheep ass voting for dinner. ......see how you like real democracy.
@d1incharge wow, such a well thought out comment. No semblance of BS rhetoric at all and completely impartial and definitely the product of independent thought.
no we dont make our own rules, go drinking and driving because its not a rule you decided for yourself. Tell that to the bank robbers when they say "I didnt agree to the law that makes robbing illegal".
So "no one" created our laws nor our constitution? just out of thin air? *poof* or did a majority of the founders agree on them?
We have the right to do anything that doesnt effect anybody but ourselves, personal liberty. We do not have the right to drive while drunk as that puts somebody else at risk,(shared road) same with theft, it involves other people. Maybe I should have worded it better, we make our own rules for our own lives and personal choices not involving other people. Did they put DUI in the constitution all of a sudden? Our founders agreed on MINIMAL laws, now you can be arrested for not showing ID.
@d1incharge okay so it went from "no one" created our laws to "our founders agreed on MINIMAL laws" we are starting to go in the right direction. Yes things that involve no one else need consent from no one else.... uh duh! what does this have to do with anything? if you live in the real world and not under a rock very little you do effects only yourself. When it comes to things that dont only affect ourselves, we have decided through means of majority rule.
@bucnasty14 You want to know the best part of your brainwashing. Think about something, has DUI ever killed or hurt anybody? No, if you were intelligent, no would be your answer. That is like making extreme rage fits illegal, cause those can cause murder, or violence. Make stupid people illegal because they kill themselves and others all the time with "accidents" aka stupid actions. So shall we outlaw things that may lead to crime, or just stick to the crimes themselves? You =Brainwashed Tool.
In my high school government class I was taught that the U.S. Government is a "Representative Democracy". Is that true? Why would the teacher teach that is what the U.S. Government is? I've also heard that we are a "Democratic Republic" thrown around. What gives?
"The Constitution sets up the United States as a republic, not a democracy."
3...2...1...YOU FUCKING IGNORANT PRICK! Sceptic my arse! The Founding Fathers mixed the ideologies of democracy and republicanism in order to achieve a fair balance to create what they considered a good *representative* government. America is hence both i.e. a democratic republic!
@shanedk It's easy to discern it from their external writings...and the fact they decided to hold elections for the office of president...and congressmen.
@shanedk "Elections doesn't make it a democracy" *facepalm* Then is America a representative democracy?
I can easily argue you have Original Intent, being a propertarian. And are you bollocks a debunker; as far as I'm concerned you're a politically-driven pseudo-historian and an Exxon Mobil skeptic.
@shanedk "closed-minded dogmatist" The only dogmatist here is you, bending history to fit in line with your propertarian scripture. I was going to congratulate you for not using ad hominems; too bad.
Look: what I can see here is you playing on semantic confusions and historical ignorance to enhance your own agenda. For want of a stronger word, that is just plain wrong.
@niriop I HAVEN'T bent history. I've made the case AGAINST Original Intent and for Original Meaning. I've used the VERY WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, whereas YOU had to go for intent. When cornered, you redefined your terms instead of admitting that you were wrong. That's dogmatic behavior.
@shanedk You were the first to start twisting terms. I haven't changed shit; you're the real dogmatist, and won't admit you're taking a biased view of reality.
@spock431 A republic doesn't have to be a democracy; it could use another method of choosing the government. You're right that it's the most popular way of doing it, but it isn't inherent to the definition of "republic."
Question, for clarity. If, in a Republic, rights are inherent, are we not still left with the task of deciding what rights exist? How do we do so if not by on of the other processes you described (divine rights, democratic rights etc)?
No, the burden of proof is on the side of the people who want to use force to implement their policy. THEY must justify it; we do NOT have to justify our rights to ANYONE.
@Eikus89 Unless when it is a Constitutional Monarchy, which is basically only a monarchy in word, but hardly in practise.
We have a Constitutional Monarchy over here in The Netherlands, but it is just a parliamentary representative democracy in actuality. The queen's powers are so limited that her function has become purely ceremonial. Although I don't really see the use of this any more, the royal house is very much loved here.
Would you consider the Soviet Union an oligarchy? They weren't a monarchy, obviously the king was overthrown, but the elite, the politburo, was in control.
There isn't really a difference between monarchy and dictatorship. What traditionally get called monarchies usually just have more orderly transfers of power.
but you where a bit to short on the republic part. It derives its meaning from the Latin "res publica" (public things). So it depends on a decision what these public things are.
Its not granted that a republic protects individual rights. That depends on the constititution of a republic. A republic might very well be a totalitarian state. Especial if everything is considered political and thus part of the "res publica".
But anyway, why do you get so low ratings on this series?
Doesn't the fact that we don't have term limits in congress basically make us an oligarchy? I mean not technically but this is what it has become; the same people staying in congress their whole lives and the two political parties having near total control over the entire congress. I believe Thomas Paine wanted no representative to serve longer than one 4 yrs term. I could be wrong, I am going off of memory. Congress should have term limits.
This video should be required viewing in public elementary schools. I swear, every social studies book back then always said we were a democracy. I "wonder" why so many young people are "liberal." lol!
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Winston Churchill, 1947
Wasn't he aware of republic way of running the government?
I first saw this "Republic vs, Democracy" on the bumper sticker when Clinton was in the office. I didn't see it when W. was in the office. Now I see it everywhere on the net.
Would a constituatonal monarchy (like that of Canada or Great Britain) be considered more of republic then a monarchy. After all almost all power (in a practical sense) rests in the hands of officials that are elected in a "first past the post" system. And the government's power (including that of the monarch) is limited by a legal document similar to the US constitution.
The UK is NOT a republic in any real sense, as there isn't actually a constitution. There are accepted norms of government behavior that are sometimes treated like a constitution, but these are always subject to scope creep. (This is like the scope creep that has afflicted the USPTO in recent years, and also at least once in the past, until they got bitch-slapped by SCOTUS and straitened up for a long while.)
1. I have a problem with this term "rights". What do you mean exactly? From what I understood in the video, you mean a form of anarchism, where personal common sense decides what your rights are, not a state. Yet if that was the case, the US wouldn't have laws right? The only law would be to protect your rights. Yet (just an example), you're unable to consume alcohol if your under 21. Surely it's my "right" to choose when I can drink?
2. You talk about "mob rule", being the process of democracy. Yet you, in your Republic, vote for your choice of president. So do you mean that because you're voting system is filtered first through the state you live in, and THEN to Washington, that it's somewhere in between a Oligarchy and Democracy?
In any case, you still vote, and although "mob rule" may not come to pass in your country as a whole (most of your population may not have voted for Obama for example), it's still essentially mob rule within your State. And remember, Texas alone is larger than the UK.
I don't know a lot about the US Constitution or political process in general, so forgive if I've made mistakes in my points. I'm just interested, 'tis all.
The difference is, the Republic is rule of law, not rule of men. It doesn't matter if 99% of the people want to bring slavery back; they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Except they're not supposed to be able to make whatever law they want. There's a list, and they can only do things in that list--and even then, they have to make sure that they're NOT doing things on this other list.
Of course, that's not the way things are at the moment...
I saw the year 1913 as bad because it made things so much more prevalent (e.g. changing the selection of senators to mob rule instead of via the state governors), but I do agree that around the civil war was a huge time of mass shrinking of freedom (as explained by Harry Browne).
