Constitution Lectures 4: Democracy or Republic? (HD version)
Articles Blog

Constitution Lectures 4: Democracy or Republic? (HD version)

September 21, 2019

Welcome to Part 4 of our lecture series on
the Constitution. This lecture deals with the kind of government the Constitution creates.
Once again, we will be talking about the difference between the popular view of the Constitution
and the reality behind it. More specifically, weíll talk about the idea
that the United States is a Democracy, why thatís an inaccurate and even dangerous claim,
and what a Republic is all about. Weíll of course cover these two types of
government, their similarities, their differences, and why itís important. But in order to fully
understand the issue, we also need to consider two other types of government: Monarchy and oligarchy. These four basic types
will give you a full perspective and context for understanding how our government is set
up, and why it was set up that way. Now, there are other forms of government,
but with a few exceptions most of them can be placed into one of these four categories.
For example, a plutocracy is rule by the rich. This is a form of oligarchy. In any event,
we will focus on these four for purposes of this lecture. Weíll start with Monarchy. Youíre most likely
familiar with this. This is when power is concentrated in a single individual: a king,
a dictator, a despot, or whatever. It comes from the Greek word Monos, meaning
One, and Archus, meaning Leader. So a monarchy is when there is one and only one leader.
Obviously, this is the kind of government the founders rebelled against, specifically
targeting most of their complaints against the monarch, King George. Oligarchy is when power is vested in an elite
few. This is usually a class, a higher class, a ruling class, or whatever. So it isnít
much better than a monarchy. Like the word Monarchy, Oligarchy has its
roots in Greek, this time from the Greek word Oligos, meaning ìfew.î With the power concentrated
in an elite few, the masses are easily subjugated. Democracy is what seems to be the popular
preference for the form of government, and thereís little wonder why: itís popular
rule. Democracy is the rule of the majority, the will of the masses, and this would trump
the will of any select few. The first part of its root, the Greek Demos,
is generally translated as ìpeople,î but itís important to understand in what context
it is meant. This isnít rule by some people, itís rule by most peopleóthe majority, the
masses. The telling part is the second root word,
kratos: rule by strength. If that makes it sound more like mob rule, well, youíre getting
the idea. Majority rule is minority ruled. In essence,
itís the exact opposite of an oligarchy. Whereas an oligarchy allows a select few to
subjugate the many, a democracy allows the many to impose their will on minorities. So, what is a republic, and how is it different
from a democracy? The root of the word is Latin, but the meaning has its origins much
earlier in Greek with Platoís dialogue. Here, Plato argues for his ideal form of government
in opposition to other bad types, which include oligarchy and democracy. He also describes
how oligarchy leads to democracy as the oppressed masses overthrow the ruling class. The Latin root here is the same as it is for
the word ìpublicî: poblicus, meaning the population. Thatís different from ìthe peopleî
in Democracy. This isnít just a few people, or some people, or even most people; itís
ALL the peopleóthe public, the entire population. Which means that no group, however large or
however small, can impose its will on others. To illustrate the difference between these
four types of government, we can talk about the fundamental differences in their answer
to one very important question: Where do our rights actually come from? In a monarchy, rights come from the ruler.
Historically, this was known as the Divine Right of Kings. Kings were granted power by
God Himself, and the King gave some of these rights to the people as he saw fit. He may
knight someone, or grant them a claim of Lordship, or whatever. He could grant them, and he could
take them away just as easily. In an oligarchy, itís the leadersówhomever
the ruling class isówho are granted the rights, again usually by God. Generally, the idea
is that the ruling class rules by Godís divine will, and so everything they do is Godís
will and cannot be countermanded. The evidence for this is the fact that God would not have
placed them in power if he did not want them to have it, therefore shut up and do as we
say. In a democracy, the rights come from the people,
and so you have whatever rights society says that you do. If society says that you have
the right to keep and bear arms, then you have that rightóuntil the masses change their
mind and decide you donít have that right after all. This marks the fundamental difference between
a democracy and a republic. A republic, at least in the form our founders created when
they ratified the Constitution, recognizes that rights are inherent. Basically, youíre
born with them, and theyíre as much a part of you as your own inherent abilities.
Many people, including many of our founders, said that God gave us these rights specifically.
Itís kind of like cutting out the middleman: instead of God giving rights to a king or
to a ruling class, theyíre given directly to us, each as individuals.
Others, including other founders, say that the rights just come from nature. But whether
they come from nature, God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrelevant. The Constitution
makes no claim as to where these rights come from, merely that you have them.
This is why the Constitution says that a particular right ìshall not be infringedî or ìshall
not be violated,î instead of ìthis right is hereby granted.î The Constitution does
not grant rights; it merely protects them. The fact of the United States being a Republic
is mentioned in Article IV Section 4, where it requires the United States to guarantee
