Multi-system democracy

[The Zygon]

I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.

I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?

[Lynn McGuire]

On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>
> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?

Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?

Lynn

[The Zygon]

We don't know how long democracies can last because the world has not seen any before the last 100 years. America was a not a democracy before the 1960's. Athens was not a Democracy. No matter how democratic is among itself, the country they rule cannot be called a democracy, as the word is understood today.

The governments which have become democracies continue to exist, so we cannot know how long the would last.

But I was not suggesting it is particularly credible that the democratic governments we have now would exist in the far future. As in most of the stories there are new governments with completely different political groupings. That makes sense. I just wonder why they are so often not democracies.

[J. Clarke]

The Roman Republic is generally considered to have existed from 509 BC
to 27 BC.
>
>Lynn
>
>

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:31:53 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Iceland.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

[David Johnston]

On 2018-03-09 8:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>
> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
>

I've seen plenty of space "Federations" and "Republics" which are no
more autocratic than the United States and sometimes less.

[Cryptoengineer]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p7vjjc$3rb$1...@dont-email.me:

The English Parliment has been in place since 1640, iirc. That 350+
years. As time passed, power has gradually shifted from the King to
elected representatives.

pt

[The Zygon]

I have seen some too.

Are you suggesting that my impression that they are most often autocracies is based on the sample I happen to have read? I am disputing this. This is quite possible. I would just like to understand if that is what you are saying.

[David Johnston]

> Are you suggesting that my impression that they are most often autocracies is based on the sample I happen to have read? I am not disputing this. This is quite possible. I would just like to understand if that is what you are saying.
>

"Almost all" isn't the same thing as "most often" for a start.
Interstellar autocracies are common of course because the author is
doing yet another case of cribbing from Earth history to get
inspiration, or because they need an opponent for their interstellar
democracy or they need something for their space rebels to y'know, rebel
against.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

On 10/03/2018 15:25, The Zygon wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 10:31:58 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
>>> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>>>
>>> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
>>
>> Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
>> years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?
>>
>> Lynn
>
> We don't know how long democracies can last because the world has not seen any before the last 100 years.

France? I'm sure I remember something about elections in France a few
centuries ago...

Cheers,
Gary B-)


--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.

[Butch Malahide]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 9:24:59 PM UTC-6, The Zygon wrote:
> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>
> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?

Even if a galactic democracy would be feasible, it's hard to see what the point
would be. It's not clear what advantages there are to being ruled by a trillion rulers, rather than being ruled by one. Well, one can hope that the swarm will rule less efficiently, as the members will often be at cross purposes.

[Robert Carnegie]

We need some sort of catalogue, and a count.

Amongst other types of government found in space are
"company town" and military dictatorship - that tends to
have a single dictator and maybe it's called something else
when it's a committee. One general may be President in
vestiges of a previous republican establishment but this
may not be significant. Oh, and there's theocracy -
but if it's science fiction then hat usually means religion
in charge, but not gods themselves making decisions and
giving orders.

If the authority is democratic then its decisions and
deliberations need to be shown and explained, and the
author may not want to bother with that.

Even in a centralised tyranny, there probably will be
an authority at star-system level or below, if only
a mid-ranking aristocrat or a space colonel or
branch manager. There even may be a local tolerated -
but isolated - democracy, possibly with the tyranny
on the point of crushing it after all.

Lando Calrissian's Cloud City is a commercial site
until the Imperial forces arrive.

Jack Campbell's "Lost Fleet" novels have democratic
star-system government and a federal senate of worlds
back home, faced with their own frustrated military
taking over - if the fleet actually gets home from
the other side of the star-map. On the other hand,
the starship captains vote in tele-conference on
fleet actions - until the hero points out that this
isn't terribly efficient. A few of the ships are
from separate and allied space-nations, which is
either to provide plot complication or to represent
something about U.S. politics, or both - I'm elsewhere
in the world and I can only identify the plot complication
dimension - the allied ships brought a politician.

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 20:00:59 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grsc...@acm.org> wrote:

>On 10/03/2018 15:25, The Zygon wrote:
>> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 10:31:58 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
>>>> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>>>>
>>>> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
>>>
>>> Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
>>> years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> We don't know how long democracies can last because the world has not seen any before the last 100 years.
>
>France? I'm sure I remember something about elections in France a few
>centuries ago...

Might have been at some point, but it certainly wasn't a democracy in
1789. The US wasn't the only place that had a revolution around that
time, and in France it didn't go quite as well.

[Sjouke Burry]

On 10-3-2018 5:40, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:31:53 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
>>> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>>>
>>> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
>>
>> Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
>> years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?
>
> Iceland.
>
>
>
>

Frozen democracies do not count.........

[Kevrob]

The US were republics with democratic elements, and a limited franchise,
from 1776 on. The confederation was strengthened in 1789, in that
there was representation directly elected to serve in the national
capital (House of Representatives), in addition to deputies of the
state governments (Senators.) The latter have been directly elected
for over 100 years. This slid our "compound republic" a little further
down the continuum to "direct democracy" than it had been. Other
reforms introduced in the "progressive era" were the initiative* and
referendum,** in the various states, though not at the Federal level.

Interstellar federations where communications are no faster
than ship travel, and even FTL travel takes significant time,
lends itself to arrangements similar to far-flung colonies on
Earth prior to the telegraph and radio. Once you introduce
"subspace radio," an ansible or the like, and the center can give
the periphery orders in real-time, or a trans-galactic assembly
can convene in a virtual space, then less distributed arrangements
can make sense. We could have the latter now, but while business
makes frequent use of teleconferencing and online document sharing,
representative government sticks with in-person interaction,
for the most part.