Slavery never ended. The master just changed hands. The 14th amendment destroyed state sovereignty by placing restrictions on the states and making everybody answerable to the federal government destroying the duel equal sovereignty that both the states and the federal government were intended to have. Last I checked I still wasn't getting the full value of my work wage aside there's this thing called income tax that keeps stealing my work.
That is an example of state's rights. He's talking about the federal government. However then we get into federal coerciveness the real reason behind those laws.
The supreme court has ruled that the 50 states are countries with respect to each other but under the 14th amendment system you are participating in rebellion against your de jure country when you vote, through contract as well and that is why you have to pay IRS and so forth.. and are responsible for the national debt. watch all 6 vids for more info please watch watch?v=G1B33IvnJ4M&feature=ch annel_page
Going by the definition you lay out here, we clearly live in a democratic oligarchy The constitution is a joke and is not respected at all. The government has been chipping away at our rights for decades. Almost everything the federal government is unconstitutional. If you ask a person in the street what kind of government we have, almost nobody will answer "A constitutional republic" and almost everybody will answer "A democracy"
Will it ever turn around? I hope so, but it will collapse first.
It's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Founders had no illusions that large interests would try and concentrate power. That is why there is a separation of powers. I am not saying that the government is all for each individual person, but you have more power than in a true Oligarchy, like China or Russia, for example.
Well I do know Judicial Review is unconstitutional and that is a major aspect of our government, thus our government is unconstitutional.
But the President or Congress really isn't unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause pretty much allows the President to do just about anything, as long as it follows the Necessary and Proper Clause. Yet still that some huge powers granted to the President.
@TheRadicalRyushin "There is nothing in the constitution that says he cannot."
Article I Section 1. (You didn't read that far into it, did you?)
"since the president has to act before a Nuke can strike us, he sort of has to."
Emergency powers aren't legislative powers. And those powers are subject to Congressional review.
Besides, you based this on the Necessary and Proper clause, which specifically refers to "the foregoing powers" (the ones granted to Congress in Article I Section 8).
I am sorry, but the Supreme Court has ruled that President can before such acts without the full consent of Congress. So I am sorry, but you are wrong.
@TheRadicalRyushin The Supreme Court CANNOT amend, rewrite, or change the meaning of the Constitution. That's actually what they use the word "interpret" to really mean, but like Congress and the President, they're paying lip service to the Constitution while doing what they really want. They're politicians in robes.
They can by the basis of how it is to be interpreted. And sometimes an interpretation can seem so far as an act of corruption, such as the difference between Protestants and Christians, but their whole difference is mainly how they interpret the whole scripture. Yet that same different can imply how the Supreme Court can consider giving the executive branch such extreme levels of power even if the Constitution does not explicitly state such, because it is an implied power.
Now if you think Judicial Review is unconstitutional like I have, because it is not written in the Constitution, then we can most certainly then agree the President should not have such power. But until we can both agree that Judicial Review is unconstitutional, then I cannot agree with you that such power enforced by the President is unconstitutional, because one requires the other.
You don't know what Judicial Review means? Forget about it. You should already know I mean by Judicial Review, the right to interpret the constitution and decide and judge on laws and executive acts upon their constitutionality. Goodness you are such a brick wall in the head.
@TheRadicalRyushin There's review of administrative acts, of primary legislation, of state legislation, of lower court rulings, the list goes on, all sorts of things, many of which are absolutely vital to the concept of separation of powers, and others which constitute an abuse of their authority.
Until you make it clear exactly what you mean, I cannot answer your question.
We need to rethink how our government should be structured.
My emphasis on government is the same emphasis on society since government is a component of society. Every society has its own government. There is always someone or everyone making laws or rules that dictate how society should function and this exists in all human societies around the world. In Prisons, jungle tribes, worldly states, and even amongst individuals. We even govern ourselves as a government over an individual.
Government isn't just the President, Congress, and Supreme Court and it doesn't have to exist simply within a state. Yet rather it exists in everything in terms of a relationship within society between human beings. Government is what we are.
It is not a necessary evil, it is what we are.
So lets get away from this foolish concept that government is getting too large, because government always been everywhere and is a part of us. It cannot get any larger than it has always been.
So... my conservative friend, let us articulate how government should be structured.
To do this let us look at society and how responsibility should be structured, which is how I believe government should be structured after.
In my opinion, responsibility is vested in the individual, but since we are a social organism that cannot survive on its own, we do at times need services and assistance from others. It is just the nature of what we are.
So higher levels of governance beyond the individual should exist to support the individual in its own ability to govern over its self. And this same relationship extends all the way up, which external relationships pertaining to the higher level of society and domestic relationships filtering and existing at its strength at the lowest level, the individual.
Provinces relate to other provinces, individuals relate to other individuals, they do not seek to go higher unless they need to.
The proceeding flow of governance would start with the individual, say myself and I simply act to do what I can to take care of myself. In ways in which I cannot, I turn towards other individuals, other members of the lowest level. Normally this would consist of perhaps my family, my immediate neighbors, or other people who live on the same street as I do. If the problem extends further than what they can assist with then I would turn to the specific neighborhood itself.
By the way, should a matter be too much of a concern for the neighborhood, say my Neighborhood of South Bayview, it can turn for help from other neighborhoods before directing itself to a District or Barrio (which is the identification I use for this next order), which in my instance would be a subdivision of the ward that exists in the division of the city I live in, which I could call Bayview. The matter would then go up to the Ward, which in my case be the Northeast Ward of Norfolk.
I the matter is too much of a concern for my ward to take care of on its own, then I direct the matter to my city, which is Norfolk. If Norfolk cannot take care of the matter, then it is directed to a Municipality, which of course Norfolk does not belong to as it is an Independent City, but say it was it wasn't, it would direct it self to a Municipality or Borough.
If Norfolk as an independent city cannot take care of the matter, it would proceed to the County.
Of course I am using County and Borough out of context, but from where counties exist in Virginia, they would be Boroughs with Counties existing as a subunit of the state above where counties exist right now. In other words, current counties would exist as Boroughs and these Boroughs would coincide together as Counties.
The county for my region of the state would be called Southern Hampton Roads. And after trying to address the matter with other counties, the matter wold then proceed upwards.
Upwards to the Province, which in my case would be the Tidewater Region of Virginia, since it is highly populated and has its own culture distinct from other regions of the same state.
This then proceeds to the Canton or State, which would be Virginia.
Then upon dealing with other states in trying to deal with this matter, it would proceed to the next body of power, the Commonwealth, again I use that word out of context of how we currently know it.
You see I would reuse the word Commonwealth to identify associations of states under the National government rather than to specific states.
In my case, I would live within the Commonwealth of Chesapeake which pertains to Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, D.C, West Virginia, and Kentucky.
Beyond that the Commonwealth would address the matter to other Commonwealths before proceeding to the Dominion of Dixieland, which would be the entire South as we know it, from Virginia to Florida and Texas.
Dixieland would be one of three divisions or dominions of the this Country. The country would then proceed to the Continental District of North America (which currently exists as NAFTA), which would then proceed to the Continental Union of American (North, South, and Central). Then this proceeds to the World Government should the matter be too much for even the Continental Union or to the Hemisphere Association of the West, which would mean Australia, Pacific Islands, and the Americas.
