My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Democracy vs Republic: Which are We?

Is the US a Democracy or a Republic?

  • Democracy

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Republic

    Votes: 61 71.8%
  • a stepping stone to socialism

    Votes: 21 24.7%

  • Total voters
    85

HKTidwell

Premium Member
Social Security wasn't intended to be the end all of retirements it was meant as a fall back in case things got bad. To many people have used it as a Oh hey I have a retirement it is called Social Security. It was intended as a supplemental retirement. In this mindset it has hurt millions who thought it would be the end all only to find out to late that it paid the bare minimums and they had to scrounge through the rest of their life.

Medicaid/medicare These programs are ridden with fraud and waste. That is my money they are pissing away! There are some people that really need help and we need to as a people find methods to help. This is not one of the principle tenants that our Government was founded on.

Social programs lead to a dependence in government. Dependence in Government leads to laziness. Laziness leads to a requirement for mercenaries and foreign labor. Mercenaries and foreign labors leads to nations failing. This is History repeated time and time again and each culture/nation thinks oh we know how to do it where it will be successful.

Sorry guys I really try to steer away from these conversation but I always end up being annoyed by them and commenting.
 
Last edited:

MacFie

Registered User
Democratic Republic if it hasn't been said before. The majority votes their representatives, the representatives vote for their constituents(hahahahahahahaha(fill three more pages with haha's))
 

rhitland

Founding Member
Premium Member
Can we as people with such immature mentalities as a whole do without socialist programs? I for one am happy to have the police, fire department, libraries, national parks, etc... but until we mature as a society then socialist programs such as mentioned here will be needed. Take a quick look at the history of humankind and you will see we have come a million miles in our forms of governing the people. This countries government is the most successful attempt in known history of a republic and as bad as it seems to us we just have nothing to compare it to for real comparison. This is not to say we need to give up the fight for a true republic the ability to fight is the very essence of a republic. Wonderful post brother Wing. I have to admit I tied the two terms together but never will again. I look forward as well for this being a wonderful conversation starter for those preaching democracy!
 

MacFie

Registered User
Can we as people with such immature mentalities as a whole do without socialist programs?

Having lived on the west coast, and in Texas, which are pretty much bipolar opposites, I say we as a country have a lot to learn. Not a California expert or anything, but seemed like they had too many "socialist" programs without the money to really back it up. Texas on the other hand seems to have a fairly minimal amount, but isn't going broke from having a bleeding heart. It gets to be interesting topic no doubt.
 

jwhoff

Premium Member
I defer to brother Benjamin Franklin on this one. Although I fear the answer may be at hand. Not sure any of us will like the answer.

Why are we all so eager to destroy the experiment.
 

Traveling Man

Premium Member
Why are we all so eager to destroy the experiment.

Because we are the subjects in this "skinner box". The only problem being the "We" of "We the People" (us) of this experiment recognize that we should have a a say on how this experiment is being run, we are not the "subjects" of the ruling class. I thought the "ruling class" was taught this lesson awhile ago...
Maybe I'm wrong?
 

S.Courtemanche

Premium Member
I voted republic as our founding fathers intended, I however believe as Bro Blake does as we are headed towards socialism.
 

Curt Miles

Registered User
We are a Republic. Its up to men like FREEMASONS to keep it so. Where is all the influence and Power that the freemasons should have in this matter. I have to wonder at times if we even do anything anymore.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
We are a constitutional democratic republic. This means that our government is res publica, a public thing, property held in common. This is in contrast to res privata. A state based on the concept that political power is a matter of private property is usually called a monarchy, although that private access to power could be distributed (feudalism) or centralized (absolute monarchy). However, there is absolutely nothing in the basic concept of a republic that requires the participation of any significantly large portion of the people. A republic could be an oligarchy--as was the case for the Republic of Venice. It was a republic in that nobody personally owned political power as if it were property. However, stewardship of that political power was limited to a small group within Venice. The Roman Republic was an aristocratic republic. While political power was not private property, one had to be born into the proper families to directly control the public political power. The People's Republic of China is a republic. Power is not inherited by family ties as a form of private property (in contrast to North Korea). However, in addition to being a republic, we are democratic--the people are supposed to have a large voice in the exercise of public power. Finally, we are constitutional. Our government is supposed to be explicitly limited in its powers by a fundamental body of law that cannot be easily changed.