to every single state a Republican form of government.
Relax, this doesnít mean you have to vote Republican. It means that the United States
will not allow any group, not even a majority, to infringe on the rights of the people. But while the Constitution has nothing to
say about Democracy, the founders certainly did. For example, in Federalist #10, James
Madison says, ìDemocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have
ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. A Republic
promises the cure for which we are seeking.î For another example, Alexander Hamilton said,
ìIt has been observed that a pure democracy…would be the most perfect government. Experience
has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which
the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very
character was tyranny; their figure deformity.î There are many other such examples. Our founders
simply did not want a democracy. So, how did they envision this republic? The
original first amendment in the Bill of Rightsówhich was proposed by Congress but never ratifiedóspecifies
how to figure out how many representatives to have per population size. You couldnít
have too few, or too many. Now, why would this be in the Bill of Rights? Madisonóalong
with the rest of Congressóis trying to avoid both democracy and oligarchy. Basically, if
you have too few representatives, you have an oligarchy, and the country is run by the
elite, the special interests. Too many, and you get Democracyómob rule, people voting
themselves largesse from the Treasury. A republic was seen as being the ìsweet spotî in the
middleówhere there were enough representatives to make the elite ineffective, but not so
many that the mob took over. If we were to follow his formula today, we’d
have over 1500 members of Congress. Instead, we have 435. By Madison’s mathematics, that
makes this an oligarchy, a system beholden to powerful lobbies and special interest groups.
Looking around, it’s hard to disagree. So letís go over the fundamental differences
between a Democracy and a Republic. In a democracy, rights come from the people,
or from society. Really, what that means is that you can do whatever everyone else allows
you to do. Your rights can change with their whim.
So if, after a terrorist attack, everyone agrees that being safe is more important than
your right to be secure from warrantless searches, then your right, according to this philosophy,
goes away, and you have no recourse for asserting it.
Whereas in our Constitutional republic, rights are considered to be inherent, and regardless
of how everyone else feels about your right to be secure in your home, you can still assert
it and seek redress if it is violated. In a democracy, since rights come from the
people, it falls to the government to say what rights people do and do not have. The
duly elected representatives of the people can act with their authority, and essentially
claim whatever they want. But under the Constitution, rights are protected.
Since they are considered to be an inherent part of your existence, no authority whatsoever
can claim legitimacy in any act infringing on your rights. In a democracy, rights are privileges, and
your rights are limited to whatever your fellow countrymen agree should be your rights. They
can be taken away at any time. But in our republic, rights are inalienable.
They cannot be separated from you, and so they cannot be taken away, only violated.
As such, it is the government that is limited, not your rights. In a democracy, power is centralized, being
in whatever majority who chose the current government. The majority chooses the government,
and the government serves at their whim. But in our republic, we have a decentralized
system of checks and balances. The method of choosing Congressmen, Senators, and the
President isnít mob rule; itís spread out all over the country. This is why the President
is elected by electors chosen by the states, instead of directly by a majority of all Americans.
Also, the branches of government are supposed to put checks against each other to prevent
a usurpation of unconstitutional power. Now, the big criticism to all of this, is
that all of the aspects of a republic I have just described are incorporated in the modern
idea of democracy, not the old idea of majority rule. So that brings up the question: what
if we have a republic, and just call it a democracy? Both democracy and republic have
been misused by many countries claiming these titles where neither applied. Why not just
have everyone understand that democracy means republic, not majority rule?
Quite simply, because people DONíT understand it. As we speak, there are those trying to
eliminate the electoral college because they think weíre a democracy where the people
determine the government. There are people seeking to eliminate the rights protected
by the Second and Fourth Amendments, and others, for exactly the same reason. All justified
by the fact that weíre a democracy. As my grandma used to say, you can call a
dog a cat all you want, but it still wonít purr. So now you understand why we use the word
ìrepublicî to refer to our country, and why using ìdemocracyî is not only invalid,
it is downright dangerous to our liberties. From this point on, I think youíll find that
if you pay attention, youíll see a lot of politicians and pundits appealing to ìdemocracyî
to get whatever they want passed. And usually, itíll be something that shouldnít be passed
at all. Until next time, stay strong and be free.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. So basically you're denying my claim that the Danish health care system is more effecient. I suggest you take that up with WHO and OECD. No country in the world spends more on health care per capita or as percentage of GDP than the US (30% more than no. 2 based on %GDP and around 60% based on per capita expense) I actually checked the numbers this time, just go to OECD's webpage. You simply can't blame all of this on an overall more unhealthy population.