But this is if the matter is too much of a concern for each subunit prior to the world government.
Which allows a World Government to exist, mainly to deal with matters beyond our planet's concerns, while allowing localities and regions above them to deal with matters and exist in autonomy from the world government. Also allowing indigenous cultures to maintain themselves and continue to exist while we unite as one people under a world body.
@TheRadicalRyushin In the sense of looking out for the planet, the UN (closest thing to a world gov that we have) has been a total failure. In fact, the UN has been a colossal failure at everything... From passing anti-blaspemy laws to failing to stop genocide, the UN has been a disaster.
Good, no, great vid! You address many of the common misconceptions we have about our own government.
My critique would be that it glosses over the questions of where rights come from. This is important because the republic should only protect legitimate rights. We still have to answer where rights come from to figure out which are legitimate. Therfore, we need to figure out if our rights come from nature or the flying spaghetti monster.
I was in an arguement with 2 people over this. One said " a democracy is a type of republic " or visa versa. Also there is the Democratic Republic of the Congo..to further muddy the waters. And also The Democratic Party was call the Democratic-Republican party when Thomas Jefferson started it. I'm confused...
Common law,,is derived from the Bible in fact most of the laws we live by were taken from the Bible usually common sense laws,,the right to feel safe and secure, the right to travel freely, the right to speak freely, basically the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not harm someone else... You know,, what we used to call the "GOLDEN RULE" do unto others as you would have done unto you.You are born with these rights they are God given and cannot be taken away by ANYBODY except, God
If any one brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take the house that had belonged to his accuser. The second law of Hammurabi although it does predate Biblical law.The Bible was the current law at that time
The second law of Hammurabi was posted to show "Where in our inherent rights does the second law of Hammurabi" make any kind of sense I mean letting a river pass judgment on a mans life? Biblical teachings seem a more logical conclusion to what inherent rights are.
i hope i can help....i believe the inherent rights they are alking about are survival rights. for example no one is allowed to stop u from feeding or sheltering yourself, this is an inherent right i believe.living in 2009 America we over look the things that should really be protected.
Not just survival rights, but also pursuit of happiness as well: the right to have the friends you want, marry whomever you want, start a business, see a play or concert, whatever.
I don't think any of these examples pan out for you. None of them are rights. I want to marry Jessica Biel, but I don't have the right to. I want to be friends with Tom Brady, but I don't have the right to. True, the government should protect my right to start a business, but when I fail I don't have the right to be bailed out.
We are acting more like your definition of a democracy, which is really scary, as you say.
Our rights come from our human nature, nowhere else.
Not quite. The fundamental difference between all forms of government is the origination of rights. In the US, all rights originate with the people, not the government, and one fundamental right of the people is the right to decide how we shall be governed.
The elite few we select to represent us do not grant us our rights. Instead we, being the owners of our rights, of all rights, grant rights to the government by enumerating powers.
There's one more distinction: there's "the people," as in a single entity, and whatever "the people" consider to be our rights are our rights. Under this philosophy, slaves did not have the right to be freed until "the people" decided they did.
The Constitution is based on INDIVIDUAL rights. Here, "the people" is not an entity in and of itself but represents a large group of individuals. The individuals have whatever rights they assert and effectively use.
sadly, there are no such thing as rights in the country. Rights are not rights if they can be taken away, as George Carlin eloquently said- our rights are nothing more than "priviledges".
The biggest reason so many jobs are "lost" overseas is that the businesses are overtaxed and overregulated. Businesses in the US spend more money complying with regulations than they make in profits--and that's WITHOUT considering taxes! For many of them, the choice is move overseas or close down entirely.
over regulations and over taxes, yes, eventually the internet, and headed for suicidal generation , which brings more jobs ' psychologist' . If people are sane, the psychologists and social graduates loses their job. I do wonder, if this is true, that means gov't loves to create problems because its profitable,
So they can move overseas and exploit the poor, forcing child labor and sweatshop conditions on the majority of whatever oligarchy wants the company's bribe money? Many of the US labor regulations exist to protect our people from the abuses that were commonplace during the Industrial Revolution, and will always be commonplace where the few have power over the many.
People ignore it because they believe there is nothing to get. If they can be persuaded there is something to get, other then how great it was, it may not work. I once told beauty about the republic to my father he didn't care, but once i told him in the republic there is no income tax, he listen.
If I remember correctly, Venice had a very strange system which combined a monarch (the Doge), an aristocracy(the Senate) an oligarchy (the Council of Ten), and "democracy" (the Major Council). Yet the Venetians thought their government to be a Republic!
There's an 8th one in the works, I just have to finish editing it. I don't have specific plans for more, but I don't have any plans on stopping it, either.
Dimos (Δήμος) means "peapole" not majority in any way!
Kratos (Κράτος) means "strenght" only few times. The most popular word in Greek for "strenght" is "Δύναμη" -> Dinami (from this ward we have english wards as dynamic, dynamite etc.
"kratos" basicaly means "power" or "state"
So.... Δημοκρατία (Democracy) actoualy means "the peapoles state" or "peapole's power"
I'm afraid I don't see the point to the electoral colleges. Seems to be an unnecessary middle man in the process. Voting directly for a candidate or voting for someone who will vote for your candidate...what is the point?
The point is, it's not a democracy. The point of the electoral college is to make sure the votes of the most densely populated areas don't overshadow the votes of those elsewhere, otherwise people in less populated areas will never get a say in the government.
I'm sorry but I don't see how the electoral college solves this. The highly populated swing states are still given more attention than smaller states. Why should any candidate care what Wyoming voters are concerned about?
Another problem is voting contrary to how your state votes makes your vote meaningless. If you want to vote non-republican in Utah, for example, you may as well stay home. The current system discourages voter turn out in this way.
But at least it's not as concentrated as it would be if it were solely by population.
I agree with you about the last part, and there's nothing about that at all in the Constitution. I think the electoral votes should be assigned proportionally from the state's results.
The U.S.A. was founded as a REPUBLIC not a democracy, but operating on democratic principles. Each state with it's sovereign rights, independent nations representing it's citizens closely. This was to insure that the central government(represented by the minority) could not dictate to the states(represented by the majority-"the people") individual rights and liberties.
Thanks. We're a democracy in the representative sense, but nothing in our legal system can legitimately take anyone's rights away, no matter what the majority says. That's what separates us from a democracy.
The enumeration of government's authority in the constitution, particularly the long-abandoned 10th amendment, stand to prevent tyranny of the majority.
I see no problem with increasing the level of direct representation in this country (such as throwing out the electoral college) as long as government is kept small, and it's power is specifically limited to preserve individual liberty.
True that, could never figure out why your current government (and previous) keep spouting about how they want everyone to be a democracy. The irony would be laughable, if the president actually knew what irony was.
Though I guess it is as you say, no one reads history and has a tendancy to get the two mixed up (like socialism and libertarianism I suppose, well at least here they do).
How someone can confuse socialism with libertarianism is beyond me, but they do.
