A Republic, If You Can Keep It - The American Form of Government

There is a reason we refer to "the rule of law and not of men" when discussing the American political system. It is because a republican form of government seeks to restrain the unbridled and quixotic passions of pure democracy, rather than yield to them. It also rejects the desire of the majority in favor of individual rights. Democracy seeks to assert the right of the group, but so does a mob with a hangman's noose.

There's also a reason why lady justice is blindfolded: She is not to see the individuals, interest groups, race, or any characteristic at all of those that plead before her--her proper concern is not directed towards them; her care is to decide the law. It's also why the question of justice as presented before judges is not one of mercy (that belongs in the will of the people as expressed through their representatives in law), but one of exacting only what the law requires be exacted.

The rule of law is all about the removal of arbitrary will from its application. A judge who seeks to apply his own notions of justice and mercy (as opposed to those notions being defined by the people through law) is a judge who seeks to impose arbitrary will in opposition to the rule of law. And it is arbitrary will that is the very definition of tyranny.

• Category

  News & Politics

[aliunde]

- You are confusing the October Revolution (also called the Bolshevik Revolution) with the February Revolution of the same year which preceded it. It was the February Revolution that ended the reign of the Czars and set up the Russian Republic with elected representatives. The Bolshevik Revolution (led by Lenin, et al.) overthrew the elected provisional government and set up a dictatorship under Lenin, resulting in the formation of the USSR.

[aliunde]

@Josexylo9: You miss the point. The communists, incl. Lenin & Castro, USE anarchy as a tool. Totalitarian revolutions always seek to 1st undermine govt control (i.e., invite anarchy) so as to weaken it to the point that they can then usurp authority. You also have your history wrong. Lenin did not free Russia from the Czars (Russia had already freed itself from the Czars with the "February Revolution" of 1917 & had established the Russian Republic w/ elected representatives)--he re-enslaved it.

[dLimboStick]

Just once. It would be a 100% improvement.



[AchaiaDustt]

By the way? You guys ever see Idiocracy? That's kind of what I'm seeing us running towards. At full speed. With a battering ram. -.-

[AchaiaDustt]

People commenting here are -way- too egotistical. They can't leave themselves for two seconds to praise gathered information and review it without malice or negativity. You -can- disagree without being snide little preschoolers. This information is simple, very simple, but it's still correct. You can split hairs to make yourself right all day, but the fact remains you can't actually disprove without a reasonable doubt, that any of this is untrue to the core. You can only add to it and shift it.

[AchaiaDustt]

Just once? Not.. for once? For once in your life? You understand politics but grammar escapes you? Really..?

[dLimboStick]

A republic is a form of democracy. Read a book once.

[Mike Zinna]

No Govt=No Rules, No Law, the Rule of the Elite

[Mike Zinna]

What nonsense, You fool, we have a Plutocracy. We have a tyranny of the Rich Elite that you put in office buying the ulitimate in BS. No Gov't and deregulation. You Historical facts are skewed. The American Revolution just exchanged one set of Aristocrats and Kings for another, who have had control over this society since. A Man to those people where Rich White Land and Slave Owners. The Constitution a badly written document ignored most of the population. You're naive to say the least.

[TheAntiLeft .]

You keep leaning on the idiocy that tribe A can't be a tribe if it's opposed to tribe B.

All socialists (right-wing or left-wing) share the key signature trait of unbridled government authority permeating every facet and dynamic of human existence. Your "simplistic summary" is trivial relative to their despotic use of government force. Conservatism fostering capitalism is the lone standout.

Moreover, if you can cite an example of conservatism being anti--"pro-racial equality" then do so.

[BasilFawlty4444]

As I said, a simplistic summary, but nonetheless true. The left wing is largely pro-racial equality and very much internationalist - obiviously the polar opposite of Hitler.

I suggest you read Michal Kazprak's paper on Marx 'To reject or not to reject nationalism,' which examines the Marxist stance on nationalism; while it's unclear what Marx would have thought of nationalism, it seems to me fairly likely he would have entirely opposed Hitler, who was of course very much reactionary (right wing)

[TheAntiLeft .]

Hitler's racism made him "right-wing" and that is based on nothing whatsoever, aside from Marx's "contentious" views on nationalism. -- Got it.

I couldn't have muddled an issue better if I was a baseless decree disgorging leftist, attempting to smear the fascist stench of Hitler onto my opposition.