  2. Ok, if you won't accept international studies and won't accept any comparison to any extant health care sytem, then there is nothing I can do to help you other than this simple principle: If no owner, shareholder or partner has to make a profit from providing a service (like is the case with any truly public service) then that service always has the potential to be done cheaper and more efficient. Mind you I said "potential", it is not always like that.

  3. Larger units have the potential to work more efficiently by concentrating resources. Therefore any public service can more be done more efficiently by a large unit such as a state. Mind you I'm still talking potential. Exessive bureaucracy may slow things down, but I maintain that bureaucracy is not inherent in any public or private organization.

  4. And to the person who is painstakingly downthumbing every single pos of mine: I hope that you find your task worthwhile. I'm sure you'll change everyones oppinion of me with every single click.

  5. Seriously. How does the electoral system protect you? All those presidents you oppose got elected using that system. In your lifetime, only once did the popular vote disagree with the electoral vote, and I doubt you'd say the electoral vote for bush was much wiser than the popular vote for Gore as you probably opposed them both.

  6. Isn't that cute? The little boy thinks he can think.

    It's okay, mickeykozzi. Come back again some other time. I'm sure you'll do better.

  7. Because our current (unconstitutional) electoral system forces the narrowing of the options down to only two, with little voice from the people in the process.

  8. Argument from anecdote and argument from personal incredulity. Also, continued refusal to back up your statement with evidence.

  9. Come on Shane, this is politics, not natural science. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence that the free market is a "natural state".

  10. Shifting burden of proof. If YOU are the one wanting to actively use force against others, the burden is on YOU to justify it.

  11. It doesn't work like that in a political debate. There the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim for the most extensive change of the system to show how those changes would actually work. You know that's how it works, you only have to begin defending status quo after someone has challenged it.

  12. There is NO SUCH PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC WHATSOEVER. EVER. The status quo NEVER gets a free ride just because it's the status quo. You are anti-logic, anti-science, and anti-reason.

    The status quo ALWAYS needs defending. ESPECIALLY when it hasn't met its burden of proof.

  13. A system that doesn't make different rules for the incumbent parties than it does for other parties. Or, better still, a system that refuses to acknowledge parties at all.

  14. OK. No parties. Still, one conservative candidate and one liberal candidate will get all the media attention and 90%+ of the votes.

  15. You're so cute when you get angry Shane 🙂 I was just teasing you a bit. Of course you're right. The status quo must always be defended, even if that's how it usually goes in a political debate (and trust me I'm NOT defending the staus quo)

    I haven't watched the video in question for a while, and I'm not really in a position to debunk it right now, so I guess you can claim this one. All I can say is that it didn't convince me when I first watched it, and it's propably not going to now.

  16. If I can give you one last piece of advice Shane, it is that you learn to control your temper. You're a smart guy (REALLY smart) and I love the fits you throw in your old "Bogosity"-vids, but in a live debate you're just putting off a lot of people by getting so mad. Both people who disagree (like me on economics and politics) and people who agree (like me on science and conspiracies)
    Once you start writing most words in capitals I find myself not paying attention – even if you're making sense.

  17. Let's assume you get your way and government shrinks and the regulations are trashed. In a free market society with most of the wealth in the hands of a small minority of the people, and the majority of the people not being very interested in the finer points of the constitution, how does one stop corporatism from reconstituting itself within a generation while everybody's watching reality TV?

  18. Then you're fucking ignorant of your own country's history. And the UK's. And France's. His writings inspired major upheavals in EACH of those countries.