I've recently been watching the '60s-era Doctor Who episodes. Several days ago I watched "The Ark." The Doctor and his companions land on an ark in space, and one of his companions inadvertently gives her cold virus to the inhabitants, who start to die from it as they don't have the immune system, having lived their lives in the sterile environment.
The Doctor said he could cure the virus, but trials on the ark are by majority vote. After one of their own died, they were out more for blood and vengeance, so they voted to space The Doctor and his companions.
If it hadn't been for one defiant official, they would have jettisoned their only hope of curing the virus, and the entire human race would have died.
I have personally witnessed the endowment of our unalienable rights by the flying spaghetti monster. Let us look to it to set us free from the great tyrants of our time: the Fed.
I'm coming to this conversation way late, but what I think RadicalRyushin was describing was the old Anglo-Saxon/Jewish division of society (very interesting account in The 5000 Year Leap). The jist is that you work your way up from the individual/familial level up to the national level and solve problems on the lowest level possible. This, I believe, is echoed by the Constitution granting only certain enumerated powers to the national govt and leaving everything else to the states or the people
phenagan001 1 month ago
I agree/understand we are a republic, but try telling a Republican that doesnt mean we are then a Republican nation.
thesageofohio 7 months ago
@thesageofohio that would be right though, but only in its truest form
kenny8331 2 months ago
Republic or Democracy?
You have got to be kidding me. A Republic is nothing more than a Representative Democracy, which means it still is a democracy.
And Democracy is not rule by the majority, but rather rule by the people. It can be by majority or by consensus or by other means entirely.
Demos = people, not masses, not majority.
When we study Demography, we are not simply studying the majority of people, yet rather people in general.
So again, you are wrong shanedk. Stop lying to us.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin As I showed in the video (which you apparently didn't even watch), Democracy is the rule of men, while Republic is the rule of law. They are complete diametric opposites.
So instead of accusing me of lying, why don't you go and actually WATCH the video and see for yourself how wrong you are? If your mind hasn't already been firmly closed by your cult leaders, that is...
shanedk 1 year ago
Ok, say what you will about me; but I'll be DAMNED if I'm gonna sit back and let you bad-mouth the flying spaghetti monster!
jmk1a1 1 year ago
I really like how this is explained! Thank you very much!
thhighlander 1 year ago
you can play semantics as to what you want to call it but James Madison himself called a republic a representative democracy which is it. You can call it banana cream pie but it doesnt change anything.
bucnasty14 1 year ago
@bucnasty14 which it is***
bucnasty14 1 year ago
can someone explain what prevents majority rule in a republic? rights are inherent from who? the majority who voted to put them into the constitution?
explain how a republic isnt equally subjected to majority rule like a republic is. If we dont have majority rule in a republic, then you have an oligarchy, this is usually when a republic doesnt have democratic elections.
bucnasty14 1 year ago
@bucnasty14 A republic has NO rule idiot. Simply representatives required to protect our personal liberties, we make our own rules and the leadership is supposed to protect that right. A democracy is you being the brainwashed slave you are paying a tax on every single money exchange possible, to a controlling govt. that clames 51% can rule 49%, if you want a democracy be prepared for the two wolves and your sheep ass voting for dinner. ......see how you like real democracy.
d1incharge 1 year ago
@d1incharge wow, such a well thought out comment. No semblance of BS rhetoric at all and completely impartial and definitely the product of independent thought.
no we dont make our own rules, go drinking and driving because its not a rule you decided for yourself. Tell that to the bank robbers when they say "I didnt agree to the law that makes robbing illegal".
So "no one" created our laws nor our constitution? just out of thin air? *poof* or did a majority of the founders agree on them?
bucnasty14 1 year ago
@bucnasty14 is dui a city, county, state, or federal offense? Or do you even realize the difference? moron.
d1incharge 1 year ago
We have the right to do anything that doesnt effect anybody but ourselves, personal liberty. We do not have the right to drive while drunk as that puts somebody else at risk,(shared road) same with theft, it involves other people. Maybe I should have worded it better, we make our own rules for our own lives and personal choices not involving other people. Did they put DUI in the constitution all of a sudden? Our founders agreed on MINIMAL laws, now you can be arrested for not showing ID.
d1incharge 1 year ago
@d1incharge okay so it went from "no one" created our laws to "our founders agreed on MINIMAL laws" we are starting to go in the right direction. Yes things that involve no one else need consent from no one else.... uh duh! what does this have to do with anything? if you live in the real world and not under a rock very little you do effects only yourself. When it comes to things that dont only affect ourselves, we have decided through means of majority rule.
bucnasty14 1 year ago
@bucnasty14 You want to know the best part of your brainwashing. Think about something, has DUI ever killed or hurt anybody? No, if you were intelligent, no would be your answer. That is like making extreme rage fits illegal, cause those can cause murder, or violence. Make stupid people illegal because they kill themselves and others all the time with "accidents" aka stupid actions. So shall we outlaw things that may lead to crime, or just stick to the crimes themselves? You =Brainwashed Tool.
d1incharge 1 year ago
@d1incharge yea no one has ever been killed from drunk drivers. pshhh why dont we deregulate weps..... make RPGs legal.
Such simplistic binary thinking. If I was so simple, my life would naturally be simple, everyone who disagrees with me is a brainwashed tool, lmao.
bucnasty14 1 year ago
In my high school government class I was taught that the U.S. Government is a "Representative Democracy". Is that true? Why would the teacher teach that is what the U.S. Government is? I've also heard that we are a "Democratic Republic" thrown around. What gives?
IWantToBelieve2887 1 year ago
"The Constitution sets up the United States as a republic, not a democracy."
3...2...1...YOU FUCKING IGNORANT PRICK! Sceptic my arse! The Founding Fathers mixed the ideologies of democracy and republicanism in order to achieve a fair balance to create what they considered a good *representative* government. America is hence both i.e. a democratic republic!
niriop 1 year ago
@niriop And that's in the Constitution, where? I can show you where it makes it a republic: Article IV Section 4.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk It's easy to discern it from their external writings...and the fact they decided to hold elections for the office of president...and congressmen.
niriop 1 year ago
@niriop Elections doesn't make it a democracy; it's RULE by the majority, not selection of representatives by the majority.
And deeming it from their writings is an Original Intent, which I debunked in Lecture 2.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk "Elections doesn't make it a democracy" *facepalm* Then is America a representative democracy?
I can easily argue you have Original Intent, being a propertarian. And are you bollocks a debunker; as far as I'm concerned you're a politically-driven pseudo-historian and an Exxon Mobil skeptic.
niriop 1 year ago
@niriop Watch the video again. Look at what the word "democracy" means.
But thanks for showing us quite clearly what a closed-minded dogmatist you are.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk "closed-minded dogmatist" The only dogmatist here is you, bending history to fit in line with your propertarian scripture. I was going to congratulate you for not using ad hominems; too bad.
Look: what I can see here is you playing on semantic confusions and historical ignorance to enhance your own agenda. For want of a stronger word, that is just plain wrong.
niriop 1 year ago
@niriop I HAVEN'T bent history. I've made the case AGAINST Original Intent and for Original Meaning. I've used the VERY WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, whereas YOU had to go for intent. When cornered, you redefined your terms instead of admitting that you were wrong. That's dogmatic behavior.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You were the first to start twisting terms. I haven't changed shit; you're the real dogmatist, and won't admit you're taking a biased view of reality.
niriop 1 year ago
based on your definition, then almost all democracies are republics. (Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms, so do other countries)
the point i'm making is all republics are democracies, but with a constitution protecting the population's rights.
spock431 1 year ago
@spock431 A republic doesn't have to be a democracy; it could use another method of choosing the government. You're right that it's the most popular way of doing it, but it isn't inherent to the definition of "republic."
