A Quick Primer on Political Structure

[walford]

This is as comprehensive and accurate a review of the various political ideologies and means of establishing leadership as I've ever seen w/o having to read through several volumes -- and I have a degree in political science. 10 minutes well-spent.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Pay special attention to the descriptions of how the true political spectrum is not right and left, but zero and 100% government control. It also explores how a republic militates against a tyranny of the majority, so a mob cannot vote to take away the rights of individuals or small groups -- thus distinguishing a government of laws from a government of men.

[bigvig]

Good post, but isn't a Republic just another form of democracy? An indirect, representative democracy. Thats just what people mean when they say democracy.

Also no one said you have to stay at home due to the inconveniences of a state of nature, you could very well hire someone in the anarchic environment to guard your property.

[walford]

Good post, but isn't a Republic just another form of democracy? An indirect, representative democracy. Thats just what people mean when they say democracy.I know that is what people mean, but 'democracy' actually is mob rule and, as pointed out in the video, in practice is only a transitional period that usually leads to tyranny.

That is why some people will say that they advocate for democracy really mean that they want an elite who is putatively acting on behalf of the masses to have absolute power -- because they are supposedly ruling on their behalf [i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat].

I personally don't like to even use the term 'republic' preferring instead the more accurate and flexible term 'limited representative government.' That avoids the confusion and is not a buzzword that elicits different meanings to different people. It also allows for leadership selection and legislation crafting to be done in a variety of ways, but essentially grounded upon popular will.


Also no one said you have to stay at home due to the inconveniences of a state of nature, you could very well hire someone in the anarchic environment to guard your property.Yes, and that is essentially how the medieval system developed.

After the fall of Rome, the barbarians were not able to govern and thus the former Empire fell into anarchy. In the ruins, people gathered in fortified villages and hired soldiers to protect them. Eventually these villages turned into castles and the mercenaries became kings.

There is no historical example of anarchy lasting very long nor leading to anything but tyranny.

[Solomin]

Good post, but isn't a Republic just another form of democracy? An indirect, representative democracy. Thats just what people mean when they say democracy.

Only in so far as people vote are they similar, but yes, in contemporary terms that what people mean when they say democracy.


Also no one said you have to stay at home due to the inconveniences of a state of nature, you could very well hire someone in the anarchic environment to guard your property.

Yeah, I thought that was a poor explanation too, but none the less it's a foolish perspective on politics for plenty of reasons.

[walford]

"Democracy" -- like "capitalism" -- evokes so many wildly different things to different people, they are now meaningless buzzwords.

For example, for some people, capitalism will mean a complete separation of economics and state. For others it will mean a crony system in which one must have political power to get economic success and vice-versa.

It is, therefore, best to avoid buzzwords and use exact terms instead [such as limited representative government]. If confronted by buzzwords, challenge the speaker to define them. If he cannot or will not, you have hit a dead end with an intellectually dishonest person.

[Gleipnir]

Excellent post, Walford- thank you, I found this to be an incredibly value summary and find myself agreeing with many of the points you make in your follow up posts.
I found the representation of anarchy to be especially insightful, this video would be great for those who forget what Nazi is an acronym for.
I would have liked to have seen the inclusion of the althing or the Zapatistas, although this would be taking the video on a broader tangent as it seemed to focus on articulating the development and ideas concerning the Government in the USA.
Great video, great post.

[vryhpyammoadded]

And for his next amazing feat the great Walford will demonstrate to you the magic powers of bicameral legislatures, the executive and the courts while juggling the constitution, a copy of “The 5000 year leap”, “The road to serfdom” and a chain saw!

I’ve been preaching the words of tyranny vs anarchy and the proper placement of the various favored political slurs so ignorantly tossed around by many that I got tired of it. Thanks for the link. Now I can stop wasting effort and simply point to a url.

They don’t even teach the government class in my old high school anymore. In fact its been replaced by something called “social ethics” whose syllabus reads more like submit to your leaders your purest pacifism and altruistic sacrifice because they will in turn indulge the worlds forgiveness for the sins your ancestors committed that you’re responsible for. It shares a resemblance to paying your way into heaven combined with Marxist collective nonsense. It’s no wonder the country is slipping into Plutocracy/Kleptocracy what with brainwashing crap like this infecting the minds of our youth.

Trust in me, just in me, close your eyes and trust in… G*d damn collectivist snakes!

Great post!

[Ghostryder]

Ultra-opinionated and self assured

Fail.