If both transportation and communications are FTL, and trekking
to Altair VI and back is like flying from London to Wellington,
a unified or closely federated polity is possible.

What makes me wonder is; why be connected? For trade? What
would Sufficiently Advanced Humans trade for across interstellar
distances that would have to be physically moved? Encrypted
information that couldn't be entrusted to transmittable form?
Actual humans with unique skills or knowledge not committed
to some media? DNA in the form of sperm and eggs to increase
genetic diversity on colony worlds or habitats? This is why
we have had "thionite," "spice" and "dilithium crystals"
as goods that are in high demand but only available in some
particular environments.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

> Iceland.

That is the potential counterexample that first occurred to me as well.

John Savard

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Why not?

[David Johnston]

On 2018-03-10 10:21 AM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:25:16 +0100, Sjouke Burry
> <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
>
>> On 10-3-2018 5:40, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:31:53 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
>>>>> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
>>>>
>>>> Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
>>>> years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?
>>>
>>> Iceland.
>>>
>> Frozen democracies do not count.........
>
> Why not?
>
>

Things keep better in the freezer.

[Stephen Harker]

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grsc...@acm.org> writes:

> On 10/03/2018 15:25, The Zygon wrote:
>> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 10:31:58 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
>>>> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>>>>
>>>> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
>>>
>>> Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
>>> years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> We don't know how long democracies can last because the world has not seen any before the last 100 years.
>
> France? I'm sure I remember something about elections in France a few
> centuries ago...

Elections don't make a democracy. Many ancient states had elections,
but mostly with a restricted franchise (very restricted usually: male
citizens with often a property qualification). This was common later in
history too. The most restricted I can think of is the Holy Roman
Empire of the German Nation with a varying number of electors (seven to
nine) at various times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince-elector).
The restricted franchise was typically to sufficiently wealthy males.

Parliaments are one form of modern representative body with a more
complicated history. Others are a senate, synod or congress each with a
complicated history and influencing each other. Modern forms are mostly
comprised of representatives elected moderately democratically, but
historically they were not.

Iceland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing) which has been mentioned
elsewhere and the Isle of Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynwald)
are two with some claims to first and first continuous Parliament.

In Britain the Parliament had elected members, with restricted
franchise. The famous rotten boroughs demanding money for votes and
pocket boroughs with no longer existing towns with a single nominal
owner of the land concerned appointing his representative
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs).

Historically the idea of democracy was despised, but gradually gained
strength with a gradual reduction in restrictions through the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries.

Many and, probably, all of these have been used as backgrounds for
science fiction settings. For many of the possibly democratic settings
it is hard to get enough information to decide how the system actually
works. Robert Heinlein's _Double Star_ is one in which the system is
described in fair detail.

--
Stephen Harker sjha...@netspace.net.au
http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 2:47:30 AM UTC-7, Butch Malahide wrote:

> Even if a galactic democracy would be feasible, it's hard to see what the point
> would be. It's not clear what advantages there are to being ruled by a trillion
> rulers, rather than being ruled by one. Well, one can hope that the swarm will
> rule less efficiently, as the members will often be at cross purposes.

While it is easy to contradict you by pointing out that a single ruler will
often be a cruel tyrant, while democracies are more easy-going, there is still a
valid point in what you say.

There are those who might say, what do <insert group here> (i.e. Canada's Inuit)
have to complain about, as they're living in a free, democratic country with
equal rights.

To take Canada's Inuit as an example, though, they don't live in a country where
*they are the majority*, thus, unlike even French, Inuktitut does not have the
status of an "official language" in Canada, even though non-immigrant native
speakers of that language live here. Because they didn't choose to come to
Canada as immigrants, there is no basis to assign to them an obligation to learn
a new language.

So, yes, democratic self-rule for a group is preferable to democratic rule in a
setting where one is vastly outnumbered by outsiders.

John Savard

[William Hyde]

And it even had some democratic components. The franchise was restricted to male citizens, of course, and for offices like Consul and Praetor the rich had far more votes than the poor. A setup which at least one former poster to this group regards as an improvement on our current one.

But for the powerful tribunes and some other offices all(*) free male citizens could in theory vote, and votes counted equally, much as in the US in 1850.

(*) As the tribunate was specifically created to protect the plebeians from the patricians, the latter had no vote in those elections.



William Hyde

[Kevrob]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:21:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:25:16 +0100, Sjouke Burry
> <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
>
> >On 10-3-2018 5:40, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:31:53 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> >> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
> >>>> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
> >>>
> >>> Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
> >>> years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?
> >>
> >> Iceland.
> >>
> >Frozen democracies do not count.........
>
> Why not

The Swiss have a long republican history, also.
Part of it was as an effectively autonomous part
of the "Holy Roman Empire" from the 14th century,
but independent since 1648 (Peace of Westphalia.)
There was an interruption during the Napoleonic Wars
when a puppet republic replaced the Confederation,
which was restored by the Congress of Vienna.
Switzerland as a Federal State,without nobles, dates
to 1848.

France, since the 1789 revolution, has had constitutional
monarchy, 5 republics, the German occupation along with
Petain's Vichy regime, and 2 empires.

San Marino, has been under a Grand Council and Captains Regent
since 1243, and an assembly called the Arengo before that,
back to the 5th century.

Kevin R

[Dimensional Traveler]

Why not?

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[William Hyde]

Oh, long before that. Of course it wasn't very democratic at first, and I've no idea what time you could decide it was more democratic than otherwise. A good case could be made that it wasn't until 1918.

And of course half of it wasn't elected at all, but IIRC it was in 1603 that someone pointed out that the members of the house of commons were on average three times richer than the lords. So within parliament the elected house began to have the effective power.

iirc. That 350+
> years. As time passed, power has gradually shifted from the King to
> elected representatives.