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk good point, but i was trying to tell you that most people's idea of a democracy is the same as a republic
PS i like your bogosity videos
spock431 1 year ago
Dude... all I can say is: I wish any of my history classes were anywhere near this.
RafaelEnvoy 1 year ago
attit mithra ksishna jesus sirious epic manou minos minses mosess all that name u need about our load 12 follower's if that help out
protest911 1 year ago
Great vid. This is an excellent series.
Question, for clarity. If, in a Republic, rights are inherent, are we not still left with the task of deciding what rights exist? How do we do so if not by on of the other processes you described (divine rights, democratic rights etc)?
I guess that's two questions.
Thanks again for the great series.
dangerics 1 year ago
No, the burden of proof is on the side of the people who want to use force to implement their policy. THEY must justify it; we do NOT have to justify our rights to ANYONE.
shanedk 1 year ago
I like the sound of that.
Lately it seems to be the other way around in this country. Gays' right to marry comes to mind.
Thanks.
dangerics 1 year ago
I know; the whole thing's been turned on its head, and has been for some time.
shanedk 1 year ago
/watch?v=ftd-AiOz(UNDERSCORE)KI ("Understanding Liberty: Answering My Critics" by FlowCell)
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Monarchy
Mon - One.
Archy - rule.
One ruler.
A dictatorship is one ruler; rule by one; monarchy.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
OK, I'd LOVE to know why Surhot's reply to my posting has a time 15 hours OLDER than mine on it.
evensgrey 1 year ago
O.o
Damn, I posted that a few minutes ago, and it says 20 hours ago for me...
Shane DID mention a bug in YouTube's time stamp.
Only with him it was all the comments saying they were posted 1 second ago.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
oh shit O_o
man i can't stop watching these...
jeez, why doesn't school entertain me a fraction of this much? seriously! maybe i'd be at least a C student >_>
TheAtheistTEEN 2 years ago
Isnt the definition you gave for monarchy more the definition of a dictatorship?
TheMysteriousAtheist 2 years ago
@TheMysteriousAtheist Monarchy is a form of dictatorship.
Eikus89 2 years ago
@Eikus89 Unless when it is a Constitutional Monarchy, which is basically only a monarchy in word, but hardly in practise.
We have a Constitutional Monarchy over here in The Netherlands, but it is just a parliamentary representative democracy in actuality. The queen's powers are so limited that her function has become purely ceremonial. Although I don't really see the use of this any more, the royal house is very much loved here.
wrongwayup 2 years ago
Would you consider the Soviet Union an oligarchy? They weren't a monarchy, obviously the king was overthrown, but the elite, the politburo, was in control.
ZDWmiamicane 1 year ago
Yes, I guess that'd be an oligarchy.
shanedk 1 year ago
@Eikus89
I think you've got it backwards.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
I don't think Eikus89 got it quite backwards.
There isn't really a difference between monarchy and dictatorship. What traditionally get called monarchies usually just have more orderly transfers of power.
evensgrey 1 year ago
Ok, very well,
but you where a bit to short on the republic part. It derives its meaning from the Latin "res publica" (public things). So it depends on a decision what these public things are.
Its not granted that a republic protects individual rights. That depends on the constititution of a republic. A republic might very well be a totalitarian state. Especial if everything is considered political and thus part of the "res publica".
But anyway, why do you get so low ratings on this series?
AppliedMathematician 2 years ago
AM, thats true, for example, North Korea is The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea yet its a totalitarian dictatorship
TheMysteriousAtheist 2 years ago
Doesn't the fact that we don't have term limits in congress basically make us an oligarchy? I mean not technically but this is what it has become; the same people staying in congress their whole lives and the two political parties having near total control over the entire congress. I believe Thomas Paine wanted no representative to serve longer than one 4 yrs term. I could be wrong, I am going off of memory. Congress should have term limits.
esteban0321 2 years ago
"An error occured, please try again later"
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Sigh...use the Veoh link.
I really need to do HD versions...
shanedk 2 years ago
I did.
I would love you for that. :D
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
This video should be required viewing in public elementary schools. I swear, every social studies book back then always said we were a democracy. I "wonder" why so many young people are "liberal." lol!
enomarekim 2 years ago
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Winston Churchill, 1947
Wasn't he aware of republic way of running the government?
I first saw this "Republic vs, Democracy" on the bumper sticker when Clinton was in the office. I didn't see it when W. was in the office. Now I see it everywhere on the net.
How strange...
allgoo19 2 years ago
I haven't seen that bumper sticker at any time
- not during Clinton, or Bush, or Obama
harleykman 2 years ago
harleykman: "I haven't seen that bumper sticker ..."
You are looking at now, and you can find it all over the youtube.
what I was talking about was the words, not the bumper sticker.
allgoo19 2 years ago
Would a constituatonal monarchy (like that of Canada or Great Britain) be considered more of republic then a monarchy. After all almost all power (in a practical sense) rests in the hands of officials that are elected in a "first past the post" system. And the government's power (including that of the monarch) is limited by a legal document similar to the US constitution.
DrFoolishit 2 years ago
Yes, it would.
shanedk 2 years ago
The UK is NOT a republic in any real sense, as there isn't actually a constitution. There are accepted norms of government behavior that are sometimes treated like a constitution, but these are always subject to scope creep. (This is like the scope creep that has afflicted the USPTO in recent years, and also at least once in the past, until they got bitch-slapped by SCOTUS and straitened up for a long while.)
evensgrey 2 years ago
the UK has the habeus corpus act 1679 and parliament acts 1911 and 1949, which act as an uncodified constitution.
Fernoe 1 year ago
Then why aren't they any harder to amend than anything else?
evensgrey 1 year ago
Interesting, but I have a couple of questions:
1. I have a problem with this term "rights". What do you mean exactly? From what I understood in the video, you mean a form of anarchism, where personal common sense decides what your rights are, not a state. Yet if that was the case, the US wouldn't have laws right? The only law would be to protect your rights. Yet (just an example), you're unable to consume alcohol if your under 21. Surely it's my "right" to choose when I can drink?
jonnystandfield 2 years ago
2. You talk about "mob rule", being the process of democracy. Yet you, in your Republic, vote for your choice of president. So do you mean that because you're voting system is filtered first through the state you live in, and THEN to Washington, that it's somewhere in between a Oligarchy and Democracy?
Continued...
jonnystandfield 2 years ago
In any case, you still vote, and although "mob rule" may not come to pass in your country as a whole (most of your population may not have voted for Obama for example), it's still essentially mob rule within your State. And remember, Texas alone is larger than the UK.
I don't know a lot about the US Constitution or political process in general, so forgive if I've made mistakes in my points. I'm just interested, 'tis all.