[gazell]

Ultra-opinionated and self assured

Fail.


x2 For 5 year-olds.

[Indiana Jones]

I know that is what people mean, but 'democracy' actually is mob rule and, as pointed out in the video, in practice is only a transitional period that usually leads to tyranny.


"Mob rule" is traditionally referred to as "Ochlocracy", stemming of course from "ὄχλος", rabble, a mass of people, etc.

[DS73]

Ultra-opinionated and self assured

Fail.
Fail what? movie? May be some comments why?


2Bigvig. Great post. Movie is sufficiently clean for 101.

[TheSteve]

Ultra-opinionated and self assured

Fail.
Thank god, I thought I was alone. That garbage is like something you would find on a fusion between the History Channel and Nickelodeon.

edit: Good news, I clicked the "Prev" link on that damn wimp.com and got a "Waldo Ultimatum" which is much better than that other video.

[budgie]

I know that is what people mean, but 'democracy' actually is mob rule and, as pointed out in the video, in practice is only a transitional period that usually leads to tyranny.

While it is true that modern democracies are in effect, Republics (governed by laws, nmot a simple majority), democracy is a facet of solid, modern republicanism, and we should never become uncomfortable with the term.

Bear in mind China is also a Republic after a fashion and villifying the concept concept of democracy in favour of the idea of a republic also opens the way to totalitarianism. Someone can argue down the line that a republic no longer needs evil democratic elections.

So in effect democracy is an essential institution to the modern free republic: http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g



.

[walford]

While it is true that modern democracies are in effect, Republics (governed by laws, nmot a simple majority), democracy is a facet of solid, modern republicanism, and we should never become uncomfortable with the term.Democracy has so many different interpretations as to be rendered meaningless.


Bear in mind China is also a Republic after a fashion and villifying the concept concept of democracy in favour of the idea of a republic also opens the way to totalitarianism. Someone can argue down the line that a republic no longer needs evil democratic elections.China is a one-party state that only has a pretense of a popular mandate. It censors political speech and it is a crime to criticize the government, policies or leadership.

It has transitioned from government ownership and control that used ideology as its motivating factor [socialism] to private ownership and government control with nationalism as its motivating factor [fascism].


Thank god, I thought I was alone. That garbage is like something you would find on a fusion between the History Channel and Nickelodeon.Do you have a specific criticism of the content? You have given no indication of actually having seen it.

It is a PRIMER after all -- it gives a good outline and presents information and perspective on political ideology most will not see in the typical high school or college classroom.

[walford]

double-post

[DS73]

Bear in mind China is also a Republic after a fashion and villifying the concept concept of democracy in favour of the idea of a republic also opens the way to totalitarianism.

China is a typical oligarchy with slight if any relations to the concept of "state of law".
As it is correctly pointed in this primer, republic is first of all a state of law, providing protections for everybody, political or any other minorities included.

I am not particularly fond of last third or something of this primer, but essential ideas and chosen form are pretty good.


Someone can argue down the line that a republic no longer needs evil democratic elections.
Elections are needed to form legislative bodies, that change, adapt or introduce new laws. Argument to stop action of such bodies would require first good proof that all necessary laws are in place.

[gazell]

And then one can argue that a democratic/whatever society that is rulled by monopole business is a suck all.p-)

[Ghostryder]

It is a PRIMER after all -- it gives a good outline and presents information and perspective on political ideology most will not see in the typical high school or college classroom.


A ****ing primer?

it sweeps away forms of gov't as inferior to democracy in an almost laughable manner.

I would consider this borderline criminal in the context of education.

[Walter Sobchak]

The video was simple and easy to understand. Thanks Wolford!

As for the terms "democracy" and "republic" and the resulting confusion: just because places like North Korea, China, Cuba, Iran the old East Germany and other places ruled by despots and oligarchs use the words Democratic and Republic in their names doesn't make them so. Or, put another way, just because the cat had kittens in the over doesn't make them biscuits!


A ****ing primer?

it sweeps away forms of gov't as inferior to democracy in an almost laughable manner.

I would consider this borderline criminal in the context of education.

If you watched the same video I did, you saw that it was very hard on democracy as a form of government. Are you sure that's what you meant?

What essential facts were wrong? What forms of government were left out?

[walford]

A ****ing primer?

it sweeps away forms of gov't as inferior to democracy in an almost laughable manner.