Most histories cite the "glorious revolution" of 1688 as the turning point. Personally I think that the beheading of Charles II forty years earlier had a lot to do with it.


William Hyde

[Ahasuerus]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 3:54:32 PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
[snip-snip]

> France, since the 1789 revolution, has had constitutional
> monarchy, 5 republics, the German occupation along with

> Petain's Vichy regime, and 2 empires. [snip]

To be more nearly precise, there have been 3 constitutional monarchies
with 3 separate constitutions: 1791-1792, 1814-1830 and 1830-1848.
In addition, what we now think of as the First Republic saw a number
of constitutional arrangements (1793, 1795, 1799 and 1802) which
paved the way for the establishment of the First Empire in 1804.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <c3784935-49f2-4f2f...@googlegroups.com>,

William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:03:28 AM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> The English Parliment has been in place since 1640,
>
>Oh, long before that. Of course it wasn't very democratic at first, and
>I've no idea what time you could decide it was more democratic than
>otherwise. A good case could be made that it wasn't until 1918.

Or even later.

>And of course half of it wasn't elected at all, but IIRC it was in 1603
>that someone pointed out that the members of the house of commons were
>on average three times richer than the lords.

Of course at the time many members of the Commons were descendants of
the nobility anyway (often junior sons, or sons who had yet to inherit
their father's title). And even as late as the turn of the twentieth
century, it was still considered plausible for a prime minister to
lead a government from the Lords.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Lynn McGuire]

England (actually the UK) is a Constitutional Monarchy. Not even close
to a Republic or a Democracy.

Lynn

[larry]

On 2018-03-10, The Zygon <staffor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 10:31:58 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
>> > I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>> >
>> > I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
>>
>> Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
>> years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?
>>
>> Lynn
>
> We don't know how long democracies can last because the world has not seen any before the last 100 years. America was a not a democracy before the 1960's. Athens was not a Democracy. No matter how democratic is among itself, the country they rule cannot be called a democracy, as the word is understood today.

Slight correction - the Iceland parliament (the Althing) was founded
in 930 and has run (with a 45 year break) since.

>
> The governments which have become democracies continue to exist, so we cannot know how long the would last.
>
> But I was not suggesting it is particularly credible that the democratic governments we have now would exist in the far future. As in most of the stories there are new governments with completely different political groupings. That makes sense. I just wonder why they are so often not democracies.

--
After investigation, believe that which you have yourselves
tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good
and that of others.
Gautama.

[The Zygon]

England is a Constitutional Monarchy, but also a Democracy according to common usage today, if not by technical definition. My question is based on common usage, not technical definition.

[Quadibloc]

Although the weather is cold in Iceland, it hasn't been in suspended animation or
a Slaver stasis box, which would be the kind of "frozen" that would be a valid
reason for not counting the length of time it remained democratic.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 5:05:53 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> England (actually the UK) is a Constitutional Monarchy. Not even close
> to a Republic or a Democracy.

I'd say that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, at
least in present, a democratic nation - it has a free press, freedom of
religion, free elections. It is _not_ a republic, but it certainly is, like the
United States, a democratic nation. (Some people draw a distinction between a
democratic republic and a "democracy", meaning by the latter Athenian-style
direct democracy. Yes, the UK is not that.)

Countries where dissent is not suppressed, which don't have political prisoners
- that is, on our side, not like our Nazi and Soviet enemies - are democracies
in the normal use of the term. The UK is in that category.

John Savard

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <7a009adb-a296-4edb...@googlegroups.com>,

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 5:05:53 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> England (actually the UK) is a Constitutional Monarchy. Not even close
>> to a Republic or a Democracy.
>
>I'd say that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, at
>least in present, a democratic nation - it has a free press, freedom of
>religion, free elections. It is _not_ a republic, but it certainly is, like the
>United States, a democratic nation. (Some people draw a distinction between a
>democratic republic and a "democracy", meaning by the latter Athenian-style
>direct democracy. Yes, the UK is not that.)

Kind of hard to have a direct democracy in something the size of
the US, or even the UK. Even in Athens, where the term was
invented, they managed (barely) by restricting the franchise to
male, adult, free, native-born Athenians. And even then it was
awkward. Cf. Lysistrata in Aristophanes' play of that name: "Oh,
you will see that, like true Athenians, they will do everything
too late." The best example of something approaching direct
democracy is the Norman Rockell-ish American town hall in a small
town (see famous painting, which I'm not able to load on this
slow machine), where all the adults in town are few enough that
they can come to a decision in an evening.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[David Johnston]

Except of course that the UK doesn't use the freaky definition of
"democracy" that only American Republicans use.

[The Zygon]

Male property owning class only. I despite the idealizations of later admirers, participation was very low. Worse, votes among the poorer ones were bought and sold like two-penny whores. Among the richer ones, business relationships were at least as important as the political issues involved. There is a reason why it crashed and burned.

It is one of the reasons why the Romans so despised and distrusted it. Sure, after their Republic existed for about 500 years, they became pretty much the same - but that is different story.

[The Zygon]

No other country can. That "definition" is too country specific.

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 9:24:59 PM UTC-6, The Zygon wrote:
> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>
> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?

In his novel _Galactic Patrol_, published in serial form in 1937, Edward
E. Smith shows a democratic interstellar government. In this and in
the ensuing _Lensman_ series the galactic federation is contrasted
with the opposing authoritarian organization of Boskone. The concept
of a galactic empire is generally associated with the _Foundation_
series by Isaac Asimov several years later, and Asimov does not really
show the empire as being natural or desirable, but as something that
came into existence through historical circumstances, to be replaced
by something better after it collapses.