Ta, thanks.
jonnystandfield 2 years ago
no the state elections are done in a similar fashion.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
The difference is, the Republic is rule of law, not rule of men. It doesn't matter if 99% of the people want to bring slavery back; they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
shanedk 2 years ago
An Anarchist once responded to the "rule of law" that "but in the USA the law is made by legislators who are voted in: mob rule."
oy..
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Except they're not supposed to be able to make whatever law they want. There's a list, and they can only do things in that list--and even then, they have to make sure that they're NOT doing things on this other list.
Of course, that's not the way things are at the moment...
shanedk 2 years ago
Exactly.
Yah. Ever since 1913, we've been slipping into democracy...I hate it. :(
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Actually 1865 is when it all started, issues aside 11 states were coerced by the rest aka mob rule.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
I saw the year 1913 as bad because it made things so much more prevalent (e.g. changing the selection of senators to mob rule instead of via the state governors), but I do agree that around the civil war was a huge time of mass shrinking of freedom (as explained by Harry Browne).
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Slavery never ended. The master just changed hands. The 14th amendment destroyed state sovereignty by placing restrictions on the states and making everybody answerable to the federal government destroying the duel equal sovereignty that both the states and the federal government were intended to have. Last I checked I still wasn't getting the full value of my work wage aside there's this thing called income tax that keeps stealing my work.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
exactly. It ensures (or is supposed to) a fair election.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Rights are what people assert. It has always been this way, and has never been any other way.
shanedk 2 years ago
That is an example of state's rights. He's talking about the federal government. However then we get into federal coerciveness the real reason behind those laws.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
If rights are inherent, how do we determine which rights are inherent? Doesn't the society decide that?
calvinhobbesliker2 2 years ago
No, logic decides that.
shanedk 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The supreme court has ruled that the 50 states are countries with respect to each other but under the 14th amendment system you are participating in rebellion against your de jure country when you vote, through contract as well and that is why you have to pay IRS and so forth.. and are responsible for the national debt. watch all 6 vids for more info please watch watch?v=G1B33IvnJ4M&feature=ch annel_page
Freihals1 2 years ago
Going by the definition you lay out here, we clearly live in a democratic oligarchy The constitution is a joke and is not respected at all. The government has been chipping away at our rights for decades. Almost everything the federal government is unconstitutional. If you ask a person in the street what kind of government we have, almost nobody will answer "A constitutional republic" and almost everybody will answer "A democracy"
Will it ever turn around? I hope so, but it will collapse first.
christo930 2 years ago 5
I think you may be right. It's a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
shanedk 2 years ago
It's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Founders had no illusions that large interests would try and concentrate power. That is why there is a separation of powers. I am not saying that the government is all for each individual person, but you have more power than in a true Oligarchy, like China or Russia, for example.
Gyrode 2 years ago
Exactly. The way we treat our constitution nowadays we might have as well set it on fire.
TheOutsiderOfAll 2 years ago
What are our rights again? LOL!
Well I do know Judicial Review is unconstitutional and that is a major aspect of our government, thus our government is unconstitutional.
But the President or Congress really isn't unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause pretty much allows the President to do just about anything, as long as it follows the Necessary and Proper Clause. Yet still that some huge powers granted to the President.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Read what the Necessary and Proper clause REALLY says.
shanedk 1 year ago
Yes I know it addresses congress. Needless to say, the President can make executive acts which hold the same affect as laws.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Not according to the Constitution he can't.
shanedk 1 year ago
There is nothing in the constitution that says he cannot. And since the president has to act before a Nuke can strike us, he sort of has to.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin "There is nothing in the constitution that says he cannot."
Article I Section 1. (You didn't read that far into it, did you?)
"since the president has to act before a Nuke can strike us, he sort of has to."
Emergency powers aren't legislative powers. And those powers are subject to Congressional review.
Besides, you based this on the Necessary and Proper clause, which specifically refers to "the foregoing powers" (the ones granted to Congress in Article I Section 8).
shanedk 1 year ago
I am sorry, but the Supreme Court has ruled that President can before such acts without the full consent of Congress. So I am sorry, but you are wrong.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin The Supreme Court CANNOT amend, rewrite, or change the meaning of the Constitution. That's actually what they use the word "interpret" to really mean, but like Congress and the President, they're paying lip service to the Constitution while doing what they really want. They're politicians in robes.
shanedk 1 year ago
They can by the basis of how it is to be interpreted. And sometimes an interpretation can seem so far as an act of corruption, such as the difference between Protestants and Christians, but their whole difference is mainly how they interpret the whole scripture. Yet that same different can imply how the Supreme Court can consider giving the executive branch such extreme levels of power even if the Constitution does not explicitly state such, because it is an implied power.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
It is the whole basis of Judicial Review.
Now if you think Judicial Review is unconstitutional like I have, because it is not written in the Constitution, then we can most certainly then agree the President should not have such power. But until we can both agree that Judicial Review is unconstitutional, then I cannot agree with you that such power enforced by the President is unconstitutional, because one requires the other.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin First of all, please define precisely what you mean by Judicial Review.
shanedk 1 year ago
You don't know what Judicial Review means? Forget about it. You should already know I mean by Judicial Review, the right to interpret the constitution and decide and judge on laws and executive acts upon their constitutionality. Goodness you are such a brick wall in the head.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Judicial Review refers to a few different things, idiot.
shanedk 1 year ago
Oh really? Like what, smartass?
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin There's review of administrative acts, of primary legislation, of state legislation, of lower court rulings, the list goes on, all sorts of things, many of which are absolutely vital to the concept of separation of powers, and others which constitute an abuse of their authority.
Until you make it clear exactly what you mean, I cannot answer your question.
shanedk 1 year ago
Blah blah blah blah...
I said all that with what I said earlier.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Well, it ALL can't be unconstitutional, because some of that is given to them by Article III.
shanedk 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin Oh, and it grants powers to CONGRESS, not the President.
shanedk 1 year ago
We need to rethink how our government should be structured.
My emphasis on government is the same emphasis on society since government is a component of society. Every society has its own government. There is always someone or everyone making laws or rules that dictate how society should function and this exists in all human societies around the world. In Prisons, jungle tribes, worldly states, and even amongst individuals. We even govern ourselves as a government over an individual.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Government isn't just the President, Congress, and Supreme Court and it doesn't have to exist simply within a state. Yet rather it exists in everything in terms of a relationship within society between human beings. Government is what we are.
It is not a necessary evil, it is what we are.
So lets get away from this foolish concept that government is getting too large, because government always been everywhere and is a part of us. It cannot get any larger than it has always been.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
So... my conservative friend, let us articulate how government should be structured.
To do this let us look at society and how responsibility should be structured, which is how I believe government should be structured after.
In my opinion, responsibility is vested in the individual, but since we are a social organism that cannot survive on its own, we do at times need services and assistance from others. It is just the nature of what we are.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
So higher levels of governance beyond the individual should exist to support the individual in its own ability to govern over its self. And this same relationship extends all the way up, which external relationships pertaining to the higher level of society and domestic relationships filtering and existing at its strength at the lowest level, the individual.