I would consider this borderline criminal in the context of education.I will concede that the video is biased in favor of freedom, as am I. Just as there are optimal conditions for living things in Nature, there is an optimal human condition, and that is freedom. The freer a society is, the richer and more peaceful it is. The economic health of a nation is in inverse proportion to the amount of government control.

Tyranny is not an equally valid alternate lifestyle; it is the very root of war, oppression and poverty. So long as tyranny exists, human suffering will continue to dominate the world. The very existence of tyranny anywhere on the planet is a threat to us all.

When we see people living in squalor and want to help, we should foster political relief, because we could give them our entire Gross National Product and so long as they live under tyranny, the funds will soon be squandered -- and the only thing we will have accomplished is impoverishing ourselves.

[Ghostryder]

I will concede that the video is biased in favor of freedom, as am I. Just as there are optimal conditions for living things in Nature, there is an optimal human condition, and that is freedom.

Tyranny is not an equally valid alternate lifestyle; it is the very root of war, oppression and poverty. The freer a society is, the richer and more peaceful it is. The economic health of a nation is in inverse proportion to the amount of government control.

So long as tyranny exists, human suffering will continue to dominate the world. When we see people living in squalor and want to help, we should foster political relief, because we could give them our entire Gross National Product and so long as they live under tyranny, the funds will soon be squandered -- and the only thing we will have accomplished is impoverishing ourselves.

Is the role of education to teach children what to think, or to teach them to think?

[walford]

Is the role of education to teach children what to think, or to teach them to think?The role of education is to teach people how to think and to arm them with factual information.

In science, we don't teach children that if some people believe that it's possible to stick their hands in a fire and not be burned that such a perspective has equal validity.

In political science, we need to teach students how to explore the various types of political systems and to determine which is optimal. The scientific method of reasoning is perfectly amenable for that. Evidence, logic, reason are perfectly effective in determining the optimal human condition. You build a system based upon Natural Law -- which is discovered, not made -- and freedom wins every time.

We have political systems out there that are based upon irrationality and are not amenable to logic or evidence, such as Utopianism (http://the-big-pic.org/utopiatext.html). In those systems, we have an elite who is somehow blessed with the ability to read the tea leaves of history and craft a completely arbitrary ideal that the society must be forced to conform to.

Utopianism is often postulated as progressive when in fact it is extremely retrograde. It is embrace by elitists who don't trust the people and think that they must be lorded over by those who are 'more equal' than them.

Freedom is still the most radical idea.

[Ghostryder]

The role of education is to teach people how to think and to arm them with factual information.

In science, we don't teach children that if some people believe that it's possible to stick their hands in a fire and not be burned that such a perspective has equal validity.

In political science, we need to teach students how to explore the various types of political systems and to determine which is optimal. The scientific method of reasoning is perfectly amenable for that. Evidence, logic, reason are perfectly effective in determining the optimal human condition. You build a system based upon Natural Law -- which is discovered, not made -- and freedom wins every time.

We have political systems out there that are based upon irrationality and are not amenable to logic or evidence, such as Utopianism (http://the-big-pic.org/utopiatext.html). In those systems, we have an elite who is somehow blessed with the ability to read the tea leaves of history and craft a completely arbitrary ideal that the society must be forced to conform to.

Utopianism is often postulated as progressive when in fact it is extremely retrograde. It is embrace by elitists who don't trust the people and think that they must be lorded over by those who are 'more equal' than them.

Freedom is still the most radical idea.

The correct answer is: to teach students how to think.

[DS73]

The correct answer is: to teach students how to think.

such view is too idealistic and simplistic.
The role of education is to form useful members of society. Nothing more.

In western society one of the important parts of "usefulness" (one of) is individual independence: ability to think and form individual independent conclusions.
So when educational resources allow it is quite correct to provide full complete information and encourage thinking and challenging established way of things.
Many people go for the "challenging part" forgetting about proper start. To collect sufficient information and form initial abilities to follow reasoning. Both things require a lot of time and proper tutoring.

This is highly abridged version (10minutes? I don't remember already) with arbitrary chosen parts, and is sufficiently good to "make a point". To demand from it anything besides simplistic statements is at least irrational (no-no in western society btw).

[Walter Sobchak]

The correct answer is: to teach students how to think.

Nice drive-by logic. I suggest you re-read the post, beginning just after the first 'and'.

If someone has to teach you to think, without direction, intent or limits, they will inevitably teach you to think THEIR way. It's called brainwashing. That's what they do in North Korea and other "intellectual hot-spots".