Other examples of democratic interstellar governments include the
Federation of the Hub series by James Schmitz and the Philosophical
Corps stories by E. B. Cole.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 05:13:17 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

> The best example of something approaching direct
>democracy is the Norman Rockell-ish American town hall in a small
>town (see famous painting, which I'm not able to load on this
>slow machine), where all the adults in town are few enough that
>they can come to a decision in an evening.

To the best of my knowledge, this model has never existed in the U.S.
outside New England, but it's common there. I grew up in a town run
by Town Meeting, with a Board of Selectmen to keep things running
between meetings. The Selectmen could call special meetings, in
addition to the regular annual ones, and any adult citizen could
petition for a special meeting -- if the Selectmen didn't cooperate,
enough signatures on a petition meant the meeting happened anyway.

Rockwell, of course, was a New Englander.

My town was Bedford, Mass. Population got up as high as 14,000 when I
lived there, and theoretically every single adult resident could speak
and vote at Town Meeting, but in practice they rarely got more than a
few hundred people to show up.

One thing that was absolutely clear but that outsiders sometimes had
trouble grasping was that the Selectmen had no authority other than
what the Town Meeting gave them -- they could be voted out instantly,
with no appeal or other recourse, in the middle of any meeting, and
any decision they had made could be overruled (except contracts they'd
made on the town's behalf with, say, construction companies, or town
employees). It wasn't like a mayor or city council, with set terms.
There were no elections for any town office. Selectmen (who could be
any sex) served from one Town Meeting to the next, where they might or
might not be reappointed, and special meetings counted exactly the
same as annual ones in that regard.

It's about as close to direct democracy as you can get.

[Greg Goss]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/9/2018 9:24 PM, The Zygon wrote:
>> I have noticed that almost all human governments which span multiple solar systems are autocratic to some degree. There is almost always an Emperor or someone who is effectively an emperor. This happens even when the position is largely ceremonial as most royalty is today. There seems to be an assumption that Democracy would not be an effective form of government for a multi-system society. This seems to be so when the society has FTL both in travel and communications.
>>
>> I have never understood why there is so much agreement on that point. If people can communicate with, and especially travel to and fro as easily as we now do between Washington and Los Angeles, why shouldn't they be able to build a functioning democracy?
>

>Have any Republics (the USA since 1789) or Democracies (Greece many
>years ago) lasted 300 years or more ?
>

>Lynn
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2016/03/09/politics_in_iceland_a_beginner_s_guide/

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Robert Carnegie]

Shared scientific research to avoid duplicating effort.

A political relationship to avoid conflict of interest
leading to war.

And of course people will want to know about the Kardashians.

[mcdow...@sky.com]

There have been various plans to use computers to make direct democracy practical in very large groups - e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex. Personally I would like to think that representative democracy also means hiring my representative to take more time thinking over problems than I would be able to myself, and coming to sensible conclusions - so I don't think the disadvantages of direct democracy are limited to the practicalities of getting everybody in one room. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface

[Cryptoengineer]

William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c3784935-49f2-4f2f...@googlegroups.com:

I picked 1640 since that was the year of the 'Short Parliment', and the
start of the 'Long Parliment'. There was a 12 year period of pure
monarchal rule before that.

1640, is, I think, the point at which Parliment starts to be in
session every year, rather than at the King's whim, and is thus
the point where it really begins to be place where the country is
ruled from, by elected representatives (plus peerage), rather than
the monarch. The Commonwealth years pushed things even more in that
direction soon after, of course.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

larry <ljm...@wightman.ca> wrote in news:p81s47$el7$1...@dont-email.me:

The Althing sat, yes, but from 1262 until 1914, Iceland lost its
sovereignty to Norway-Denmark (later, just Denmark). It was thus
under monarchal control for most of its history.

This is also why I pointed to England since 1640, rather than Iceland.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:fgk96p...@mid.individual.net:

However, for most of its history, regardless of the Althing, actual
power was monarchal, since from 1262 until 1914 Iceland was a possession
of Denmark.

pt

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <118d6f2c-fdcc-4344...@googlegroups.com>,

You can vote for the Overgovernment? I don't recall that. I thought it
kind of gave people it wanted to join an offer it was hard to refuse.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[J. Clarke]

Then there's the "never underestimate the bandwidth of a starship full
of flash drives".

Bandwidth in interstellar radio transmission is likely to be an issue.

[J. Clarke]

I believe that that was the intent. The problem is that it didn't
work out that way.

[William Hyde]

1640 is a reasonable choice - if a choice is needed - and I incline to it myself. But there are arguments for 1688 as well. For example, after the Restoration the king and only the king had the power to call elections. Charles II got a favourable parliament in the election after the restoration, and kept that parliament for 17 years.

Not long after the GR of 1688, the Triennial elections act forced the monarch to call elections (at least) every three years.

And of course, booting out another king, even if this one was smart enough to flee, set the seal on who was boss.

William Hyde

[William Hyde]

Athens was conquered and oligarchy imposed. But the Athenians overthrew the oligarchy and maintained their (limited) democracy until conquest by Macedon.

Athens, note, remained in existence. Its main rivals did not.

>
> It is one of the reasons why the Romans so despised and distrusted it.

Odd, then that the tribal assembly, which elected a number of important officials and could pass legislation, existed at all.

In fact the Roman constitution got more democratic as time went on, until the Punic wars when the Senate's influence grew and the tribal assembly became, for a long time, a rubber stamp.

> Sure, after their Republic existed for about 500 years, they became pretty much the same

More like 50. Though I'd guess that if we had complete records, it would be 5.