  19. Oh believe me, I've dealt with violent crime before. Both as a victim of it as well as working with violent youth criminals, so don't come and tell me that I know nothing about it! I've never have to deal with someone pointing a gun at me however, and you know why? Because guns just aren't widespread here! I don't constantly have to worry about wether or not the guy I'm arguing with has a friggin' gun. How is that bad?

  20. If I had employed the idea that the only thing violent people understand is more violence when working with violent youngsters, you know what would've happened? I'd have turned them from disturbed young kids into full fledged psychos!
    I've said it before: A mentality like yours is downright dangerous in a modern society. It might have been good for surviving on the savanna 100.000 years ago, but we've moved past that now, and it's time you move with us.

  21. I've got no more patience for you. If you want to practice your ideas of "kill or be killed", I'm glad you're doing it over there in your "free" society, where everyone apparently is so afraid of their fellow man that they have to carry guns around. Or maybe you can get yourself a job as a private contracter in Iraq? I hear they are looking for men with guns and the right "incredible hulk" mindset.
    I'm done with you.

  22. I think your concept of rights is imagined. You try to secure your concept rights by a god which you dont call god or by dogmaticly stating that they are inherently there. (you do admit you do not know where your rights come from if not from the people) The constitution seems to be your bible. Its dogma instead of reasoning. Your figure at 7:40 seems to me like reality vs your ideology. Could you support your idea that rights are inherent by more than appeal to what feels right?

  23. I'm talking about the approach the Constitution takes to rights, not my own opinion. But you've shown quite clearly what YOUR dogma is.

  24. But a representative democracy is also bound by the constitution. I think this is a good way to put it:

    "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law"

    -Scheb, John M. (2006). An Introduction to the American Legal System

    Same goes for all European republics.

  25. Hi Shanedk
    At first, one question: You use the word democracy in the ancient greek view, is that the normal use in the US?
    If so then you're correct. But from my (german) modern view of the word I'd say you've created a false dichotomy. Because "democracy" just describes the legitimation (elected by the people) and not the Intention (case of the people: res publica). So the words are not contrary and you can have a democratic republic, as the US and germany. Federal repub. with elected leaders.

  26. Or to put it the other way round. Although the leaders are interested in the welfare of the people, they must not have been elected by the people. OK thats a non realistic Utopia 😉
    But its logically possible.

  27. As I said in the video, people here when confronted will say they're using it the "modern" way, but as soon as an issue comes along they have majority support for it's back to the old definition in a heartbeat.

  28. Well, I'm skeptic about the argument that people will see democracy in the old greek view, thats the reason for my first question a few hours ago. is it the normal view in your country?
    If thats the normal view, then your argument seems valid, but from a middle EU view, if I say democracy, the people will think of voted leaders BUT restricted by inherent human rights, just like the republic you mentioned.
    Is your definition an established view or just personel?

  29. Yes, lots of people here still use democracy to mean the will of the people. Look at our health care debate and you'll see this all over the place.

  30. finally I got your point. I underestimated the small but important difference between "the masses" and "all people".

  31. Two forms of government you should also consider:

    Democracy, which you often confuse with 'Majoritarianism' and Necrocracy, where the theories and thoughts of dead people override the needs of the living.

  32. Don't you find it ironic that the Constitution is a government document? Or that the recourse to rights explicitly delineated in the Constitution are organs of government such as the court system? Or that even though our rights are "inherent" and "inalienable", they morph, expand, and contract as we cross invisible lines? Weird how that works.

  33. @Yikai7 No, a republic is the rule of law (as opposed to rule of men, which is democracy). A representative government can be either one.

  34. @rebelq1 No, see Lecture 1: the Constitution DOES NOT impose anything on the people, ONLY on those who hold political office.

  35. Seriously this is horeshit and elbow greas.I am honestlydisapointed especially after wathing one about separation of church and state wich was very enlightening.
    Fist of all i think you've got the denocracy translation wrong all it means is simply rule of the people as for the "repulic" it is combination of two words "res"-thing/issue and publica wich simply translates as public matter/issue.
    Furthermore the Roman republic and Athens Democracy where almost identical.

  36. Monarchy dosen't also exclusively mean the rule of one.Althou both ancient "despotic" and more modern absolutist monarchy woudl fall under it .
    The monarch can his/her power limited by either constitution as in modern times
    or by some other legal act such as if was in Poland since ate XV century.