Teaching creative thinking is not something our schools and universities do well these days, because they teach to the lowest common denominator with ideologically driven textbooks.

Come on, just think about it...

[walford]

The correct answer is: to teach students how to think.
Currently most students are being taught that freedom and tyranny are equally valid alternate lifestyles. Most academics consider the greatest threat to peace to be when freedom is intolerant of tyranny and resists or even thwarts it. They teach us that it is possible to live in peace with people who are vowed to destroy us so long as we don't 'provoke' them.

Students in the West are typically taught that the economic health of a nation is determined by 'cycles,' therefore no amount of taxation and regulation will have an effect one way or another -- thus we should just 'spread the wealth around'.

Academia prefers to teach us that sharing in poverty is preferable to tolerating differences in wealth. Rather than injustice being people not getting and keeping the products of their own efforts, injustice is some having more than others regardless of their differences in intelligence, discipline, access to education, etc. Their solutions are never about empowering people with less so they can earn more; they are about mowing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

I say we can do better than that with respect to education in political economy and this video provides a far more accurate and effective way of doing so.

[Ghostryder]

Nice drive-by logic. I suggest you re-read the post, beginning just after the first 'and'.

If someone has to teach you to think, without direction, intent or limits, they will inevitably teach you to think THEIR way. It's called brainwashing. That's what they do in North Korea and other "intellectual hot-spots".

Teaching creative thinking is not something our schools and universities do well these days, because they teach to the lowest common denominator with ideologically driven textbooks.

Come on, just think about it...

Explain further.


Currently most students are being taught that freedom and tyranny are equally valid alternate lifestyles. Most academics consider the greatest threat to peace to be when freedom is intolerant of tyranny and resists or even thwarts it. They teach us that it is possible to live in peace with people who are vowed to destroy us so long as we don't 'provoke' them.

Students in the West are typically taught that the economic health of a nation is determined by 'cycles,' therefore no amount of taxation and regulation will have an effect one way or another -- thus we should just 'spread the wealth around'.

Academia prefers to teach us that sharing in poverty is preferable to tolerating differences in wealth. Rather than injustice being people not getting and keeping the products of their own efforts, injustice is some having more than others regardless of their differences in intelligence, discipline, access to education, etc. Their solutions are never about empowering people with less so they can earn more; they are about mowing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

I say we can do better than that with respect to education in political economy and this video provides a far more accurate and effective way of doing so.

Walford, the best political science classes I ever took (most) refrained from making any value judgments whatsoever, the teachers left it up to the students to decide what worked and what didn't, what was right/wrong, and which system or decision was best/worst; topics which were debated between students in and out of class ad-nauseum. I know these teachers were doing their jobs because, even today, I could not tell you if these teachers vote left or right, I simply couldn't tell.

[Ghostryder]

such view is too idealistic and simplistic.
The role of education is to form useful members of society. Nothing more.

In western society one of the important parts of "usefulness" (one of) is individual independence: ability to think and form individual independent conclusions.
So when educational resources allow it is quite correct to provide full complete information and encourage thinking and challenging established way of things.
Many people go for the "challenging part" forgetting about proper start. To collect sufficient information and form initial abilities to follow reasoning. Both things require a lot of time and proper tutoring.

This is highly abridged version (10minutes? I don't remember already) with arbitrary chosen parts, and is sufficiently good to "make a point". To demand from it anything besides simplistic statements is at least irrational (no-no in western society btw).

I find it idealistic, yet easily attainable, and indeed simplistic....

I'd change that to say any society....

besides that, see my response to Walford.

[DS73]

I find it idealistic, yet easily attainable, and indeed simplistic....
ha-ha.
Of course it is, there cann't be anything else in forum format. Thanks for reminding to be more accurate in wording.


I'd change that to say any society....

Non western societies not only don't advertise individualism, but westernized individualism goes directly against basic structure of any non western society-so called extended family.


besides that, see my response to Walford.
When you have time and purpose yes,
Providing means and living judgment to the pupil is always the best way to teach.
when you have to point main ideas to some friends or in internet discussion, long proper way is simply impossible. You cann't squeeze a year of education into 15 minutes.