William Hyde

[Kevrob]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:05:53 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:


>
> England (actually the UK) is a Constitutional Monarchy. Not even close
> to a Republic or a Democracy.

Constitutional monarchies of the type that the UK is the leading
exemplar of are so similar to republics with functioning democratic
structures and civil liberties that the term "crowned republic"
has been coined for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic

ObSFFAuthors: Wells used the term, as did Tennyson.

Kevin R

[Erik Trulsson]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> England (actually the UK) is a Constitutional Monarchy. Not even close
> to a Republic or a Democracy.

It is perfectly possible for a country to be a Constitutional Monarchy and
a Democracy at the same time - they are not mutually exclusive things.
It is also possible to be a Republic and a Democracy at the same time.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

As, indeed, it is possible to be a Republic and *not* a Democracy at the
same time.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.

[Lynn McGuire]

The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The USA citizens vote for
representatives who vote on laws and such.

Lynn

[Kevrob]

Except when we vote in referenda, on bond issues and mill rate changes,
on state constitutional amendments, on state initiatives, or in the
New England towns that have the traditional town meeting.

We have an Aristotilean "mixed constitution." It has monarchical,
aristocratic and democratic elements. It is a republic with democratic
forms, though democracy sometimes has to take a backseat to the rights
of the individual.

Kevin R

[David Johnston]

So are you a republic with a dictator or is it more of a junta?

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <p86u83$jq4$1...@dont-email.me>, lynnmc...@gmail.com says...

>

>
> The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The USA citizens vote for
> representatives who vote on laws and such.

Here in the Republic of Finland we call that representative democracy.

(Okay, technically we call that 'edustuksellinen demokratia'.)

--
Juho Julkunen

[David Johnston]

In the United States there's something of a movement to shape people's
perception of the Democrats by insisting that the United States is a
republic and "not a democracy". It's all very 1984.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <p86u83$jq4$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The USA citizens vote for
>representatives who vote on laws and such.

That's a kind of democracy.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:p870a2$mc9$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2018-03-12 4:16 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/10/2018 10:45 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 5:05:53 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> England (actually the UK) is a Constitutional Monarchy.  Not

>>>> even close to a Republic or a Democracy.
>>>
>>> I'd say that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
>>> Ireland is, at
>>> least in present, a democratic nation - it has a free press,
>>> freedom of religion, free elections. It is _not_ a republic,
>>> but it certainly is, like the
>>> United States, a democratic nation. (Some people draw a
>>> distinction between a
>>> democratic republic and a "democracy", meaning by the latter
>>> Athenian-style
>>> direct democracy. Yes, the UK is not that.)
>>>
>>> Countries where dissent is not suppressed, which don't have
>>> political prisoners
>>> - that is, on our side, not like our Nazi and Soviet enemies -
>>> are democracies
>>> in the normal use of the term. The UK is in that category.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> The USA is a republic, not a democracy.
>
> So are you a republic with a dictator or is it more of a junta?
>

The correct qualifier is "democratic republic." In point of fact, a
country with a dictator cannot meet the common usage definition of
republic:

re·pub·lic

/r?'p?blik/

noun

noun: republic; plural noun: republics

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their
elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated
president rather than a monarch.

•archaic
a group with a certain equality between its members.

Nor can a country run by a junta in the sense that you mean:

jun·ta

/'ho?on(t)?/

noun

noun: junta; plural noun: juntas

1. a military or political group that rules a country after taking
power by force.
"the country's ruling military junta"

synonyms: faction, cabal, clique, camarilla, party, set, ring,
gang, league, confederacy
"the press is censored and controlled by the military junta"

Any more linguistic errors you need me to correct?


--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:p8718g$o3b$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

The US fits comfortably within the common usage definition of a
republic. A democratic republic.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote in news:p871el$2lqs$1
@grapevine.csail.mit.edu:

> In article <p86u83$jq4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The USA citizens vote for
>>representatives who vote on laws and such.
>
> That's a kind of democracy.
>

Literally by definition.

[Dimensional Traveler]

A republic with a sitcom.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Lynn McGuire]

Those are state voting functions. I am talking about the USA. I have
never voted on anything federal other than a representative in my almost
40 years of voting.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

While Trump is a "strong man", he is not a dictator.

If you want to see what a dictator is, just look at North Korea or
Venezuela. And South Africa is fast approaching that status.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:11:17 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <p86u83$jq4$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The USA citizens vote for
>>representatives who vote on laws and such.
>
>That's a kind of democracy.

It can be, if the representatives are supposed to act as proxies for
the voters and vote the way the think the voters would have. It was't
supposed to be--the representatives were _supposed_ to do a right job
of figuring out what the best thing to do in the situation was rather
than rubber stamp the opinions of people who haven't really looked at
the problem.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:08:05 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> In the United States there's something of a movement to shape people's
> perception of the Democrats by insisting that the United States is a
> republic and "not a democracy". It's all very 1984.

I first read of the slogan that the United States is "a republic, not a
democracy" as being used within the John Birch Society. So the cancer is
spreading.

But then, the phrase "male chauvinist" originated within the Communist Party
of the USA.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

That's _still_ a kind of democracy. I mean, in republics and
constitutional monarchies both, elected representatives don't micromanage
everything, but instead civil servants have some discretion. So having
elected representatives figure things out on behalf of the voters, if the
voters can still turf them out if they didn't do a good job, still leaves
authority in the hands of the voters.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

The trouble with calling it "a kind of democracy" is that it
reinforces the idea that the sole purpose of the representatives is to
rubber stamp whatever opinions the electorate may hold.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <ihgeadtvrr1th362n...@4ax.com>,

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The trouble with calling it "a kind of democracy" is that it
>reinforces the idea that the sole purpose of the representatives is to
>rubber stamp whatever opinions the electorate may hold.