Provinces relate to other provinces, individuals relate to other individuals, they do not seek to go higher unless they need to.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
The proceeding flow of governance would start with the individual, say myself and I simply act to do what I can to take care of myself. In ways in which I cannot, I turn towards other individuals, other members of the lowest level. Normally this would consist of perhaps my family, my immediate neighbors, or other people who live on the same street as I do. If the problem extends further than what they can assist with then I would turn to the specific neighborhood itself.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
By the way, should a matter be too much of a concern for the neighborhood, say my Neighborhood of South Bayview, it can turn for help from other neighborhoods before directing itself to a District or Barrio (which is the identification I use for this next order), which in my instance would be a subdivision of the ward that exists in the division of the city I live in, which I could call Bayview. The matter would then go up to the Ward, which in my case be the Northeast Ward of Norfolk.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
I the matter is too much of a concern for my ward to take care of on its own, then I direct the matter to my city, which is Norfolk. If Norfolk cannot take care of the matter, then it is directed to a Municipality, which of course Norfolk does not belong to as it is an Independent City, but say it was it wasn't, it would direct it self to a Municipality or Borough.
If Norfolk as an independent city cannot take care of the matter, it would proceed to the County.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Of course I am using County and Borough out of context, but from where counties exist in Virginia, they would be Boroughs with Counties existing as a subunit of the state above where counties exist right now. In other words, current counties would exist as Boroughs and these Boroughs would coincide together as Counties.
The county for my region of the state would be called Southern Hampton Roads. And after trying to address the matter with other counties, the matter wold then proceed upwards.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Upwards to the Province, which in my case would be the Tidewater Region of Virginia, since it is highly populated and has its own culture distinct from other regions of the same state.
This then proceeds to the Canton or State, which would be Virginia.
Then upon dealing with other states in trying to deal with this matter, it would proceed to the next body of power, the Commonwealth, again I use that word out of context of how we currently know it.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
You see I would reuse the word Commonwealth to identify associations of states under the National government rather than to specific states.
In my case, I would live within the Commonwealth of Chesapeake which pertains to Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, D.C, West Virginia, and Kentucky.
Beyond that the Commonwealth would address the matter to other Commonwealths before proceeding to the Dominion of Dixieland, which would be the entire South as we know it, from Virginia to Florida and Texas.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Dixieland would be one of three divisions or dominions of the this Country. The country would then proceed to the Continental District of North America (which currently exists as NAFTA), which would then proceed to the Continental Union of American (North, South, and Central). Then this proceeds to the World Government should the matter be too much for even the Continental Union or to the Hemisphere Association of the West, which would mean Australia, Pacific Islands, and the Americas.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
But this is if the matter is too much of a concern for each subunit prior to the world government.
Which allows a World Government to exist, mainly to deal with matters beyond our planet's concerns, while allowing localities and regions above them to deal with matters and exist in autonomy from the world government. Also allowing indigenous cultures to maintain themselves and continue to exist while we unite as one people under a world body.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
@TheRadicalRyushin In the sense of looking out for the planet, the UN (closest thing to a world gov that we have) has been a total failure. In fact, the UN has been a colossal failure at everything... From passing anti-blaspemy laws to failing to stop genocide, the UN has been a disaster.
christo930 1 year ago
Very good and informative video, thanks.
jefgain 2 years ago
In another video explaining this, the person referred to what you call a "Monarchy" as a "Dictatorship".
Does this mean they're the same thing?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Pretty much just different words for the same thing.
Brybryrox 2 years ago 2
Democracy and Republic.
Is this where the political party terms "Democrat" and "Republican" came from?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Very nice and informative video, thank you
21alt3go 2 years ago
Good, no, great vid! You address many of the common misconceptions we have about our own government.
My critique would be that it glosses over the questions of where rights come from. This is important because the republic should only protect legitimate rights. We still have to answer where rights come from to figure out which are legitimate. Therfore, we need to figure out if our rights come from nature or the flying spaghetti monster.
oakdog6079 2 years ago 4
I was in an arguement with 2 people over this. One said " a democracy is a type of republic " or visa versa. Also there is the Democratic Republic of the Congo..to further muddy the waters. And also The Democratic Party was call the Democratic-Republican party when Thomas Jefferson started it. I'm confused...
DementedBCecil 3 years ago
Isn't that exactly like the difference between a "liberal" and "illiberal" democracy, as stated by Fareed Zakaria?
FibonacciPrower 3 years ago
I don't understand what you mean by 'inherent rights'. How do you define it? Can you give me a few examples of rights that are 'inherent'?
Jacnas 3 years ago
Common law,,is derived from the Bible in fact most of the laws we live by were taken from the Bible usually common sense laws,,the right to feel safe and secure, the right to travel freely, the right to speak freely, basically the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not harm someone else... You know,, what we used to call the "GOLDEN RULE" do unto others as you would have done unto you.You are born with these rights they are God given and cannot be taken away by ANYBODY except, God
14rondy 3 years ago
Absolutely false. They are taken from the Code of Hammurabi, which predates Biblical law.
shanedk 3 years ago
If any one brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take the house that had belonged to his accuser. The second law of Hammurabi although it does predate Biblical law.The Bible was the current law at that time
14rondy 3 years ago
The second law of Hammurabi was posted to show "Where in our inherent rights does the second law of Hammurabi" make any kind of sense I mean letting a river pass judgment on a mans life? Biblical teachings seem a more logical conclusion to what inherent rights are.
14rondy 3 years ago
Yeah, stoning women to death for adultery and children for being disobedient makes a LOT more sense...
shanedk 3 years ago
i hope i can help....i believe the inherent rights they are alking about are survival rights. for example no one is allowed to stop u from feeding or sheltering yourself, this is an inherent right i believe.living in 2009 America we over look the things that should really be protected.
checkpointh 3 years ago
Not just survival rights, but also pursuit of happiness as well: the right to have the friends you want, marry whomever you want, start a business, see a play or concert, whatever.
shanedk 3 years ago
I don't think any of these examples pan out for you. None of them are rights. I want to marry Jessica Biel, but I don't have the right to. I want to be friends with Tom Brady, but I don't have the right to. True, the government should protect my right to start a business, but when I fail I don't have the right to be bailed out.
We are acting more like your definition of a democracy, which is really scary, as you say.
Our rights come from our human nature, nowhere else.
oakdog6079 2 years ago
There are no inherent rights. Only political rights. Period.
Bellator656 2 years ago
very informative....... good looks
underdog92z 3 years ago
I am confused. I am not a US citizen.
I agree with the republic thing. But who decides on the constitution ? Isn't the people ? the majority ? isn't it some elightment peiple ? oligarchy ?
That is the question ...
seven8000 3 years ago
Not quite. The fundamental difference between all forms of government is the origination of rights. In the US, all rights originate with the people, not the government, and one fundamental right of the people is the right to decide how we shall be governed.
The elite few we select to represent us do not grant us our rights. Instead we, being the owners of our rights, of all rights, grant rights to the government by enumerating powers.
brandishwar 3 years ago
There's one more distinction: there's "the people," as in a single entity, and whatever "the people" consider to be our rights are our rights. Under this philosophy, slaves did not have the right to be freed until "the people" decided they did.