  37. The labeling of a perticular goverment system as a rebulic only states that the head of the state (wich dosen't necessary be synomous with lawgiver/sovering)
    dose not hold any regal title such as emperror/king/prince etc. but by no means automaticly prevent him/her wielding great power.

  38. @ManOfDeath567 Anarchy isn't a system of government. It's a system (several systems, actually, since there are several forms of anarchy) of no government.

  39. What do think of terms of representative democracy or representative republic. are there any difference in them?

  40. @mrphoo67 The difference is in what the representatives can do. In a democracy they abide by the will of the people, whatever that may be. In a republic, they're bound by a constitution and/or other rules and restrictions.

    Democracy is rule of men, republic is rule of law.

  41. @shanedk Would agree with our system of government has a democracy like tenacy, We vote on our representatives. It seems like its a democracy on whom our leaders are.

  42. @shanedk Now I know if we didn't have the 17 amendment we would be voting for our senators

    But what about our president house of representatives? Are we not suppose to elect them too.

  43. @mrphoo67 The House represents the people, and are chosen by them. But they are absolutely bound by the Constitution and cannot do anything that isn't a granted power in Article I Section 8. They can't just do whatever the hell they want, even if it's what the people want.

  44. shane I I am going to make my self loud and clear on this. I absolutely love the answer you just given me. it was a very good answer.

    with your answer in mine, even if constitution gave us democracy, a democracy does not have the power to voilates the constitution.

    I will be cool with a democracy that does not have the power voilates individual liberties. A republic democracy.

  45. understanding that we are republic, do you think we should have the ectoral college system. Or is that just bogosity.

    Pro, cons.

  46. @mrphoo67 No, you need it to keep a few big cities from deciding the election. Since this is a republic and not a democracy, that should NOT be allowed to happen.

    With that said, I think state's electors should have proportional representation. Other than that I'm happy with it.

  47. Shane, when you say that the US is a republic, do you mean to say that it was intended by the founders to be a republic, but reality does not reflect on the true meaning of republic.

  48. "as well as the states' representation in the senate"

    That's an interesting topic, since the state legislature no longer elects Senators. In my mind that was a big step in transforming our country from a Republic to a Democracy in the pejorative sense the founders referred to Democracy.

  49. I thing the Electoral College would be even more representative of the votes of the people if the states were to get away from "Winner-Take-All" and act in a more Republican manner where if a particular district or number of districts in a state vote for one candidate for President, and the rest vote for another, that the Electors be divided according to number of districts won by said candidates (each Elector actually represents a Congressional District, except for two STATEWIDE electors)(more)

  50. (continued) (who represent the two Senators each state has). This would be a truer reflection of the nation's vote.

  51. The narrator says that the American colonists were rebelling against a Monarchy. This only partly true, as the English/British Monarchs have been restrained somewhat by a legislative body (Parliament) since the time of the Magna Carta, and were even more restrained by Parliament by the time of George III. The King or Queen did still have a great deal of power, but since the English Civil War of 1642-47, Parliament had gathered more and more power to itself.

  52. Some states do it that way, but it's still winner-take-all by the district. If a candidate gets 40% of the vote, but those 40% are spread out more or less evenly, he STILL doesn't get any electors.

    Whereas with proportional representation a candidate who gets 10% of the vote would get 10% of the electors (or nearest rounding).

  53. There is one thing that I do not get. If, in a republic, no group, however large or small can impose their will on anyone else. Then how can the government, who usually constitute a separate and distinct group from the rest of the population, ever do anything? Aren't the government imposing their will on someone every time they make or enforce a law?

  54. And if a republic is ruled by the public, i.e. the entire population simultaneously, then how can a republic have elected, or appointed officials in the first place? Shouldn't being ruled by the entire population imply that every inhabitant of a given nation participate in everything the government does? I know that that could never actually work, at least not with the United States' current population size. But that sounds like the logical consequence of a nation literally being ruled by…

  55. Yes, but they're not actually beholden to the states to represent them. If they were, much of the legislation being passed would never make it through that Senate. The increase in the drinking age is a clear example.

  56. I just did. If I understood it correctly this time then a republic is ruled by elected officials whose power is kept in place by things like the electoral college and the separation of powers. But there is another very important question. If a republic is not ruled a single individual, because that would be a monarchy, a minority, because that would be oligarchy, the majority, because that would be a democracy, or the entire population; then who does that leave to be the ruler, or the ruled?