However, the full status of our form of government is an obscene thing in the eyes of liberals and of conservatives. Liberals wish to dispense with the republic and turn political power into the whim of the mob, having no thought for the public good. Conservatives wish to dispense with the democratic and turn political power into the plaything of a self-appointed elite, having no thought to the people. Both wish to dispose of the constitutional and eliminate all limits upon government.
 

jwhoff

Premium Member
I thought the "ruling class" was taught this lesson awhile ago...
Maybe I'm wrong?

It's been a considerable time since the Tea Pot Dome Scandal blew. Generations and lazy, entitled people have come and gone without doing their part to move the great experiment forward. A sizable attitude adjustment is now well overdue. Are we up to it any longer?
 

Michael Neumann

Premium Member
Stepping Stone to Social Order ... we were once a Great Republic.... we can make it back but the masses seem content to be stripped of their rights.
 
Last edited:

Michael Hatley

Premium Member
We are both, and this is most clearly represented by the compromise our founders made over congress. Remembering that the Senate was not directly elected until relatively recently - and the sort of politics even today required for statewide election is a different critter than district level politics. That is where you can see the different aspects of classic "democracy" and "republican" style government both most obviously at play.

I feel like nowadays we like to put our government into a category and then stand our ground about it. In Texas, socialism is for well and true a dirty word. It means lazy, inefficiency, and all sorts of stuff. I tire of conversations where every man at the table tries to impress upon the other how much they revere capitalism and despise socialism, and how the other side of the aisle are ugly human beings somewhere in their core in one way or another. It is the same sort of stuff that the other side did during the Bush years, and it gets on my nerves. Once you've ead Smith, Rand, Marx, the Founders along with the Greeks and others with a critical eye it all just seems like small stuff that is a reflection of the bad drama played out on Fox, MSNBC and other garbage news outlets - which has a formula whereby they put a strawman talking head up against some other talking heads and have a go of it. It is meaningless.

Somewhere along the way I think we've made "compromise" and "civility" almost pejorative terms. And that, if anything, is what is hurting us.

Compromise was what the founders were best at. Not rigid, unbending conservatism - they were change agents if ever there was a group of them alive on this planet together at one time. That sometimes gets lost in the mix for some reason.

So anyway, both.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
Whether or not a state is a "republic" does not depend upon how "direct" or "indirect" elections are. That's just a smokescreen. A state is a "republic" in one of two ways that have nothing at all to do with each other. In one sense, any state not ruled in a hereditary fashion, at least in theory, is a "republic". This makes the USSR, Nazi Germany, the USA, and Mexico equally "republics". This is how "republic" is usually used in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations.

I another sense, a "republic" is a state in which government is considered "res publica"--a public matter, that cannot ever be owned by any person or subgroup of the people as a whole. Thus, not even a majority can legitimately hold absolute power in this sort of republic. This is given practical expression through "constitutional" limits upon the power of government. I put "constitutional" in quotes because something can be "constitutional" in this sense without being Constitutional in the sense it is normally used in the USA. A state can have a very strong "constitution" without having an explicitly-written Constitution. Likewise, a state with a very nicely done Constitution with no real "constitutional" limit on the power of government. Under this sense of "republic", the USA and the United Kingdom are both "republics", while the USSR and Nazi Germany are not, and Mexico might or might not be.

Also, since "conservativism" has been brought up, I should mention that all the Founders would have 100% rejected the idea that they were "conservative". A "conservative" in their era was a monarchist, wanted a state-established church, insisted upon hereditary transmission of political power, wished for elected legislatures to have no more than an advisory capacity, and wanted the judiciary to be completely dependent upon the executive (monarch). Actually, replace "monarchist" with a GW Bush style "unitary executive", and such a very anti-Founder conservative would have a very happy home within the current-day Republican party.
 

Michael Hatley

Premium Member
Sure, republics can and do include aristocracies. My point about congress is it is an easy and pretty clear way to see the different philosophies, which are far from diametrically opposed, existing laterally. Of course if you must be literal, it is a poor example. But in practice, in the modern era, it rather is. The House is far more populist than the Senate.

Representative government is what is behind a Republic. Direct elections and so forth behind democracy.

A person can assign all sorts of phrases and terms both pejorative and praising to either or both, but at its core, thats what they are.

Your last paragraph is confusing. None of the founders favored monarchism, by definition. I am sure you understand that Adams and Jefferson had very different views. The big fight was over federalism.

I don't know what to say to the implication that modern day Republicans are monarchists, other than this is the sort of reason I avoid politics.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Sure, republics can and do include aristocracies. My point about congress is it is an easy and pretty clear way to see the different philosophies, which are far from diametrically opposed, existing laterally. Of course if you must be literal, it is a poor example. But in practice, in the modern era, it rather is. The House is far more populist than the Senate.

Representative government is what is behind a Republic. Direct elections and so forth behind democracy.

A person can assign all sorts of phrases and terms both pejorative and praising to either or both, but at its core, thats what they are.

Your last paragraph is confusing. None of the founders favored monarchism, by definition. I am sure you understand that Adams and Jefferson had very different views. The big fight was over federalism.

I don't know what to say to the implication that modern day Republicans are monarchists, other than this is the sort of reason I avoid politics.

I agree with you but what you did not say to our brother BrianMaloney is that if you listen to the media and not do your own research you will think the Republicans are monarchists. When in fact you look at the policies of the demecrats you will see the US bing pushed back to that by the Dems. policies. You can really see this in the exective orders being isued now VS with Republican presidents.

The way I see it if you are for freedom and personal rights (responcibalitys go along with that) you will see that the Ta party wing of the republicans are right. Yes Karl Rove is one of the bad guys just as much as Oboma.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
I agree with you but what you did not say to our brother BrianMaloney is that if you listen to the media and not do your own research you will think the Republicans are monarchists.

I do my own research, and many a Republican, including quite a few of my personal acquaintance, is just a closeted monarchist, aching for a "strong leader" to "enforce morality" upon the USA. I've spoken to Republicans who were of the opinion that foreign-born people, even if they were in the country legally and had become citizens, ought not be permitted to own businesses within the USA. Likewise, I have lost track of those Republicans of my acquaintance who would be very happy for all the Blue Laws to be re-enacted, and a few would even cheer for a return to Prohibition, introduction of legislation banning long hair for men, and essentially imposing neo-Leviticanism upon us all. That's my direct research truth, based on personal interaction.

Those of us associated with the Republican Liberty Caucus have no illusions about the party as a whole. It gleefully courts theocrats, "strong man" worshippers, and all manner of big government supporters, so long as those people will not vote Democrat. Remember, it was a Republican president (GW Bush) who gave us the Patriot Act, NOT a Democrat president. It is no surprise that the Democrat didn't try to repeal it, of course.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
Your last paragraph is confusing. None of the founders favored monarchism, by definition. I am sure you understand that Adams and Jefferson had very different views. The big fight was over federalism.

I stated that many modern-day "conservatives" would be 100% opposed to the Founders, since the Founders were 100% opposed to the conservativism of their day, which was monarchism. These modern-day conservatives are nothing but closeted monarchists, who worship at the feet of "Great Leaders". These are the ones who cheered for the Patriot Act, who claimed that GW Bush had an inherent right to ignore any part of any law he didn't like (cf "signing statements"), who supported the Bush doctrine of a "Unitary Executive", who would be happy to have a state-imposed church (appropriately Evangelical, of course).

At no time did I state that Republicans are closeted monarchists. What I stated is that a closeted monarchist would find a happy home within the current Republican party. Groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus fight such people tooth and nail, but the RLC isn't running the party, these days.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
you will see that the Ta party wing of the republicans are right. Yes Karl Rove is one of the bad guys just as much as Oboma.

Tea party? You mean, like Sharron Angle, who stated that Sharia law has taken hold of Frankford, TX? I used to support the Tea Party movement, when it was about taxation and government excess, but it has been taken over by jingoists and theocrats who harp on issues that have nothing to do with taxation and government excess.
 

Michael Neumann

Premium Member
Has anyone read The Mystery Of The Aleph: Mathematics, the Kabbalah, and the Search for Infinity?

Great read, mathematics centered but it brings up a mathematician that was friends with Einstein, Cantor. He worked out a method of bringing the US into a Dictatorship while making it seem as though the government was abiding by the Constitution through requesting a series of concessions in the name of security. I bring it up because it appears our government has read this book as well...
 
Last edited:
Top