The Constitution is based on INDIVIDUAL rights. Here, "the people" is not an entity in and of itself but represents a large group of individuals. The individuals have whatever rights they assert and effectively use.
shanedk 3 years ago
sadly, there are no such thing as rights in the country. Rights are not rights if they can be taken away, as George Carlin eloquently said- our rights are nothing more than "priviledges".
vortexblade 3 years ago
why don't we call democracy republic, good idea
dan020350 3 years ago
most industrial business is wipe out by taxes - so its not democracy
dan020350 3 years ago
The biggest reason so many jobs are "lost" overseas is that the businesses are overtaxed and overregulated. Businesses in the US spend more money complying with regulations than they make in profits--and that's WITHOUT considering taxes! For many of them, the choice is move overseas or close down entirely.
shanedk 3 years ago
over regulations and over taxes, yes, eventually the internet, and headed for suicidal generation , which brings more jobs ' psychologist' . If people are sane, the psychologists and social graduates loses their job. I do wonder, if this is true, that means gov't loves to create problems because its profitable,
dan020350 3 years ago
So they can move overseas and exploit the poor, forcing child labor and sweatshop conditions on the majority of whatever oligarchy wants the company's bribe money? Many of the US labor regulations exist to protect our people from the abuses that were commonplace during the Industrial Revolution, and will always be commonplace where the few have power over the many.
llorenth 3 years ago
i hope this teacher who is teaching is right.
dan020350 3 years ago
Special Rights are bought by CORP ELITES.
dan020350 3 years ago
so far it seems America is rule by oligarcy - rule by corp elites
dan020350 3 years ago
Yes, and it will continue to be that way as long as people ignore the Constitution and keep pushing Socialism.
shanedk 3 years ago
People ignore it because they believe there is nothing to get. If they can be persuaded there is something to get, other then how great it was, it may not work. I once told beauty about the republic to my father he didn't care, but once i told him in the republic there is no income tax, he listen.
dan020350 3 years ago
If I remember correctly, Venice had a very strange system which combined a monarch (the Doge), an aristocracy(the Senate) an oligarchy (the Council of Ten), and "democracy" (the Major Council). Yet the Venetians thought their government to be a Republic!
nthsimulacrum 3 years ago
MAKE MORE LECTURES!
And I think I'm going to recommend this series as part of the curriculum to my local school board.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
There's an 8th one in the works, I just have to finish editing it. I don't have specific plans for more, but I don't have any plans on stopping it, either.
shanedk 3 years ago
English: Democracy
Greek: Δημοκρατία
Dimos (Δήμος) means "peapole" not majority in any way!
Kratos (Κράτος) means "strenght" only few times. The most popular word in Greek for "strenght" is "Δύναμη" -> Dinami (from this ward we have english wards as dynamic, dynamite etc.
"kratos" basicaly means "power" or "state"
So.... Δημοκρατία (Democracy) actoualy means "the peapoles state" or "peapole's power"
It doesn't mean what you say in ANY way.
As Greek& Glossologist please let me Know
mrSpa88 3 years ago
That's not what Plato said, and that's not how the word was used for 2,000 years. Play around with semantics all you want, it won't change that.
shanedk 3 years ago
I'm afraid I don't see the point to the electoral colleges. Seems to be an unnecessary middle man in the process. Voting directly for a candidate or voting for someone who will vote for your candidate...what is the point?
Promatheos 3 years ago
The point is, it's not a democracy. The point of the electoral college is to make sure the votes of the most densely populated areas don't overshadow the votes of those elsewhere, otherwise people in less populated areas will never get a say in the government.
shanedk 3 years ago
I'm sorry but I don't see how the electoral college solves this. The highly populated swing states are still given more attention than smaller states. Why should any candidate care what Wyoming voters are concerned about?
Another problem is voting contrary to how your state votes makes your vote meaningless. If you want to vote non-republican in Utah, for example, you may as well stay home. The current system discourages voter turn out in this way.
And then there are faithless electors...
Promatheos 3 years ago
But at least it's not as concentrated as it would be if it were solely by population.
I agree with you about the last part, and there's nothing about that at all in the Constitution. I think the electoral votes should be assigned proportionally from the state's results.
shanedk 3 years ago
The U.S.A. was founded as a REPUBLIC not a democracy, but operating on democratic principles. Each state with it's sovereign rights, independent nations representing it's citizens closely. This was to insure that the central government(represented by the minority) could not dictate to the states(represented by the majority-"the people") individual rights and liberties.
wilfredsnipple 3 years ago
Shane, thanks for this brush up on civics. I needed this.
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
Is it fair to say that the United States is a Republic with regard to Rights, but a Democracy with regard to Law?
Btw, I'm enjoying this series a great deal.
EvoLIEtion 3 years ago
Thanks. We're a democracy in the representative sense, but nothing in our legal system can legitimately take anyone's rights away, no matter what the majority says. That's what separates us from a democracy.
shanedk 3 years ago
The enumeration of government's authority in the constitution, particularly the long-abandoned 10th amendment, stand to prevent tyranny of the majority.
I see no problem with increasing the level of direct representation in this country (such as throwing out the electoral college) as long as government is kept small, and it's power is specifically limited to preserve individual liberty.
hugesinker 3 years ago
Good info this should have millions of views.
watch Michael Badnarick's constitution class.
bigjon1359 3 years ago
Awesome series.
Eric5923 3 years ago
Wow that rat guy who is commenting is .. well a rat.
Thanks for making these videos!
Seiku 3 years ago
True that, could never figure out why your current government (and previous) keep spouting about how they want everyone to be a democracy. The irony would be laughable, if the president actually knew what irony was.
Though I guess it is as you say, no one reads history and has a tendancy to get the two mixed up (like socialism and libertarianism I suppose, well at least here they do).
KrazyKupo 4 years ago
How someone can confuse socialism with libertarianism is beyond me, but they do.
I've recently been watching the '60s-era Doctor Who episodes. Several days ago I watched "The Ark." The Doctor and his companions land on an ark in space, and one of his companions inadvertently gives her cold virus to the inhabitants, who start to die from it as they don't have the immune system, having lived their lives in the sterile environment.
(cont'd)
shanedk 4 years ago
The Doctor said he could cure the virus, but trials on the ark are by majority vote. After one of their own died, they were out more for blood and vengeance, so they voted to space The Doctor and his companions.
If it hadn't been for one defiant official, they would have jettisoned their only hope of curing the virus, and the entire human race would have died.
I thought to myself, "Yep, that's democracy!"
shanedk 4 years ago
Interesting. Hypothetically if their society prohibited trials because it was against their constitution then it would be a republic instead?
Albeit a stupid one, like the stupid (due to paranoia and lack of knowledge) democracy in the show.
Kudos for using Doctor Who as an example though :D
Oh, this maybe nitpicking (or wrong) but isn't Monarchy part of the hierarchical form of government rather than a type of government itself?
KrazyKupo 4 years ago
I have personally witnessed the endowment of our unalienable rights by the flying spaghetti monster. Let us look to it to set us free from the great tyrants of our time: the Fed.
neonsilkworm 4 years ago
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
Although not in the constitution itself, who signed that and also signed the constitution?
melvinhartwinkle 4 years ago
Great vid..very educational :)
Mind if I ask you, Mr shanedk, if you're a Dem or Rep?
HimmuraTube 4 years ago
I'm a Libertarian.
shanedk 4 years ago
It seems to me that the roles of the Democrats and Republicans today are reversed from their original ideology.
HimmuraTube 4 years ago