  57. There is no "ruler" in a republic. Political power is spread out among disparate groups (like the three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial) and, as long as they reach their conclusions independently with no conflict of interest, the legislation can move through as long as they're all in agreement. But a single objection along the way would stop the process.

  58. "if the us congress were a true democracy, states would be to send senators to DC based on their populations."

    Yes, it distorts both the Electoral College and representation while not actually representing the states as it was supposed to.

  59. Are you in favour of or against intellectual property? If I'm not mistaking, your constitution favours intellectual property!

  60. The Constitution isn't the Bible. Just because it allows something doesn't mean it's a good thing. For a long time it allowed slavery, remember.

  61. Slavery is an example of democracy. Even though it is wrong, and the constitution protects our rights, back in that time people chose 51% vs 49% to keep slavery, which shows that mob rule is wrong.

  62. Holy shit, the amount of people that seem to think the Constitution protects our rights are absolutely retarded.

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT.

    It does not GRANT YOU RIGHTS in-and-of itself

  63. Just like to clarify, the Constitution does PROTECT you from government. But Semantically it does not GRANT YOU RIGHTS. The rights were delegated long before the ratification.

  64. Perhaps ancient democracies were flawed, but modern democracies have better results than we do. They have better social mobility, better health care, more protection of minorities. Our Republic has oppressed minorities more effectively than any modern democracy. The sad thing is that we do not even realize that we have slipped into oligarchy. we still think that hard work equals success despite statistics that prove that your socio-econic status is the major determinant. Time for a re-think.

  65. This fanciful vision of government depends absolutely on living in an echo chamber. In America, we are fond of thinking we are the best, we have the most freedom, I wish that were true. Again, this idea absolutely depends on us drinking the kool-aid, being ignorant of the successful, progressive free nations beyod our own borders. This argument is playing out in Washington, a force that seeks to evolve battling people like Rand Paul who want to devolve.

  66. We are still a long way from freedom and equality. "Democracies" in modern form are leaps and bounds ahead of us in protecting and cherishing civil rights and equality. Most nayions have a constitution or charter of rights that are NOT assailable by mob rule. Sometimes, I think we live in a bubble. My God, in the USA, we even dictate who you can marry. yet we delude ourselves thinking that we are the ideal, the most free. We are getting there, but the evolution has been slow.

  67. FOUNDERS are ULTIMATE authorities on AMERICA's form of govt, not us! "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a REPUBLICAN form of government" – "and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands" [Art4-Sec4: Constitution-Pledge of Allegiance]! "Our citizens should early understand that the genuine SOURCE of correct REPUBLICAN principles is the BIBLE" – America's Founders [Noah Webster]. "A simple DEMOCRACY (source of authority = "majority rule") is the DEVIL'S own government" – America's Founders [Benjamin Rush] – "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, & it is the duty as well as the privilege & interest of our CHRISTIAN nation to select & prefer CHRISTIANS for their rulers". Visit:            
    Read more
    Read more

  68. While the philosophy you are representing here appears to be accurate with respect to our founding documents versus many democracies; I think you're adding baggage to the words "democracy" and "republic".  This may be for purposes of simplifying the explanation, so I don't mean to criticize you harshly for it, but in fact all a republic requires is for there to be representatives voting versus a direct vote by all the people.  Our form of government is a Constitution Republic– sometimes called a Federalist Republic or a Constitutionally Limited Republic.  The founders ADDED the limited aspect of this particular republic, based in their philosophy of Natural Rights. That aspect is not inherent by the definition from the word "republic".  If you would like to challenge me on this, please provide some sources and we can have a pleasant discussion on the matter.

  69. strange to remove democracy from the possibilities with the argument that a majority would be able to harm a minority… Why u imagine that giving responsability to people would drive them insane ??

    Today we have to chose between Trump and Clinton Rofl…. Your system is soooo nice. Let's go and attack Iraan ! (Well, I mean, you go and I look at it on tv XD)

  70. @ 7:30 Are you suggesting that it would be harder to bribe, court, and influence a congress of 1,500 + than to just lobby a few hundred? Preposterous! Lol

  71. James Madison never contemplated the JOKE the republic/republicans are today, Democrats are all that stands between them and a Dictatorship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *