What is a republic? What is a democracy?

It has become annoyingly commonplace for republics, whether they are the
United States or the State of Nevada, to be referred to as democracies,
without regard to the meaning of the word or the implications it brings with
it.

What is a republic? What is a democracy? And why am I so angered that people
use the words interchangeably? I'll answer the last question first. It is
illogical to use two words that mean two different things to mean the same
thing. This would be like me using the words orange and apple to mean the
same physical object. I would be derided as an idiot and rightly so. This
situation is the same in principle to the republic/democracy problem, but
the importance of the orange and apple comparison is infinitely smaller.

A republic is a government in which a restricted group of citizens form a
political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which directs them
to elect representatives who will govern the state. Republics, by their very
nature, tend to be free polities, not because they are elected by the
citizens of the polity, but because they are bound by charters, which limit
the responsibilities and powers of the state. The fact that people vote for
representatives has nothing to do with making anything free. The logical
consistency and rationality of the charter, as well as the willingness of
the people to live by it, is what keeps people free.

A democracy is government by the majority. There is still a restricted group
of citizens in a democracy, but this group rules directly and personally
runs the state. The group may delegate specific tasks to individuals, such
as generalships and governorships, but there is no question that the ruling
force in a democracy is not a charter (if there even is a charter), but the
vote of the majority. Democracies are free only if the people know what
freedom is and are consistent in their application of it. If they don't know
this, or more appropriately, if a majority of the people don't know this,
then a democracy could be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator (see
Socrates' forced suicide by the Athenian democracy.)

As should be plain, there is a giant difference between the two systems of
government. One of the main fears at the Constitutional Convention of the
United States was that the government they created would be too democratic
(causing Alexander Hamilton to suggest a restricted monarchy), because it
was quite obvious, then and now, that any majority could vote itself
anything it wanted, be it property or executions. That is why it irks me so
much when politicians (who have no excuse not knowing what kind of
government they serve in) and ignorant people say that this country is a
democracy; it does a tremendous disservice to all of the people whose
thought went into creating our republic.

But the more pernicious effect is that people actually begin to attribute
and incorporate tenets of democracies into our republican structure. Things
like referendums and ballot initiatives. These are not only irresponsible
but entirely illogical. Why should we be making decisions we elect people to
make? What legitimacy is gained from getting a majority of voters to pass
anything? If 70% of voters vote to ban gay marriage, does that make it
right? If 51% of voters vote to ban smoking, does that make it right? If
99.99% vote to redistribute property, does that make it right? The answer to
all of these is "NO!" absolutely not. Truth isn't determined by how many
adherents one can get to go along with you. This is why democracy should be
fought off wherever it shows its ugly face, it can and will be used to
justify anything a majority of voters wants. Theoretically, a majority could
vote for selective free speech, or to have certain unpopular people thrown
out of the country or killed. There is no law in a democracy except whatever
the majority of people say is the law.

Why is it so popular then? Because idiots think they will benefit from
having "more of a say in how things work." True, if you're in the majority
that is. Advocates of democracy are either those who are really advocates of
republics and are ignorant of the difference, or they are those who think
they will be in the majority and will be able to vote themselves benefits. A
quick example would be wealth. Those who admire people like Michael Moore
and Ralph Nader would advocate a democracy because then they could steal the
money of the rich and give it to themselves (Moore and Nader wouldn't
support such a scheme, because then they would no longer be rich.)

In the long run though, a democracy will always become a tyranny, either by
majority, or if the majority screw things up so badly and a tyrant seizes
power from the ensuing chaos. The overriding characteristic of democracy is
subjectivism and that is its fatal flaw. In other words, reason is
irrelevant, whatever the majority wants, it gets and regardless of how
unprincipled or objectionable it may be. Rights cannot exist in such a
system in the long run because they can be voted away on a whim at any time.
So if you're interested in freedom at all you must cast away an ugly term
like democracy and accept that freedom requires reason, objectivity, and
law, which can only be satisfied by a republican government.

Republic vs. Democracy

Republic vs. Democracy

Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a
woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created,
Benjamin Franklin said, "*A Republic, if you can keep it*."

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A
democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic
recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only
concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

       Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen
believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true.
The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a
Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a
republic.

      Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions
of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No.
2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

   - A government of the masses.
   - Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct"
   expression.
   - Results in mobocracy.
   - Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
   - Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
   whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and
   impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
   - Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

   - Authority is derived through the election by the people of public
   officials best fitted to represent them.
   - Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with
   fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to
   consequences.
   - A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought
   within its compass.
   - Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
   - Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and
   progress.
   - Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without
explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made
private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal.
Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was
increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the
most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of
this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own
good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry
Hopkins, who said,

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too
damn dumb to know the difference".

Re: Republic vs Democracy –

These two *forms* of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

Whole Concept List | Psychology Concepts

Experiental learning theory (ELT) defines learning as a process of acquiring knowledge through the transformation of experience. Four different types of learner can be distinguished: convergers, who gain knowledge by abstract conceptualization and active experimentation; divergers, who use concrete experience and reflective observation; assimilators, who tend to learn by abstract conceptualization and reflective observation; and accommodators, who prefer learning by concrete experiences and active experimentation. The theory was popularized by David Kolb, and is largely based on the work of Kurt Lewin, John Dewey and Jean Piaget. via Whole Concept List | Psychology Concepts.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aeneas Mackintosh (1879–1916) was a British Antarctic explorer who commanded the Ross Sea party within Sir Ernest Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, 1914–17. The party's mission was to support Shackleton's proposed transcontinental march by laying supply depots along the latter stages of the march's intended route. Confusing orders meant Mackintosh was uncertain of the timing of Shackleton's proposed march. Matters worsened when the Ross Sea party's ship, SY Aurora, was swept from its moorings during a gale, taking away much of the party's supplies and equipment. Despite these setbacks and further practical difficulties, Mackintosh's stranded party managed to carry out its depot-laying task to the full. Having reached safety, he and a companion lost their lives while attempting to return to the expedition's base camp by walking across unstable sea ice. Shackleton later commended the work of Mackintosh and his comrades, and equated the sacrifice of their lives to those given in the trenches during the First World War. However, his competence and leadership skills have been questioned by some polar historians.

via Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.