In your imagination, perhaps. Not in normal English usage.

[David Johnston]

He must be considering that the USA is not a democracy.

[David Johnston]

<snort> Sometimes it's a good idea to check more than the first entry
that comes up when you google.

[The Zygon]

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 6:16:39 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:

This statement is technically correct, it is not related to the topic. As I explained earlier, I am using the word "democracy" in the common usage sense. That is, a society in which citizens have the rights and privileges we associate with democracies.

[The Zygon]

Trump is not a "strong man" in any sense in which that word has been used historically. He is loud mouth. A blow hard. A wind bag. But not a "strong man".

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:18:28 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <ihgeadtvrr1th362n...@4ax.com>,
>J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The trouble with calling it "a kind of democracy" is that it
>>reinforces the idea that the sole purpose of the representatives is to
>>rubber stamp whatever opinions the electorate may hold.
>
>In your imagination, perhaps. Not in normal English usage.

There is something called "marketing". Learn about it.

[Kevrob]

The US is a "compound republic." Each state is a republic, though they
variously call themselves "state," "commonwealth." California's flag
still bears the legend "California Republic," and I don't have to tell
you about the use of that term in Texas.

The Constitution guarantees each state a "republican form
of government."

That the Federal government is less democratic than the states,
the House being the only "one person, one vote" structure at
that level, is a truism, especially since the Federal courts
declared, in the 1960s, that districts in state legislatures,
both upper and lower houses, had to be of as close to equal
population as practical. The US Senate is constitutionally
protected from such a "reform."

Direct elections of Senators made the Congress more
democratic. It's a continuum.

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

Yes and no.

I don't believe that categorizing a republic as being a category of
democracy denies the function of elected representatives to exercise
judgment and ensure that legislation is practical.

Thus, for example, one shouldn't even need a "Proposition 13" for elected
representatives not to vote to spend money (popular) but not to raise
taxes (unpopular) so as to plunge the country into debt.

But at the end of the day, it *is* expected - and legitimately so - that
politicians are to *serve the interests of the electorate* and not those
of someone else - say, for example, contributors to their campaign funds.
And so if they manage the economy so that a small minority of the rich
gets richer, while the great masses of the working class get poorer - they
*will* be voted out.

That's a good thing - _provided_ it doesn't get to the point where the
politicians are killing the goose that laid the golden egg, or causing the
country to eat the seed corn. So the elected representatives are to
maintain a healthy free-enterprise system, but not an exploitative one.

That, of course, is such a difficult act that it doesn't really matter
what you call the form of government, it won't make it any easier.
Although trying to emphasize that it is in the service of the people, and
it really isn't government of the people by the politicians for the
corporations, despite the fact that the corporations are doing well, might
actually serve to delay its eventual overthrow by some demagogue. Which is
a good thing.

John Savard

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 1:27:49 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> But at the end of the day, it *is* expected - and legitimately so - that
> politicians are to *serve the interests of the electorate* and not those
> of someone else - say, for example, contributors to their campaign funds.
> And so if they manage the economy so that a small minority of the rich
> gets richer, while the great masses of the working class get poorer - they
> *will* be voted out.

There are other versions of filling offices than popular election
in republics (or their "crowned republic"/constitutional monarchy
analogs. Membership in a parliament ex officio, as the House
of Lords in Britain was traditionally composed of "Lords Spiritual
and Temporal," with certain organizations as opposed to geographic
constituencies (ridings, districts) having seats: civil corporations,
seats for guilds and universities, etc. Those might have their own
internal rules for picking a member. Then there are states with
seats set aside on confessional grounds, the most familiar of which
may be Lebanon's "National Pact."


The US Senate started out with the several states sending a pair of
what were, in some senses, ambassadors to the national capital. By
the early 20th century, with the 17th amendment in the offing, many
states were using popular election on a de facto basis, even before
ratification.

https://mises.org/wire/repealing-17th-amendment-wont-fix-senate

The Continental Congress delegates were often under instruction
by their legislatures to vote this way or that on key issues.

Most wonks are familiar with this Edmund Burke

[quote]

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his
judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices
it to your opinion.

[/quote] - Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol

3 Nov. 1774

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

Burke's is the trustee model, as opposed to the deputy model.

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:17:06 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> Most wonks are familiar with this Edmund Burke

> [quote]

> Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his
> judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices
> it to your opinion.

> [/quote] - Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol

> 3 Nov. 1774

> http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

> Burke's is the trustee model, as opposed to the deputy model.

But while the trustee model is valid, in the time he said this, the
major discrepancy between voters and their representatives could not be
accounted for by that model alone; the Industrial Revolution was going
on, and people in England had not the option of voting Labour.

It's a pity that France had to endure the Terror in order that English
politicians might acquire some good sense.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:16:10 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:13:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >That's _still_ a kind of democracy. I mean, in republics and
>> >constitutional monarchies both, elected representatives don't micromanage
>> >everything, but instead civil servants have some discretion. So having
>> >elected representatives figure things out on behalf of the voters, if the
>> >voters can still turf them out if they didn't do a good job, still leaves
>> >authority in the hands of the voters.
>
>> The trouble with calling it "a kind of democracy" is that it
>> reinforces the idea that the sole purpose of the representatives is to
>> rubber stamp whatever opinions the electorate may hold.
>
>Yes and no.
>
>I don't believe that categorizing a republic as being a category of
>democracy denies the function of elected representatives to exercise
>judgment and ensure that legislation is practical.