[walford]

Walford, the best political science classes I ever took (most) refrained from making any value judgments whatsoever, the teachers left it up to the students to decide what worked and what didn't, what was right/wrong, and which system or decision was best/worst; topics which were debated between students in and out of class ad-nauseum. I know these teachers were doing their jobs because, even today, I could not tell you if these teachers vote left or right, I simply couldn't tell.I'm talking about what is typically taught and how different the content of the video of the OP really is.

If teachers are telling students that tyranny and freedom are equally valid lifestyles, if they are teaching students that there is a spectrum that has communism and one end and fascism at the other with us in the middle, if they are teaching students to find two extreme positions and to try to position their views between them, etc., they most certainly are NOT doing their job. They are teaching stale, distorted drivel that does a disservice to us all.

[Walter Sobchak]

Explain further.

I think your just made my point for me.

Go back, re-read my post and read the post to which you were replying.

[Ghostryder]

ha-ha.
Of course it is, there cann't be anything else in forum format. Thanks for reminding to be more accurate in wording.

Any time


Non western societies not only don't advertise individualism, but westernized individualism goes directly against basic structure of any non western society-so called extended family.

Interesting, yet I fail to see how any society that institutes free market capitalism cannot be based on individualism, regardless of whether or not it exists in the western hemisphere.


When you have time and purpose yes,
Providing means and living judgment to the pupil is always the best way to teach.
when you have to point main ideas to some friends or in internet discussion, long proper way is simply impossible. You cann't squeeze a year of education into 15 minutes.

freethinking does not require a lifetime of education. I'm sure one can find many other educational tools out there that are just as informative, in as short an amount of time, without the biased opinions.

[Ghostryder]

I think your just made my point for me.

Go back, re-read my post and read the post to which you were replying.

If I wanted snarky one-liners and thinly veiled attacks on one's intelligence I would have re-read one of my own posts.

I asked you to clarify what you were saying, because I couldn't piece together your main idea through the fog of McCarthy-esque hoopla, but, if you insist, I will respond to your original post.



Nice drive-by logic.

Bang-bang


I suggest you re-read the post, beginning just after the first 'and'.

Perhaps you're missing the point here, Walford's response was explaining his position from an ideological standpoint, my response to his was that ideology has no place in education.


If someone has to teach you to think, without direction, intent or limits, they will inevitably teach you to think THEIR way.

Do you mean "A person teaches you how to think without direction, intent or limits" or "A person is tasked with teaching you how to think, and they are not hampered by direction, intent or limits in the way they execute their teaching." Clarify!


"It's called brainwashing."

...okay, great....


"That's what they do in North Korea and other "intellectual hot-spots"."

...alright, nice....


Teaching creative thinking is not something our schools and universities do well these days,

...says the subject matter expert.


because they teach to the lowest common denominator

What does this even mean?


with ideologically driven textbooks.

...says the subject matter expert.


Come on, just think about it...

No, you.

[Ghostryder]

I'm talking about what is typically taught and how different the content of the video of the OP really is.

If teachers are telling students that tyranny and freedom are equally valid lifestyles, if they are teaching students that there is a spectrum that has communism and one end and fascism at the other with us in the middle, if they are teaching students to find two extreme positions and to try to position their views between them, etc., they most certainly are NOT doing their job. They are teaching stale, distorted drivel that does a disservice to us all.

Walford, even if the ladder of gov't control is a more accurate way of evaluating forms of gov't (an idea which I refute) the video is still sickeningly opinionated, and tainted as such.

[Ghostryder]

Round 6...Fight!

[TheSteve]

Where did this video come from? Who the hell made it?

I didn't watch the whole thing walford, I stopped when I saw "Total Government" and "No Government" meter thing with Socialism thrown in with Fascism, nazism, and communism. Why watch any more. Of course, socialism is on the same level with Nazism! Right?

What utter garbage.

[Femto]

This video is wrong , democracy is about people participating and not 51% i win . Plus this video describes democracy as 50+ forces themselves upon the 49- which is not true . There were codes of law in ancient Athens and courts , the main difference(democracy to republic) is for USA to go to war the congress or the president decides ,in democracy the people have to vote to go to war not the president or the congress .

There was major problem with democracy in ancient Athens the ability to ostracize the other party leader(usually) .

[walford]

Where did this video come from? Who the hell made it?

I didn't watch the whole thing walford, I stopped when I saw "Total Government" and "No Government" meter thing with Socialism thrown in with Fascism, nazism, and communism. Why watch any more. Of course, socialism is on the same level with Nazism! Right? That is correct. Fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin -- STATISM (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/statist-whatstatist.html).

In both of those systems, the people themselves are the property of the government; they are forms of slavery.

On the other extreme end is no government, which was correctly described as a transitional phase between a collapse of society and a tyrannical regime.

Freedom is characterized by a government that has as its fundamental purpose to protect human rights and holds power by popular mandate. Any functions beyond that require replacing citizen rights with government power, are illegitimate -- and inevitably lead to war, poverty and oppression.

Any place in the world that is not free is a threat to us all.

[Walter Sobchak]

If I wanted snarky one-liners and thinly veiled attacks on one's intelligence I would have re-read one of my own posts.

Listen, you asked me to explain something that had already been explained. I responded to a comment that you made, where it was clear you didn't read past the first part of the first sentence. I wasn't going to explain it yet again; it gets old re-plowing the same ground. One and two word answers are your purview, not mine. If someone is going to try and address your points in a coherent manner (that being entirely subjective, of course), then dismissive answers that don't consider or refute will not further the dialogue much. The thinly veiled attack on your intelligence is hyper sensitivity. If I thought you were dumb, I would say so; I just don't think you read things through before you post or your mind is already made up.


Do you mean "A person teaches you how to think without direction, intent or limits" or "A person is tasked with teaching you how to think, and they are not hampered by direction, intent or limits in the way they execute their teaching." Clarify!

Like you said, ideology has no place in teaching. A person who is tasked with teaching creative or cognitive thinking skills must have some direction, they must have intent (a plan or goal) and limits. There have to be controls on teaching a person to "think like me" as opposed to "teaching a person to think".

As for the rest of your post, you need to review textbooks and curriculum. If you have kids, you will see what I mean. Ideological education is everywhere in public schools. A good teacher teaches around ideology; my sister teaches college government and is very, very far left in her politics (surprise, surprise). But unlike many of her peers, you will never know what he ideological paradigm is, because she is a gifted teacher.

[Ghostryder]

Listen, you asked me to explain something that had already been explained. I responded to a comment that you made, where it was clear you didn't read past the first part of the first sentence. I wasn't going to explain it yet again; it gets old re-plowing the same ground. One and two word answers are your purview, not mine. If someone is going to try and address your points in a coherent manner (that being entirely subjective, of course), then dismissive answers that don't consider or refute will not further the dialogue much. The thinly veiled attack on your intelligence is hyper sensitivity. If I thought you were dumb, I would say so; I just don't think you read things through before you post or your mind is already made up.



Like you said, ideology has no place in teaching. A person who is tasked with teaching creative or cognitive thinking skills must have some direction, they must have intent (a plan or goal) and limits. There have to be controls on teaching a person to "think like me" as opposed to "teaching a person to think".

As for the rest of your post, you need to review textbooks and curriculum. If you have kids, you will see what I mean. Ideological education is everywhere in public schools. A good teacher teaches around ideology; my sister teaches college government and is very, very far left in her politics (surprise, surprise). But unlike many of her peers, you will never know what he ideological paradigm is, because she is a gifted teacher.

fair nuff, good points

[budgie]

China is a typical oligarchy with slight if any relations to the concept of "state of law".
As it is correctly pointed in this primer, republic is first of all a state of law, providing protections for everybody, political or any other minorities included.

I am not particularly fond of last third or something of this primer, but essential ideas and chosen form are pretty good.

Again I would argue that any country can call itself a Republic as indeed China does. China is a country of just laws: you only have to ask its lawmakers right? There has to be some kind of democratic vetting process to ensure that those laws truly are just to begin with and that is why all good republics are also democracies. Unlike China, the people get a say.


Elections are needed to form legislative bodies, that change, adapt or introduce new laws. Argument to stop action of such bodies would require first good proof that all necessary laws are in place.

Hence the necessary element of democracy in all good republics. If we simply equate democracy with "mob-rule" then we can dismiss the will of the people - especially when it comes time to re-examine the laws a Republic is based on. These laws are not inviolate, and are subject to review: review from as wide a variety of citizens as possible. Democracy is consensus, not - as suggested earlier - mere mob-rule.

There seems to be an insidious suggestion from the American Right that since the opposition calls itself the Democratic party, then by definition, they are some kind of pseudo-anarchists who will give over to hysteria and mob-rule. On the other hand are we to presume the Republican party, as per its namesake, is the true guardian of the unchanging laws that protect all Americans? Such an argument undermines the democratic principle that all genuine law-abiding republics are founded on.