It doesn't "deny the function". Calling it democracy, a republic, or
a kumquat doesn't "deny the function" if the law allows it. The
problem is not "denial", is the behavior of the elected officials. Not
what they are "allowed" or "denied" but what they think they are
supposed to be doing. If they think that they are there to rubber
stamp the vox populi then that is what they will do. If they think
they are there to make wise decisions, even if their constituents are
clamoring for bread and circuses, then that is what they will do.

>Thus, for example, one shouldn't even need a "Proposition 13" for elected
>representatives not to vote to spend money (popular) but not to raise
>taxes (unpopular) so as to plunge the country into debt.
>
>But at the end of the day, it *is* expected - and legitimately so - that
>politicians are to *serve the interests of the electorate* and not those
>of someone else - say, for example, contributors to their campaign funds.
>And so if they manage the economy so that a small minority of the rich
>gets richer, while the great masses of the working class get poorer - they
>*will* be voted out.

They will? When has that happened?

>That's a good thing - _provided_ it doesn't get to the point where the
>politicians are killing the goose that laid the golden egg, or causing the
>country to eat the seed corn. So the elected representatives are to
>maintain a healthy free-enterprise system, but not an exploitative one.
>
>That, of course, is such a difficult act that it doesn't really matter
>what you call the form of government, it won't make it any easier.
>Although trying to emphasize that it is in the service of the people, and
>it really isn't government of the people by the politicians for the
>corporations, despite the fact that the corporations are doing well, might
>actually serve to delay its eventual overthrow by some demagogue. Which is
>a good thing.

And yet we have our demagogue.

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 8:24:13 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >.... - they *will* be voted out.

>
> They will? When has that happened?

Throwing the bums out is, unfortunately, almost always accompanied
by throwing the other set of bums in.

> And yet we have our demagogue.

One of many we could have had, but one graceless enough
to either not bother to fake being a statesman, or too inept
to bother trying.

Kevin R

[The Zygon]

In trying to persuade other politicians, politicians tend to appeal to the deputy model when they have popular opinion with them, but the trustee model when they don't. When voting, individual politicians operate with both models in mind, going this way or that, based on influences which are difficult to discern, though opponents often assume that it is money.

[Erik Trulsson]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/10/2018 10:45 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 5:05:53 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> England (actually the UK) is a Constitutional Monarchy. Not even close
>>> to a Republic or a Democracy.
>>
>> I'd say that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, at
>> least in present, a democratic nation - it has a free press, freedom of
>> religion, free elections. It is _not_ a republic, but it certainly is, like the
>> United States, a democratic nation. (Some people draw a distinction between a
>> democratic republic and a "democracy", meaning by the latter Athenian-style
>> direct democracy. Yes, the UK is not that.)
>>
>> Countries where dissent is not suppressed, which don't have political prisoners
>> - that is, on our side, not like our Nazi and Soviet enemies - are democracies
>> in the normal use of the term. The UK is in that category.
>>
>> John Savard
>

> The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The USA citizens vote for
> representatives who vote on laws and such.

The USA is a republic AND a democracy. Democracies do not have to be
direct democracies. In fact most democracies are representative
democracies - much like the USA.

[Erik Trulsson]

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:p8718g$o3b$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> On 2018-03-12 4:55 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>>> In article <p86u83$jq4$1...@dont-email.me>, lynnmc...@gmail.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The USA citizens vote
>>>> for representatives who vote on laws and such.
>>>
>>> Here in the Republic of Finland we call that representative
>>> democracy.
>>>
>>> (Okay, technically we call that 'edustuksellinen demokratia'.)
>>>
>>
>> In the United States there's something of a movement to shape
>> people's perception of the Democrats by insisting that the
>> United States is a republic and "not a democracy". It's all
>> very 1984.
>>
> The US fits comfortably within the common usage definition of a
> republic. A democratic republic.
>

The common usage definition of a republic is that the head of state has the
title 'President'. No more and no less.

[J. Clarke]

That is what the public schools feed us and in practice close to the
way it works. That sound you hear is the Founders spinning in their
graves.

[Peter Trei]

It interesting to watch this little debate. I see most of the participants
as coming at it from the wrong direction; you're all trying to force the US
and other societies bend to the definition of various words - democracy,
republic, etc.

I rather, ask, what is actually happening? Do we need to redefine these
words, or create new ones which better describe reality?

When the map and the territory don't match up, its not the territory that's
wrong.

pt

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 6:06:20 AM UTC-4, Erik Trulsson wrote:

That's a totally cosmetic description. The HoS could be named anything,
and there could be more than one of them. Switzerland has an Executive
Council, whose members take an annual turn at being President of
the confederation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Swiss_Confederation

Iran's Supreme Leader is HoS. The Pres is only Head of Government.

San Marino has two Captains-Regent, much as Rome had its Consuls.

It is a commonplace opinion in the US that states without monarchs
where the highest political offices are effectively hereditary,
are "phony republics." On the other hand, states with elected
monarchs share more elements with a "normal republic" than these
regimes of tinpot dictators. Whether a state is technically a republic
or not says nothing about the liberty enjoyed by its citizens.

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

I don't know where you got that from. The Roman Republic didn't even have a
President. The head of state of the German Federal Republic had the title of Chancellor.

Republic comes from "res publica". The people vote for Senators or
Representatives, and, in addition, there is no hereditary monarch above
the elected portion of the system.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Erik Trulsson <er...@Update.UU.SE> wrote in
news:p8as6o$6vs$2...@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE:

I posted the definition from Google, which is as good as any.

No, that's not all there is to it. Here, I'll post it again, for
those who want to laugh at how stupid and dishonest you are:

re·pub·lic

/r?'p?blik/

noun

noun: republic; plural noun: republics

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

president rather than a monarch.

If you're gonna lie, you really need to pick more obscure subjects.

Retard.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0f48c2fb-671f-4517...@googlegroups.com:

Since the discussion is about the definitions of words, your
attempt to change the subject, presumably to look less stupid, is
an attempt to change the subject, presumably to look less stupid.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1bd2673e-a352-4433...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 6:06:20 AM UTC-4, Erik Trulsson
> wrote:
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> > news:p8718g$o3b$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>> >
>> >> On 2018-03-12 4:55 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>> >>> In article <p86u83$jq4$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> >>> lynnmc...@gmail.com says...
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The USA citizens
>> >>>> vote for representatives who vote on laws and such.
>> >>>
>> >>> Here in the Republic of Finland we call that representative
>> >>> democracy.
>> >>>
>> >>> (Okay, technically we call that 'edustuksellinen
>> >>> demokratia'.)
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> In the United States there's something of a movement to
>> >> shape people's perception of the Democrats by insisting that
>> >> the United States is a republic and "not a democracy". It's
>> >> all very 1984.
>> >>
>> > The US fits comfortably within the common usage definition of
>> > a republic. A democratic republic.
>> >
>>
>> The common usage definition of a republic is that the head of
>> state has the title 'President'. No more and no less.
>
> That's a totally cosmetic description.

It's also incorrect. And stupid.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:f9d10d2b-9448-4f67...@googlegroups.com:

Damn, dude, you made *Quaddie* look like the smart one.

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 12:04:56 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> I don't know where you got that from. The Roman Republic didn't even have a
> President. The head of state of the German Federal Republic had the title of Chancellor.
>

No, the German HoS is a President. The Head of Government is the
Chancellor. It is equivalent to the Prime Minister in most other
parliamentary states, be they monarchies or republics.

> Republic comes from "res publica". The people vote for Senators or
> Representatives, and, in addition, there is no hereditary monarch above
> the elected portion of the system.

And "res" is a very flexible noun in Latin, most commonly translated
as "thing," but it has many nuances. The "public thing" or the
"affairs of the public."

In my sillier moments,* I imagine the newly king-free Romans
calling their new arangement "the thingie for the people,"
which, when no better name was conjured up, stuck. :)

I can imagine John Cleese in his centurion costume from
"Life of Brian" explaining it that way.

Kevin R

* At least my sillier moments in high school Latin class.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:78ef8263-c410-4f0f...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 12:04:56 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc
> wrote:
>> I don't know where you got that from. The Roman Republic didn't
>> even have a President. The head of state of the German Federal
>> Republic had the title of Chancellor.
>>
>
> No, the German HoS is a President. The Head of Government is
> the Chancellor. It is equivalent to the Prime Minister in most
> other parliamentary states, be they monarchies or republics.

Iceland has both a President and a Prime Minister. The former does
the work of head of state, the President is largely a ceremonial
position to give the tourists someone to hobnob with (apparently, his
office doesn't have a door, or any guards, and you can just walk in
and say hello any time he's there). This is why when the President
got caught up in the Panama Papers scandal a while back, it wasn't a
big deal.

[mcdow...@sky.com]

One problem with very direct models of democracy is inconsistency, as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discursive_dilemma. It is possible that conflicting motions can be passed at the same time, or nearly the same time, with the same electorate. While I agree that the UK referendum decision to leave the EU must be respected, I note that both sides of the issue contained multiple different visions of what Leave and Remain meant, and that the decision to leave has produced far reaching changes that no previous UK government had anticipated.

One attempt to provide more consistency would be to vote, not issue by issue, but for consistent bundles of policies. This is what might be expected to happen if - as happens in representative democracies - parties stand on manifestos that lay out their policies.

[David Johnston]

Well no. They also have to have a legislature.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <04fbe8f6-6f30-41ae...@googlegroups.com>,

<mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:

>One attempt to provide more consistency would be to vote, not issue by
>issue, but for consistent bundles of policies. This is what might be
>expected to happen if - as happens in representative democracies -
>parties stand on manifestos that lay out their policies.

The libertoonian fantasy is for a revocable proxy legislature:
legislators get to cast votes for the people who have given them their
vote, which can be revoked and switched to anyone else at any time.
This barely works with corporate boards, never mind a village council.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 6:32:06 PM UTC-4, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <04fbe8f6-6f30-41ae...@googlegroups.com>,
> <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
>
> >One attempt to provide more consistency would be to vote, not issue by
> >issue, but for consistent bundles of policies. This is what might be
> >expected to happen if - as happens in representative democracies -
> >parties stand on manifestos that lay out their policies.
>
> The libertoonian fantasy is for a revocable proxy legislature:
> legislators get to cast votes for the people who have given them their
> vote, which can be revoked and switched to anyone else at any time.
> This barely works with corporate boards, never mind a village council.
>
> -GAWollman

OBSF: L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach" uses this as
a plot point. None of the Libertarians and libertarians I
know think the tech for this could be made secure enough
for instantaneous transfers of proxies. It would work in
theory, but it sounds like you don't want to move to Theory.
Neither do I, at least not just yet.

Kevin R

[The Zygon]

Other than possibly a small tribal village here or there, I don't think that any case of universal direct democracy has ever been discovered.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 10:52:00 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> No, the German HoS is a President. The Head of Government is the
> Chancellor.

And here I thought they had a Chancellor as head of state, and a Prime
Minister as head of government, but I was mistaken.

John Savard

[Magewolf]

I do not think it would work in theory even with perfect security and
lagless universal communication. Which makes it a perfect theory for
Libertarians I guess. Much like the moon being made of green cheese.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Magewolf <Mage...@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:p8el6t$vl3$1...@dont-email.me:

One of the mandatory properties of a cult is impossible, insane
goals.