Slashdot Mirror


Utah To Teach USA is a Republic, Not a Democracy

0ryan0 writes "Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it." The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!

1,277 comments

  1. Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

    P.S. Registered Democrat speaking here.

    1. Re:Technically... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, they're not right. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic. As in we have a representative government, but we vote for the representatives. A nation as large as the US does not function with direct democracy. There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.

    2. Re:Technically... by wilgibson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The U.S.A. is a Federal Republic.

    3. Re:Technically... by nharmon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, we are not a representative democracy. In a representative democracy majority rules all at all times. We do not have that by virtue of our constitution, making us a constitutional republic.

    4. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And names have nothing to do with it, anyway.

      Sir Richard Wharton: Its full name is "The Peoples' Democratic Republic of East Yemen."

      Sir Humphrey: Ah, I see, so it's a communist dictatorship.

      From Yes, Minister episode A Victory for Democracy.

    5. Re:Technically... by chrb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are they also going to teach about those other great republics .. the People's Republic of China (PRC), Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the German Democratic Republic (DDR), and the Islamic Republic?

      Or are they only going to teach kids that USA==republic, and forget the inconvenient republics?

    6. Re:Technically... by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1, Informative

      A representative democracy with constitutional limitations to protect the individual is the very DEFINITION of a republic. Do some reading.

    7. Re:Technically... by lseltzer · · Score: 1

      Dude is basically right. The definition of a republic is one where governmental power is exercised by representatives elected by the public. There was a time when a "democracy" was a government where power was exercised directly by the people, but "representative democracies" such as our own are fairly called democracies now. I would still prefer the word "republic" for the USA because it's such a hybrid of the republican model. There are 2 models of representation in Congress, the president is - technically - elected by a body of electors voted for by the people of the states, and the courts are independent, but chosen by the other 2 branches, Most states have models based on the national model.

    8. Re:Technically... by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      I think the real question is whether the nominally democratic government is really democratic. For instance, can every vote who is meant to be able to? Are voters educated enough to make their own decisions? Is there a degree of protection for minorities? Etc, etc.

      Popcorn time.

    9. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nation as large as the US does not function with direct democracy.

      Must be why the US forces actual democracy down the throats of other countries, such as the USSR when it finally backed down. Certainly had the desired outcome of tearing the country apart further than necessary.

    10. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you're all wrong. We have a corporate run government with the illusion of an elected republic.I mean really? When was the last time the Government followed the people's wishes? Really.

      Follow the money.It goes from our pockets to .... let's see .... hmmm.. maybe Wall Street?

    11. Re:Technically... by jittles · · Score: 1

      The majority does NOT rule all of the time. Look at the electoral college. There have been presidential elections that were not won by popular vote. I believe George W. was one of those cases, but I can't recall and am too lazy to google it for you.

    12. Re:Technically... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 0

      Herp a derp, while you live in your republic, we got some republics for your republic so you can be all republican and republic. Go away, communism hasn't achieved much so it's not that big a threat, dickhole.

    13. Re:Technically... by cgenman · · Score: 2

      From the article, it seems like the main thrust was a socialism witch hunt. Of course, what they don't tell you is that most oppressive socialist regimes in the past 100 years, and indeed most of the oppressive governments in general, were elected democratically. WW2 Germany, Russia, China has elections...

      Boy it's reassuring that our elected officials are setting the rules on what our elected officials are to be called.

    14. Re:Technically... by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 3, Funny

      Forgive him, he only has 64KB of RAM

    15. Re:Technically... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Economist had an article, 10+ years ago, about countries' names. They wrote, "People's Republics . . . usually aren't."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    16. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The People's Republic of China is a republic, and I don't think it would meet your definition of "[a] representative democracy with constitutional limitations to protect the individual." Republic, broadly, is simply opposed to monarchy; the United Kingdom is not a republic (although Cromwell's Commonwealth was a brief interlude), but since Parliament is supreme, they function de facto as a representative democracy these days. If you get back to the etymologies of republic and democracy, they mean more or less the same thing but with one from Latin and the other from Greek.

    17. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we are a bureaucratic disaster. Also known as a federal presidential constitutional republic

    18. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

      P.S. Registered Democrat speaking here.

      Yeah, right... An Anonymous Coward claiming to be a registered democrat and is in agreement with the republican crazies.

    19. Re:Technically... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Technically they're wrong. Republic means that the title of head honcho isn't hereditary, but determined by other means (e.g. fist fight, elections, drawing lots, etc). Democracy means that people get to vote on stuff. Depending on what stuff is, democracy can be direct (people vote on bills) or indirect (people vote for representatives, which then vote on bills).

    20. Re:Technically... by ynp7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong again, Bob. From the fucking dictionary: 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. 4. ( initial capital letter ) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic. 5. ( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

    21. Re:Technically... by nharmon · · Score: 2

      The electoral college is a good example of our government not being a representative democracy. Thank you.

    22. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. is a democracy on paper only. Seriously. A system where only rich and powerful people have a real chance to get into powerful positions is called oligarchy

    23. Re:Technically... by KarrdeSW · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, we really are just a democracy. Where and when the unmodified term "democracy" got morphed into being interpreted as "direct referendum on practically everything" is unknown to me, but it never was a definition that any state in history actually ever met, even the ancient greeks who it supposedly came from. A democracy is just a broad category meaning a state that conducts free and fair elections for public office and guarantees certain rights to association, speech, etc in its social contract. Actually, in Political science research you normally get the label "democracy" just for having free elections. "Republic" is almost the same word except that the people who 'represent' the governed don't have to be (but usually are) directly chosen in an election.

    24. Re:Technically... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY in its purest form.

      The only one to exist was in Athens, before the unification of ancient Greece. Nothing got done as representatives rotated like fresh air on a breezy day. It ultimately failed miserably giving birth to Ostraciz-ation of its member that grew too powerful (even if for the greater good, let a lone the greater bad) - which, BTW, we don enact in our Federal Republic - a crying shame as most of these boneheads in congress would have been "let go" after their first terms - and as an ESSENTIAL aspect of pure democracies... we have nothing resembling it pragmatically here in the good 'ole USA.

      Lobbying alone takes away our "power of voice".

      Want to help America? Speak up agains the oppression that truly muffles your voice and return it to a somewhat democratic-oriented process, as our founding fathers wanted it. Cull corporate interests, lobbying, and ANYTHING that can not sensibly be deemed by a moniker "citizen" (as a human being); everything else needs to be culled from the process. Our founding father loved us, our current governance hates us.

    25. Re:Technically... by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      The USA is a Union of States in the north American continent.

    26. Re:Technically... by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Democracy is political system, while republic is a form of government. USA, and as most democratic countries countries, is a republic.
      UK, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden on the other hand are constitutional monarchies.
      All of the above have democratically elected representatives in control of the government.

    27. Re:Technically... by LordSkippy · · Score: 1

      I thought we were autonomous collective.

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    28. Re:Technically... by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      How about People's Republic of America?

    29. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP is "more right" than the prevailing view in this country of the US as a democracy. I do not want to live in a democracy. Most people are too fucking stupid to have a say in how their own life is run, much less mine.

    30. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous, of course we're a representative democracy. How the representation is done is spelled out in the constitution. What does that have to do with majority rules?

    31. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is completely incorrect. My individual vote does not directly count due to the mechanisms of the Federal level, therefore, it's not a Democracy. There can be cases made that we are a Constitutional Republic, or a variant of a centralized Republic, but not a Democracy or even a Democratic Republic.

    32. Re:Technically... by Smurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

      I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):

      democracy |dimäkrs|
      noun ( pl. -cies)
      a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)

      Or Merriam-Webster:

      democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
      plural democracies
      Definition of DEMOCRACY
      1
      a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
      b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)

      Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:

      democracy
      [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
      –noun, plural -cies.
      1.
      government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)

      (Sorry for cross-posting this, but this nonsense has to stop).

    33. Re:Technically... by jittles · · Score: 1

      My pleasure. :) Always nice to see a friendly response on /.

    34. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought we were an autonomous collective.

    35. Re:Technically... by khallow · · Score: 1

      "Republic" is almost the same word except that the people who 'represent' the governed don't have to be (but usually are) directly chosen in an election.

      A republic can also just mean a government without a monarchy. There are a few republics which are of this sense (for example, China, North Korea, Kazakhstan, and Iran).

    36. Re:Technically... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where and when the unmodified term "democracy" got morphed into being interpreted as "direct referendum on practically everything" is unknown to me

      Unknown because the "morphing" never occurred. That is the original meaning of the word.

    37. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're not right. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic. As in we have a representative government, but we vote for the representatives. A nation as large as the US does not function with direct democracy. There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.

      What countries?

      The only country where their "guides" (the regime of Muammar Gaddafi) claim a direct democracy is Libya. Switzerland and parts of Germany are direct democracies on a very local level, but not on state level. The councils in some small African countries that you may think of, is assemblies of local chiefs, they are not even democracies. If you mean that some countries use direct democracy more often and readily then USA, then it is mostly smaller countries then USA (e.g. if someone get enough signatures on a petition, he/she can demand for a state level plebiscite, that is the case of most of Northern Europe), but I wouldn't call France or Brazil small countries (or China, they hold a lot of referendums, the question is if they are even remotely democratic).

      By the way, the theocratic government of Iran was elected by a a democratic referendum in 1979.

    38. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically that is correct. However, I find it interesting that republicans, nationwide, seem to be passing legislation that has everything to do with not dealing with the economy in any way...

    39. Re:Technically... by aiht · · Score: 1

      How about People's Republic of America?

      Pronounced "pray"?

    40. Re:Technically... by King+InuYasha · · Score: 5, Funny

      We are a Constitutional Federal Democratic Socialist Republic, technically. We have a Constitution, we use a Federal system of governance, we use democracy for elections, socialism for helping old or needy people, and we are a country of the people. So, technically, we are a Constitutional Federal Democratic Socialist Republic.

    41. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. The article that CmdrTaco claims 0ryan0 cited and linked to has nothing like the reasoning 0ryan0 suggested.

      So I agree with both the reasons ("...in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.") and the overall outcome (requiring state schools teach the truth about the state).

      I also put 0ryan0 on the list of 'noise maker' (not 'news reporter'). I guess CmdrTaco is headed there too.

    42. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dictionary.com (emphasis mine):

      democracy /dmkrsi/ Show Spelled[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
      –noun, plural -cies.
      1.
      government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them OR BY THEIR ELECTED AGENTS UNDER A FREE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

      More precisely, we are a representative democracy or a democratic republic (hey - both major parties should be happy with that) as opposed to a direct democracy. Just leaving it as republic is technically correct - but its a bit disconcerting to lose the part that that separates us from China or the old USSR, both republics.

      PS. 99% of the time I see the argument that "we aren't a democracy" its a semantic distraction from a lost argument. Thanks for making a comment that is in the other 1%.

    43. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on....."

      I assume what you are getting at is that we (the citizens) don't have the time to property research & vet proposed laws. Problem is even though they have the time our elected representatives don't for the most part do that either, I think there was an article a while back point to some survey of politicians that showed they tend to let the lobbyists and their office aids "summarize" the bills for them.

    44. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, Utah is an awful lot closer to a THEOCRACY (of, for, and by the Mormon Church) than anything else...

    45. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also not pointed out that mormonism is its own kind of socialism and Utah is 70% mormon.

    46. Re:Technically... by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong again, Bob.

      From the fucking dictionary:
      1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

      ? This is what I just said. Right up there. I'll quote it for you:

      A representative democracy with constitutional limitations to protect the individual is the very DEFINITION of a republic. Do some reading.

    47. Re:Technically... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually this is a prime example of just how bad and biased Slashdot summaries could be.
      If you read the article you will find nothing about the Democrate in it!
      In fact here is the entire articale because it is so short.

      " A bill that would ensure Utah students learn the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic — not a democracy — has passed both Houses of the Legislature and is now headed to the governor for his signature.
            HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday.
            And on Tuesday, the House agreed to wording changes made in the Senate.
            The bill passed after weeks of debate over the differences between democracies and republics and whether socialism is a form of government or a philosophy.
            Opponents of the bill argued that the concepts within it are already being taught and that the Legislature shouldn’t get involved in curriculum matters.
            But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.
            “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said"

      So you have the floor sponsor feeling that some places are promoting socialism and doesn't like it. But this isn't a Democrate vs Republican issue.

      Now let me start my rant!
      1. The summary says things that the article does just to inflame!
      2. I have Politics blocked on my front page so WHY THE HECK IS THIS ON MY FRONT PAGE!
      3. As a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints "A Mormon" I find Cmdr Tacos little tag line as offensive and bigoted as I would if he had put "Harder than getting money out of Jew department".
      Really Slashdot is getting to be as bad as Wired is.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    48. Re:Technically... by Stormthirst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America can't be a socialist state - you don't help the needy at all! Otherwise you'd have a universal/socialised health care system - something every other civilised nation in the world has.

    49. Re:Technically... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Technically, you are not running an OS, you are running Microsoft Windows 7.

      Trolling isn't fun on internet, but trolling by passing laws the worst...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    50. Re:Technically... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      The other examples are John Quincy Adams (vs. Andrew Jackson 1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (vs. Samuel J. Tilden 1876), and Benjamin Harrison (vs. Grover Cleveland 1888), and of course George W. Bush (vs. Al Gore 2000)

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    51. Re:Technically... by Canazza · · Score: 1

      and most of that's covered in marmite.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    52. Re:Technically... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      No, they're not right. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic. As in we have a representative government, but we vote for the representatives. A nation as large as the US does not function with direct democracy. Theres just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.

      You're right in that the US couldn't function with direct democracy, i.e. the Athenian model. But that still doesn't make us a democracy. A democratic republic is still a republic. It's representatives are simply elected by democratic means, but still can vote against the will of the people (and frequently do). A democracy... a real democracy... uses vote by eligible citizens for legislation. The founding fathers didn't trust that model at all. They thought that while government should be ultimately accountable to citizens, it had to have a bit of distance from them.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    53. Re:Technically... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      I thought we were an autonomous collective...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    54. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want to help America? Speak up agains the oppression that truly muffles your voice and return it to a somewhat democratic-oriented process, as our founding fathers wanted it.

      Let's hope the vision of your fathers will one day return.

      Cull corporate interests, lobbying, and ANYTHING that can not sensibly be deemed by a moniker "citizen" (as a human being); everything else needs to be culled from the process. Our founding father loved us, our current governance hates us.

      The founding fathers believed, most of all, in the human ability to organize itself/themselves. They did acknowledge however, that some matters (mostly international relations) inherently need to be decided on a higher level, which is why the constitution does not enumerate the citizen's rights, but the government's.

      Want to speak up? Then make sure that your local government (federal, regional or even municipal) claims back what is his: sovereignty. Educate your fellow men about the rights that they are entitled to. It's sad, but I expect you'll fail. Most people don't want sovereignty, because with it comes the burden of choice. When people (perceive they) lack the knowledge/skills to be in control of their own life, they want to be herded. Blame their education.

    55. Re:Technically... by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      We don't help them as much but there is still a basis for being called socialist, just not as much as the raving idiots like Glenn Beck would have you believe. There is still quite a bit of help for the poor. It's the middle class and lower middle class who get fucked here.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    56. Re:Technically... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So, according to you no parliamentary system is a democracy?

      A representative democracy is one where the representatives are elected. In your case those are the senators, representatives and electoral college members.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    57. Re:Technically... by OshMan · · Score: 1

      Democratic republic is what I was taught.

    58. Re:Technically... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      "Democracy", with no modifiers, means pure democracy. We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic in which the representatives are elected by the people. They are quite right to teach that the country is a republic, not a democracy. The fact that we have a democratic form of government does not mean we are a democracy.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    59. Re:Technically... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      A representative democracy with constitutional limitations to protect the individual is the very DEFINITION of a republic. Do some reading.

      Uh, no. I would suggest that you do some reading, because history is filled with republics that were neither representative nor democratic. There are quite a few of them around today. A republic is simply a non-royal sovereign government. The Soviet Union was, after all, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    60. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a representative democracy majority rules all at all times. We do not have that by virtue of our constitution, making us a constitutional republic.

      You seemed to have missed the part where the democratically elected representatives can propose and vote on changes to the constitution.

      Definitely not a simple mob rules pure democracy but the fact is our constitution can and does change through our democratic process.

      Anyone who claims the United States is a pure democracy is a dweeb, anyone who wants to drop democracy from the constitutional republic government of the United States is also a dweeb. At the moment it is the "The U.S. is a Republic" retards who have their political heads stuff up their political asses.

      I suspect the purpose of this dimwitted rhetoric is to slowly convince the brainwashed masses to accept a slow progression back over 200 years to the original debates over the proposed voting rights requirements and property ownership with the objective of establishing a form of corporate feudalism where people like the Koch brothers have the ultimate vote because they own everything.

    61. Re:Technically... by Darnitol · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh good grief... does *anyone* remember what they were taught in government in junior high? The Electoral College exists because the President is very specifically NOT elected by the populace. The populace elect our state leaders as well as our Senators and Representatives to the federal government. But the United States is a union of independent states. It is the state governments, NOT the people, who elect the President. The Electoral College is merely the group of people, selected by each state, who cast the state's vote in the Presidential election. Yes, sometimes the elected President did not get the majority of the popular vote. The Electors are not bound by law (in all states) to cast their vote according to popular vote. This is one of the checks and balances, designed by the founders of the nation, that prevents popular will from overcoming individual freedom. We're all taught this in school. Then we get to our first Presidential election and, since it's easier to vote for a man than to look at our ACTUAL Representatives and Senators voting records and cast our votes accordingly, most Americans throw what they were taught out the window and act like we're voting for a monarch. Then we bitch that our leaders aren't responding to our desires... when we didn't even bother to cast intelligent votes for the people whose offices we actually affect.

    62. Re:Technically... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Fight Club was a great movie

    63. Re:Technically... by fredjh · · Score: 1

      We don't help the needy at all? WTF have they been saying about us where you live?

      The USA is the largest donor of Foreign aid, and despite what you might read, income redistribution is alive and well. We may not have "universal" healthcare, but there are plenty of other healthcare services (like medicare and medicaid), food programs, housing programs, "earned income" tax credit (that's where you don't pay any taxes but get a refund anyway)... I don't know what people outside the U.S. have been taught, but it's hardly the hellhole you've been lead to believe.

      In fact, if we have a problem, it's that we have TOO many diverse services doing the same things; dozens of food and housing programs run by the federal government... and, oh yeah, that's just the FEDERAL government.

      --
      Stupid, sexy Flanders.
    64. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, just like how the "Democrats" ram legislation that goes against the will of the people? They're hardly democratic.

    65. Re:Technically... by CreepingDeath_3e · · Score: 1

      You mean bankrupt civilized nation

    66. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you could also have democracy in a constitutional monarchy, so the word "republic" just says that there's an elected head of state instead of a hereditary one. Not every republic is a democracy, though, as evidenced by the People's Republic of {N. Korea, China, most eastern European countries before 1991, ...}, where elections WERE/ARE held, just not very democratic ones

    67. Re:Technically... by cuncator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes- Oh, sorry, there I go, bringing class into it again.
      (ob. Monty Python for the day)

    68. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WW2 Germany didn't have elections. Russia didn't have elections. The German Democratic Republic didn't have elections. I'm pretty sure China doesn't have elections either.
      A sham where you get to chose between "I agree with the only party there is" and "I disagree with the only party there is" while an official of said party watches wouldn't count as an election even if the election result actually had any consequences (which it didn't) or wasn't completely made up anyway (which it was).
      The regimes you list were established in wars and coups, and I'd be really surprised if they ever had any elections, that weren't a complete sham during the entire course of their existence.
      Even Hitler didn't get much more than 30% when he was "voted in", and didn't allow even a single election after that.

    69. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the people at Wikipedia would certainly recognize fascism...

    70. Re:Technically... by kill+-9+$$ · · Score: 1

      You've got it all wrong.

      We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more.

      Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

      --

      -- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
    71. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they are right but I would have preferred "Oligarchy" ;)

    72. Re:Technically... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.

      Yeah, you're right. Better let Bush, Bernanke and the corporate lobbies decide ;)

    73. Re:Technically... by doug · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are right. We are a republic that happens to use democracy to select our leaders. In a true democracy, it is pure majority rule. We have lots of restrictions that prevent the majority from enforcing its will over minorities. The whole separation of church and state, the Equal Rights Act, and many others all ensure that the majority cannot do anything and everything that it wishes. We are a republic first and and democracy second.

      The distinction you are making between a representative democracy and a direct democracy is valid. But even our representatives have restrictions, so the rule of law (our constitution) trumps any vote. I don't know of any nation that is a true democracy, everyone seems to have gone down the republic path.

      And remember that democracy cannot be used to change every bit of our constitution. For example, there is no mechanism to leave the United States of America. Just ask the Confederate States of America.

      - doug

    74. Re:Technically... by LiquidLink57 · · Score: 1

      You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.

    75. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot USA/Barack Obama on that list.

    76. Re:Technically... by tunapez · · Score: 2

      People's Republics . . . usually aren't.

      Well, that settles it then. The United People's Republic of America, LLC it is!

      --
      Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
    77. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if they *say* republic, they really must be one.

      I want to start a government aligned entirely under my own rule and that of my heirs in perpetuity. I know! I'll call it a republic and that will make it one.

    78. Re:Technically... by H0p313ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup, just like how the "Democrats" ram legislation that goes against the will of the people? They're hardly democratic.

      Going against the will of the Republicans you mean? ... Silly rabbit.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    79. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not making it sufficiently clear, but WW2 Germany was socialist only in name, Russia and china weren't really socialist either.

    80. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Plato's "The Republic" democracy is considered a failed form of government, due to it's tendency to morph into mob rule. That's why the US is a constitutional republic. This is really sort of splitting hairs, as when people say democracy in the US they don't generally mean "majority rules all the time without oversight". Nonetheless there is nothing wrong with clarifying the term in their state run education system.

    81. Re:Technically... by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      In modern, common usage, "Democracy" and "Republic" are close to interchangeable.

      In archaic (late 18th Century) usage, a "Republic" meant that the people appoint individuals to represent them. "Democracy" was rule-by-mob, and very nearly a curse word.

      I support this move by Utah, though I don't think it's that huge a deal. I doubt seriously it had *anything* to do with the names of political parties.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    82. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly isn't the meaning of the word that has been in use since before anyone involved in this debate was born. Since before anyone who could have taught those involved the meaning of the word was born, for that matter.

    83. Re:Technically... by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      You're correct - this is the modern usage of the word. It has not always been the case, though, and thus the confusion.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    84. Re:Technically... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You're almost right. We have a fractionalized, group based political hegemony of strange bedfellows pretending to be a democratic republic.

      If you want to fix the problem, stop voting for the two party system.

      Additionally, we need more representatives in congress, and I like the idea that I recently read. Take the state with the smallest population, and that state's population becomes the standard size of a US Rep district for the country. In this case it would be Wyoming at 565K people. The Total number of US Representatives would currently be 563. California for example would get 66 of those representatives because it is 66 times more populous. This is an increase of about 25%. (roughly).

      I'd also make it so that if you are running for office, all your campaign donations came from people inside your district (or state). No outside funding of campaigns. I'd also require only individuals are allowed to fund campaigns and remove restrictions on campaign donations. No corporate, PAC or union donations allowed. Those groups, however, can run their own, independent campaigns for whatever (free speech), but they cannot contribute directly nor coordinate with candidate campaigns.

      Lawyers would be barred from running for political office, except for positions where a law degree is required or preferred (i.e.District Attorney), under the idea that as lawyers they already serve under the judicial branch (officer of the court).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    85. Re:Technically... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Republic is to Democracy what Latin is to Greek. (Not exactly I admit, but it's pretty close.)

      Usage of the words democracy and republic has certainly changed over the centuries. The US doesn't (at least officially) give more votes to rich people than to poor (a central feature of the roman republic) and it doesn't elect plebeian tribunes either. They are definitely not a republic in a strictly Roman sense. They are however a country whose founders were classically educated and drew on Roman traditions and terminology when drafting the constitution.

      Today - anywhere in the world outside the US - the US would be described as a representative democracy. The same applies to any established dictionaries in use in the US.

      What's the point of obscuring modern use and going back to terminology last used hundreds of years ago? I think it's a political motivation, suggesting that the Republican party is the natural ruling party of the country.

    86. Re:Technically... by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      More like a collective with monarchy. But the queen wastes a lot of time trying to seduce androids and the like.

    87. Re:Technically... by chrb · · Score: 1

      I want to start a government aligned entirely under my own rule and that of my heirs in perpetuity. I know! I'll call it a republic and that will make it one.

      The passing of power from an emperor to his son is not incompatible with being a republic - see for example the Roman Republic.

    88. Re:Technically... by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Technically, the US is neither a true democracy or a true republic. We have taken ideas from both, and modified them into, well, something, that kinda sorta works.

    89. Re:Technically... by cinderellamanson · · Score: 0

      Your state is filled with morons. The best example I can think of pure democracy is piracy, yep, pirates used to use elections and votes for everything. A pure republic is an equally absurd notion, the Brethren of the Coast is probably best thought of as a republic made of various pirate captains who were democratically elected by their crew. So, there it is, we use a pirate government.

      --
      Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
    90. Re:Technically... by cford · · Score: 1

      Yeah, -- democratic republic is what I was taught.

    91. Re:Technically... by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      So right you are.
      I can not think of a single high up Politician, General, CEO, or University Professor that has come from the underclass.

      We need to get up and fix this now!

      Another Fucking Idiot AC.

      *Sigh*

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    92. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When and where is easy: Athens and ancient Greeks. Read a book. Unmodified democracy is an assembly of every voter to debate and discuss the issues at hand. We elect representatives on our behalf to have this debate and vote.

    93. Re:Technically... by mbone · · Score: 2

      In a representative democracy majority rules all at all times.

      Yes, a majority of the representatives which is, uh, what we have here (with checks and balances, etc.)

    94. Re:Technically... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Not really, you vote for electors, then the electors vote for president. The fact that upstream the people you vote for might not collectively vote for someone who in 100% of the time would have won if there had been a direct election doesn't mean the whole system is automatically not a representative democracy.

    95. Re:Technically... by mbone · · Score: 1

      But the United States is a union of independent states.

      Not since 1865 (well, arguably not since the beginning, but it became clear in 1865).

    96. Re:Technically... by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    97. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

      If we're talking about the present tense, then based on founding documents we claim to be a republic, but one could argue that our government behaves more like a corporatocracy or fascist state.

    98. Re:Technically... by chaboud · · Score: 1

      There's a tiny little democratic cherry on top. If you want to be pedantic, a real democracy, or even a democratic republic, is a complete and utter fiction.

      Let's just say that, on the "democratic" continuum, we're somewhere on the democratic side of, say, Libya.

      We're like the skinniest fat man. Not great, but it's a start.

    99. Re:Technically... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > and indeed most of the oppressive governments in general, were elected democratically.

      Yup, One Man, One Vote, One Time. And you are making our point without apparently realizing it. Those oppressive governments were DEMOCRATICALLY elected. Democracy was the problem, the notion that one straight majority vote by a people in dire circumstances could grant Hitler/Lenin/etc the power to totally remake their government. Again, if you believe in DEMOCRACY, what those tyrants did was perfectly legit. Would you like to like in a society like that? Or would you rather live in one where a major change requires a supermajority who are so dead set on making a change that they will jump through the roadblocks set in the way?

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    100. Re:Technically... by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Score++

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    101. Re:Technically... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      "Democracy", with no modifiers, means pure democracy.

      No, that's wrong. Democracy with no modifiers means any type of democracy. When people say "Democracy" they almost universally mean representative democracy.

    102. Re:Technically... by chaboud · · Score: 1

      Though I agree that our democratic wishes are viewed through a very strange lens, the "popular vote" argument has always gotten to me.

      Simply put:

      The popular vote is *meaningless* because people vary whether or not they vote based on their established view of whether or not their vote will count.

      You can't compare popular votes because plenty of people in California, Texas, Illinois, New York, and other strongly swayed (and heavily populated) states have voters that recognize that, with the tide or against it, their vote is meaningless in the outcome of the Presidential election.

      Now, was the electoral college a meaningful and useful construct back when it was conceived? Sure. Will we ever be able to break free of the grip that it holds over our national elections? Given the amendment requirement of state approval, probably not...

    103. Re:Technically... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Exactly. We are a republic, not a democracy. It's high time that people realize that the purpose of the state is to ensure positive liberty, not negative liberty. Think positive!

    104. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democratic Republic of Congo... isn't. At all. Not even in the Congo.

    105. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and to the republic for which it stands...

    106. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US is NOT a democracy, it's a Representative Republic.

    107. Re:Technically... by StephenBrannen · · Score: 1

      But a majority doesn't always rule here. The President can veto any and all legislation and then it takes a supermajority to override. By virtue of our having a chief executive who is not part of the legislature nor elected by a majority of the People we are a republic and not a representative democracy.

    108. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just gets funnier & funnier...Utah legislature is 90% mormon...ok, Latter Day Saints...so the government of Utah is effectively very similar to the government of Iran! Hmmmm...has anyone checked to see if there have been any large purchases of centrifuges being sent to Utah...:-)

    109. Re:Technically... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Just because people say it doesn't mean it's correct. Lots of people say "I could care less", but they're still speaking the language wrong.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    110. Re:Technically... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Define "Representative".

    111. Re:Technically... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > No, they're not right. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic.

      Originally, we were a Republic. The word democracy or democratic doesnt even appear in the [US] Constitution.

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

      Section. 4.
      "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

    112. Re:Technically... by CannonballHead · · Score: 2

      "... and to the republic for which it stands ..."

      The pledge is from 1892 I believe. Republic. Not Democracy, even back then.

    113. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they also going to teach about those other great republics .. the People's Republic of China (PRC), Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the German Democratic Republic (DDR), and the Islamic Republic?

      Or are they only going to teach kids that USA==republic, and forget the inconvenient republics?

      You'd have the same problem if you teach USA==democracy, since there are plenty of states (including most of the above) that have pretend democracies where the local autocrat gets 90+% of the vote.

    114. Re:Technically... by StephenBrannen · · Score: 1

      Actually parliamentary systems are much more democratic than the US system. Yes many parliaments still require a threshold of votes, but parties get their fair share of the government pie. Ex 1. If 15% of the citizens in England vote for Party X, Party X will make up 15% of Parliament. Ex 1. If 15% of US citizens vote for Party Y, Party Y makes up 0% of the Legislature. The US is a Republic. Don't get me started on US States, counties, municipalities, cities, etc though.

    115. Re:Technically... by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      I have not now and have never lived in Utah. It is not my state.
      And no it isn't filled with morons. I know a lot of highly educated people that live there and not everbody is a member of the church.
      But thanks for the flat out bigoted reply.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    116. Re:Technically... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      parties get their fair share of the government pie.

      Wrong. Parliament != government.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    117. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A democracy is just a broad category meaning a state that conducts free and fair elections for public office and guarantees certain rights to association, speech, etc in its social contract.

      A democracy also ensures tyranny of the majority.

    118. Re:Technically... by scaryjohn · · Score: 2

      "Republic" is almost the same word except that the people who 'represent' the governed don't have to be (but usually are) directly chosen in an election.

      See, the good folks in Utah are just getting their kids ready for the day when the only election is the Forbes 400 picking a Doge with near-dictatorial power. We'll still be a Republic(tm)! And the Medicis will finally get to cash in with a reality show.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    119. Re:Technically... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Bingo. The votes for President are just requests by the people for the Electoral College to vote the way the people want. I'm sure some states have put into law that their Electoral College votes must be cast to to match the public will, but that would be a state by state issue. Governments also have millions of laws that make pinning them down 100% into a few categories very difficult, so to describe them we have to pick the closest match. Many of the descriptions used for governments overlap, so the closest match can often be fuzzy. As far as categorization goes, Republic is the closest single word match. Constitutional Republic is the closest match.

      Utah is making the right decision, although possibly for the wrong reasons.

    120. Re:Technically... by StephenBrannen · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in 1992.

    121. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically they are right if they are assuming a stupidly narrow definition of democracy. The embedded assumption that being a democracy and being a republic are mutually exclusive is idiotic.

      And the bigger question is really... what the hell is the point are they making? If you are going to make a pithy remark, it should at least have some sort of message. Who cares whether or not the system fits into some arbritrarily defined narrow category? What does that prove? Who cares?

      Every time I hear someone parrot the statement, proud as punch of their own cleverness and informedness, I lose any respect I have for them intellectually. It is just a mind-numbingly stupid thing to say.

    122. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no as a form of government we are not a representative democracy. We are a representative democracy as a political system. There is a difference. A republic is a form of government in which the authority of all power is derived from law. In a democracy, the authority of all powers would derive from votes. Since the elected officials are still restricted by laws (at least that's how the government is set up to work, ragardless of whether that set up holds or not), the law is supreme to the votes. So in that sense we are a republic. And since all laws derive their authority from the founding law , The Constitution, we are a constitutional republic.

    123. Re:Technically... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1, Troll

      The ignorance displayed in this story is astounding. One, you're arguing that the morphing has not occurred, when immediately afterwards, you argue that there was an original meaning (which requires a later meaning). Two, no one but historians and paleolinguists care what the meaning of a word 3000 years ago was. The discussion is what a democracy means right now, and any fucking dictionary will tell you that. Have you opened one recently?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    124. Re:Technically... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      the notion that one straight majority vote by a people in dire circumstances could grant Hitler/Lenin/etc the power to totally remake their government

      For starters, Weimar republic had a constitution - they certainly didn't have the idea that majority vote can override it. It just had that vague provision in it that was, ultimately, used to circumvent it; and even then many argue that what was done then was unconstitutional. So don't place too much trust in merely having the constitution - it does not protect you if it can be ignored by powers-that-be when they need to do so.

      And Lenin, of course, was not elected at all. Before February 1917, the country was a monarchy. After that, it was under authoritarian rule of a self-appointed committee. Lenin came to power in October by kicking those folk out - by force of arms (though he did enjoy considerable popular support among those who had guns, which is why he could do it). And then, when the hastily convened Constituent Assembly, which was to decide on the future political system of the country, did not favor Bolsheviks - he dissolved it at gunpoint as well, and simply proclaimed a Soviet republic (soviets were "workers' and soldiers' soviets", and there Bolsheviks had the majority they needed).

    125. Re:Technically... by norminator · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh good grief... does *anyone* remember what they were taught in government in junior high? [...] Yes, sometimes the elected President did not get the majority of the popular vote. The Electors are not bound by law (in all states) to cast their vote according to popular vote. This is one of the checks and balances, designed by the founders of the nation, that prevents popular will from overcoming individual freedom. We're all taught this in school.

      Apparently you don't understand how the electoral college works any better than the people you're trying to teach, which makes you just like Glenn Beck. My 8th grade history teach taught that exact same tripe. He also constantly mispronounced words (which had pronunciation guides in the textbooks!), and corrected other people's mispronunciations with his own. If you want to understand government, you should probably go back to high school or college level classes, where things aren't simplified to the point of being wrong.

      The years where the electoral college result didn't match the popular vote had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the electors can make their own choices. The instances where an elector has voted contrary to his/her state's popular vote has never affected the result of the overall election. What has made that difference is the fact that just like Congressmen, electors are divied out to each state based on population, plus an additional two electors purely by virtue of the state being a state. This means that smaller states get a slightly proportionately larger voice per capita than larger states. And that is why the electoral college results don't always match the popular vote.

      Here's another bit of trivia you might not have known, which explains why electors normally stick with the voters in their state:

      When you vote, you're not telling a set of electors which candidate to cast their vote for, because there's not just one set of electors per state. Each party organization in each state picks a set of electors, and the popular vote decides which party's set of electors gets to cast their votes. Electors chosen in the last election by the Democrat party in a state where the popular vote went to the Democrat would have been very unlikely to vote for a Republican candidate -- they were chosen specifically by their party because they would vote for the party's candidate!

      The few instances where an elector has voted contrary to the popular vote (and contrary to their own party) in their state has been more of small symbolic act of protest, knowing that it won't change the election.

      The workings of the electoral college do very little to emphasize the role that electors play as representatives, as they represent their own party more than anything else. What the electoral college does do is emphasize the importance of the power of individual states.

    126. Re:Technically... by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      "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." - Taken from 'An Introduction to the American Legal System' written in 2006.
      The United States is not a true representative democracy, Canada is. The United States is a constitutional republic in every sense of the word.

    127. Re:Technically... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints "A Mormon" I find Cmdr Tacos little tag line as offensive and bigoted as I would if he had put "Harder than getting money out of Jew department".

      Given that LDS actually did practice polygamy for considerable amount of time - a fact - why be offended? It's an obvious tongue-in-cheek joke as well, but for a change it's one that at least has some degree of truth.

      Of course, as a Mormon, you must find a great deal of things offensive...

    128. Re:Technically... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In modern, common usage, memory and disk space, are close to interchangeable. That doesn't mean that they should be used interchangeably in a classroom setting when teaching someone about computers. In modern usage in politics textbooks, democracy and republic are entirely orthogonal terms.

      A democracy is a state which is governed by the people. It falls into two broad categories: direct democracy and representative democracy. A direct democracy is a state where issues are decided by direct polling of the citizens. A representative democracy is one where issues are decided by representatives of the people (who may be chosen by a variety of methods, but most typically by some form of election). The USA is a representative democracy.

      A republic is a state that does not have a monarch as its head of state. Republics typically have power devolved to some large subset of the people, but not necessarily.

      The UK, for example, is a democracy, but not a republic. A military junta is a republic, but not a democracy. The USA is both a republic and a democracy.

      The USA also has a codified constitution, which is the highest law of the land. In some republics, there are no limits on the government power, once it's been selected. Some states (constitutional monarchies) place a constitutional limit on the power of the government, but are not republics. This is another orthogonal aspect of the US political system, but I don't see anyone arguing that the US is a constitutional state, not a republic / democracy.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    129. Re:Technically... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No it's not a reason to be called socialist.

      We have some policy that are socialist with the most broad definition possible. They use that word to imply fascist.

      And no, there is not 'quite a bit' of help fr the pour.There is some help. No real long term help to get them out of the economic position they are in.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    130. Re:Technically... by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      Show me a single instance in the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence where the term 'democratic' in any variation is used. There isn't. However, Article IV, section 4 says that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Seems like this bill is simply trying to reflect the Constitution.

    131. Re:Technically... by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      Whoops, forgot to clarify: Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

    132. Re:Technically... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's also something that is no longer needed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    133. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, we are an oligarchy, not a republic (nor a democracy). A few key people, mostly investment bankers, make the decisions for the rest of us, under the pretense of democracy (in that case, "democracy" as opposed to "autocracy"). For about a century now we have been taught that the only alternative to autocracy is democracy (and the history of the 20th century helped a lot, what with all the crazy dictators), only because some people don't want us to realize we are in neither. This has been theorized in the 1920's by Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew, by the way) as a way to expand capitalism.

    134. Re:Technically... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      On three occasions so far, 1878, 1888, 2000 the party that won the elections was 2nd in total votes. You can't possibly call the US a representative democracy when you don't vote for your representatives, but only some "electors" who are not really obliged to vote the way they had advertised.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    135. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it would help if people actually looked up the meaning of "socialism" before posting. Don't use words you don't understand!

    136. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic. As in we have a representative government, but we vote for the representatives.

      I don't know which country you refer to, but here in the US I can't vote for my representative. I can only hope the elector I voted for is not of the "faithless" variety and will indeed vote for the representatives of my choice as he pledged.
      So, yeah, if you can vote for your representatives, you sure do have a representative democracy. Here in the US... no idea what it's called but it is something else.

    137. Re:Technically... by StephenBrannen · · Score: 1

      Gonna back that up with anything other than "Wrong."??

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
      "A parliamentary system is a system of government..."

    138. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that most technical of definitions, I don't think are any democratic countries in the entire world.

      Yes it's a republic. It's also a republic that is implemented using democracy. It's absurd to say it's "not a democracy" in any way that makes sense without some kind of distinction being drawn. You *might* be able to say it is not a "direct democracy" in that each and every political issue is not determined solely by majority vote by the people (i.e. referendum).

      And if you want to get as technical as is necessary for "not a democracy" to be true, then the Libyan Jamahiriya is a "democracy", because it ostensibly is implemented via popular committees of the people. LOL.

      That's leaving aside the silliness of legislators trying to dictate the exact details of curriculum. Specifying that students should learn about different political processes and ideas that exist in the world makes sense. Dictating the definitions of them is stupid. What next? Legislators specifying how atomic theory and gravity should be taught in physics?

    139. Re:Technically... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      But language evolves. Words mean what a lot of people mean when they say them. If that doesn't agree with the dictionary, then the dictionary needs updating. I don't look forward to the future of English, where statements like "your a looser" are standard grammar, but I'll just be one of the grouchety old folks who speak archaic English.

    140. Re:Technically... by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      Because the LDS church has not practiced it for over 100 years. It is a stereotype and meant to demean.
      Like all bigoted statements.
      And since the summary was a flat out lie that little bit of extra bigotry was just icing on the cake.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    141. Re:Technically... by Radtoo · · Score: 1

      What "smaller countries" vote on everything? Or in other words, what countries other than just Switzerland practice direct democracy regularly and systematically at the national level? I think there are none. The USA with its state-level ballot measures / ballot questions is probably the closest thing so far - at least until the EU possibly gets an practicable implementation of initiatives and referendums.

      Anyways now to correct the other bit: The notion of direct democracy in Switzerland means that people can collect a percentage of the population's signatures -it is specified in absolute numbers, but saying it like this makes the point more obvious- to "forcibly" initiate a public vote on new laws, or (more easily) stop new laws passed by the government.
      As you might guess, the "collect signatures" part very much limits the number of issues that actually will be voted on, and they only get voted on on the national level if it in fact is a nation-wide law that needs to be passed or undone- so no hindrance in practicing the same in the USA, really. They often are simply taken on consequential issues parliament has either not wanted to decide yet, or that parliament has decided wrongly or insufficiently. An example of what one issue that probably would not have dragged on for so long with the right to initiate a vote in the USA: Recompensating any 9/11 first responders for illnesses they may have contracted.

      Apart from all that, specific kinds of laws, like changes in the constitution or specific areas of the law may also just simply require a public vote. Even parliament itself can initiate a public vote so they don't have to decide an issue... but you already know that from your own legal practice, except it never happens on the national level, as far as I can tell.

    142. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's simply not true. You can be only one thing at a time.

      And I'd rather have democracy than a republic, because with democracy you get 50% extra production and low corruption.

    143. Re:Technically... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The electoral systems is actually a horribly broken system, not at all how it was originally intended. Because most states now do require their electors to vote based on the popular vote of their state the electoral system really is no longer anything more than an unfair popular vote which gives more weight to voters from small states then voters from big states.

      Most of the time the inequality of our votes doesn't change the outcome of the election, but when it does, such as in 2000, people get justifiably pissed.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    144. Re:Technically... by Frangible · · Score: 1

      Yes, the People's Republic of China is completely irrelevant to Americans today, and couldn't possibly have any importance in the future of some kind. Maybe if we just ignore it, it will go away?

    145. Re:Technically... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      But...what you're describing is quite simply picking nits.

      A Republic is a government where some of the people retain control over decisions but the populace does not involve themselves with at least part of the decisions.
      A Democracy is one where ALL Citizens involve themselves with decisions of all kinds.

      A Representative Democracy is a form of Republic where the citizenry decide who will have the authority to make the majority of decisions within the Republic.

      They're quite correct and you're missing the point the GP poster made.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    146. Re:Technically... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      There reason the constitution doesn't have a mechanism for that is because it is the right and mechanism to secede from the union is reserved to the state. The Confederate States did leave the union. They were just quickly conquered and reintegrated.

    147. Re:Technically... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The summary is inane in an attempt to give an extra political angle where there's enough in the source already, but "republic ... not a democracy" is a literal quotation from the text of the law.

    148. Re:Technically... by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      A democracy... a real democracy... uses vote by eligible citizens for legislation.

      Like California and Florida with their ballot initiatives. They provide ample proof that citizens can be brilliant and courageous and stupid and vindictive in the same way as elected representatives in the legislature. Even more so sometimes. For good or evil, I'd say that the evidence shows that direct democracy is more volatile than representative democracy.

    149. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is ironic that this is happening in Utah, since Mormonism was founded on clear socialist principles, according to this recent story:
      http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51308137-82/mormon-book-poor-saints.html.csp

    150. Re:Technically... by norminator · · Score: 1
      It's splitting hairs in all the wrong places, and it gets us in trouble. Conservative talk radio people like to make a big deal about this, but they're really pretty lame about it. I heard a guy (subbing in for Rush Limbaugh one day) who pointed out that the word "democracy" is not in the Constitution. He may be correct, but the only instance of any form of "republic" is the section on States' governments, saying that the Federal Government needs to ensure that state governments have a republican form.

      The worst example, though was a Glenn Beck rant about the subject... Unfortunately, the linked article has lost some of the text, apparently since the last time they redid the layout of Beck's site, but many of the historical inaccuracies are there. Specifically, this part:

      Democracy is a very important word. We’re a republic. That’s why they use democracy. Democratically elected, let me give you just a list of a few people who have been democratically elected. Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hitler, Mussolini I believe was democratically elected, democratically elected. Usually in a progressive world democratically elected comes with a little twist. There’s always something that happens. For instance, Hitler wasn’t the Führer. He was the chancellor, democratically elected. And then he cobbled together a coalition that everybody said, oh, no, that will never happen here. And it did, and he became the F[ührer].

      The biggest problem here is that 3 out of the 5 names listed were *not* democratically elected, including Hitler, which Beck specifically (and erroneously) chooses to elaborate on. Hitler was not elected as Chancellor, he was appointed by the President (as was at the time, and still is the case today). For a fascinating read on the history behind that bit of political finagling, see the wikipedia article on the President who appointed him. Also, many of those leaders preside(d) over countries which are (or were at the time) actually republics themselves. It's in most of their names: "the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela", "the People's Republic of Iran", etc. Germany didn't have the word republic in their name at the time, but historians (and even Beck himself) refer to the government of that era as the "Weimar Republic". The Weimar Republic was even a Constitutional Republic. Consider other countries that we don't want to be like, which also happen to be republics: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). There are plenty more countries to list. Funny that the sponsor of this Utah bill is doing it specifically to guard against Socialist propaganda... because a republic couldn't possibly be Socialist (?)!

      The thing is, we call ourselves a republic, but really we're the only republic of our kind in the world. We're not really a republic in the general sense, at least not according to the modern application of the word. In other words, we're not "a republic". We're the United States' version of a republic.

      The other problem with Beck's anti-democracy rant is that our leaders (including our President) are democratically elected. You can make the argument that the electoral college is not a democratic process, but in all reality, the president almost always gets elected according to the popular vote, with very few exceptions. The exceptions (as I've already pointed out in other comments in this thread) are not due to the fact that representatives make the choice for us, but rather due to the fact that small states have more weight per capita than large states. I realize that Beck doesn't like the fact that Senators are now directly elected (as opposed to the original Constitutional process of having them elected by the state legislatures

    151. Re:Technically... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I think you would be better off arguing with your dog than people like cinderellamanson.

      You will get the same dumb looks and incoherent noise, but at least your dog will wag its tail and chase a ball.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    152. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In People's Republic of the United States government votes you.

    153. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i wish people in the US could understand the difference between communism and socialism, and the only thing that is threatened by socialism is capitalism. Can you see why CNN would think this is a bad thing? Socialism = take care of everybody not just the rich. Ask the people in any Scandinavian country. The talking heads want you to think socialism = communism and is bad, that way they can keep taking all the money they make from your hard work.

      Some smart guy will talk about how they don't want to pay for someone else and they should get off their butts and work, but guess what in either system you pay. You pay in social programs in socialism, in capitalism there are no social programs it's every man for themselves. So those who don't have will resort to any extreme to get into the "HAVE" group. I would rather have higher taxes than have someone desperate enough to pull a gun and mug me.

    154. Re:Technically... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      So, where does the Philosopher-King come into all of this?

    155. Re:Technically... by kwerle · · Score: 1

      America can't be a socialist state - you don't help the needy at all! Otherwise you'd have a universal/socialised health care system - something every other civilised nation in the world has.

      That's a common misconception. We do have socialized medicine - we just use the emergency room instead of managing it well. That's why it's so expensive and also so bad.

    156. Re:Technically... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. In most parliamentary systems, the elected representatives select the government and the prime minister. Technically, any government which can maintain the support of a majority of the representatives during critical votes can rule, regardless of the percentage of the popular vote that backs it.

      The current voting systems used in many countries including the United States are fairly poor at representing the will of the populace anyway. The U.S. has the two-party lock-in system where voting for a third party risks letting the main party you like least get elected. Add on to that the gerrymandering problem, and divisions of popular vote. In theory, a little more than 25% of the popular vote is all that is needed to rule. In practice that situation is practically impossible, but it goes like this: Pack a little less than half of the congressional districts with 100% voters opposed to you, and pack the remaining districts with 51% voters who support you.

      In first-past-the-post systems with more viable parties you run into the problems of strategic voting and vote splitting. Where the winning parties only needs (100/x)+1 % of the popular vote to sweep the election in theory. It's why Canada has a conservative party in charge even though the party isn't well liked by between 60-70% of the populace. There are 5 major parties (even if the Greens have 10% support and no elected representatives).

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    157. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that bastion of true republican politics that supported the USA at it's founding back during the revolutionary war, that gave it the colors of its flag, and which is still one of the great republics of the world today: La République française (French Republic).

      Vive la république!

    158. Re:Technically... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      It says nothing about constitutions or individual rights.

    159. Re:Technically... by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      I knew this comment would be here somewhere, and you did not disappoint. Thank you, Slashdot!

    160. Re:Technically... by norminator · · Score: 1

      I've already posted my own commentary on Glenn Beck's rant, which seems to be where you get your talking points, so I won't do the full thing again here, but suffice it to say, Hitler was not democratically elected to any position in the government, he was appointed by the president, and illegally seized control of the president's position after the president died.. Also, the USSR (I'm assuming that's what you meant instead of Russia?) and China were/are both republics by name. The US isn't a republic in the same sense that the rest of the world uses the term.

      And just because a country has elections doesn't mean it's going to source an oppressive socialist regime. We've always had elections in the US... That's the part of our government that is done democratically, the rest is done by those democratically elected representatives. Are you saying we should do away with elections? Maybe you want to wait until we vote in your preferred Republican overlord?

    161. Re:Technically... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      What has made that difference is the fact that just like Congressmen, electors are divied out to each state based on population, plus an additional two electors purely by virtue of the state being a state. This means that smaller states get a slightly proportionately larger voice per capita than larger states. And that is why the electoral college results don't always match the popular vote.

      That's part of why, but a bigger effect is that the electors for each state are allocated on a winner-takes-all basis*. So in a close election, the popular vote might be 52-48%, resulting in a small shift in the national popular vote, but the entire state's votes go towards one party, resulting in a huge swing in the electoral votes.

      Wyoming's extra two electors are much less likely to turn an election than Ohio's twenty, but all of Ohio's twenty electors can be allocated based on a difference in the popular vote smaller than the population of Cayenne. Every instance of the electoral college not matching the popular vote is because of this winner-take-all allocation policy.

      That, to me, is the real problem with the electoral college in the modern age. It's that in between the state elections and the electoral vote, up to half (exclusive) of the state's population have their votes thrown out, ignored, and changed to be that of someone else.

      It is because of this that a few hundred hanging chads can change the course of the entire nation. It is because of this that the alleged "rural vs urban" compromise that provided those extra two votes (even though it was really "slave vs free-ish") has completely failed -- today, the urban areas dominate more than ever, and the rural areas of, say, New York and California are not heard at all.

      The solution is obviously proportional allocation, but each state would have to decide to do so and there's very little chance they will decide to. For starters, the majority in each state benefits from winner-take-all, and would essentially have to vote to reduce their own power. Secondly, it would tend to make currently important swing states as a whole less important because their votes would tend to be split. If every state used proportional allocation, though, it would mean every electoral vote was important, and it would finally accomplish what the extra two electoral votes failed to do and make smaller states important. Not more important than more populous areas, which is good, but nevertheless.

      I just see no feasible way to get from A to B.

      * There might be exceptions, but I'm not aware of any. Colorado had a proposition some years back to change to proportional allocation but it failed. Big surprise.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    162. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are a Constitutional Federal Democratic Socialist Republic, technically

      Actually, that should be,

      Semi-Constitutional Federal Democratic Socialist People's Theocratic Republic.

      1. It is not constitutional where there exist "constitution free zones" that cover most of the population
      2. It is not constitutional where constitution is ignored and most don't care and even like it (see airport "security" x-ray scanners)
      3. it is essentially started to look like a theocracy - where people's "God's view" is entering the picture
      4. I added "People's" as that what police states tend to call themselves, and US is becoming that quite quickly

    163. Re:Technically... by norminator · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that the Weimar Republic doesn't really fall into this discussion, at least not as far as Hitler's concerned -- Hitler was not democratically elected. He was appointed Chancellor by the President, then seized the President's position after the President died, and combined the offices into the office of the Fürer.

    164. Re:Technically... by merick · · Score: 1

      It is NOT because Democracy has "Democrat". As a Utah resident, that is just stupid.

      I believe part of the intent is to teach that mob-rule (popular vote) is not how the country was Constitutionally organized.

      Fun Quote:
      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democracy)

    165. Re:Technically... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      By virtue of our having a chief executive who is not part of the legislature nor elected by a majority of the People we are a republic and not a representative democracy.

      This is absurd. By "not elected by the majority of People" I assume that you mean the electoral college? If so, then by your definition, e.g. France is not a republic, and has never been. Now stop and think about it - do the words "Third Republic" or "Fifth Republic" ring a bell?

    166. Re:Technically... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. So, medicare system along with Germany's TOTAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, since it is is modeled after USA's Medicare system, are NOT universal health care? Wow. Tell that to the German's. They will be upset.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    167. Re:Technically... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ex 1. If 15% of the citizens in England vote for Party X, Party X will make up 15% of Parliament

      Hmm, no.

      If 15% of the citizens in England vote for Party X, Parties Y and Z will take all of the seats due to the mismatched constituency sizes, the first-past-the-post system and the voting outcomes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

      See also the 2005 election in which two parties received approximately 33-35% of the vote each nationally, and the one that received more votes in England ended up with over 100 seats less than the other.

      I'll be supporting STV in the referendum.

    168. Re:Technically... by norminator · · Score: 1

      Good point on the "winner takes all" point as being the reason why the popular vote doesn't match the electoral college votes, you're right, although I think it's still a combined effect of the smaller states getting an additional boost just for being states.

      You consider it to be a problem, which I don't. The country was designed to be a a union of states, so it really should be the states making the decisions, not the entire mass of the country as a whole. My point is that the states vote according to the democractially-determined election, and then the states cast their votes almost exactly according to the will of the people that voted, with very little room for decision by any individual representative.

      I can see why you'd be upset feeling that your vote is essentially thrown away, but even in a straight popular vote, the votes of the minority don't "count" anymore once the winner is determined. The rural areas would be completely swept away in a straight popular vote. At least the electoral college does provide some added representation at the state level for sections of the country that are almost completely rural compared to states that are completely urban.

    169. Re:Technically... by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Linguistic prescription is dead. Language means whatever people agree it means. You get extra points for arguing AGAINST linguistic prescription in your signature though.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    170. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, talk about reinventing history!!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

      So please, don't warp the word democracy to fit your current ideas about US. US never was a democracy. It just calls itself that, just like North Korea is known as Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. US is a Republic. Wikipedia states, Federal presidential constitutional republic, to be more exact.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

      On the other hand, democracy is not that great anyway - majority of people know very little and care very little about the workings of their own legislative and legal systems. There is also this thing called tyranny of the majority

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

    171. Re:Technically... by floorgoblin · · Score: 1

      Your point about the definition of Republic is a good one, because people often forget that we only started directly electing representatives to the U.S. Senate in 1913. Before then, Senators were chosen by each state's legislature. So we use to have a non-democratic upper chamber, and a democratic lower chamber, yet still be a Republic.

    172. Re:Technically... by gpinkham · · Score: 1

      curious.. did they actually say "because it has democrat in it name" or did the poster just add his own "flavor"

    173. Re:Technically... by gpinkham · · Score: 1

      the point of most of the help offered is to keep them in need of help.. otherwise why would states have goals to enroll more people in foodstamps instead of goals to get them off of food stamps..

    174. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On which planet?

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

      b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

    175. Re:Technically... by cos(0) · · Score: 1

      you don't help the needy at all! Otherwise you'd have a universal/socialised health care system

      Stormthirst, the above is a textbook case of a strawman argument. Please research this.

    176. Re:Technically... by gpinkham · · Score: 1

      what exactly do you mean by "meaning"? :-)

    177. Re:Technically... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      They use that word to imply fascist.

      No, they use it as a general slander - I don't think they really understand what socialism is. Ever since you couldn't say nigger in polite conversation, some people have been looking for a replacement. Liberal doesn't really cut it, and Socialist is pretty weak too - oh no, you're trying to fund programs to help the common man!

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    178. Re:Technically... by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Did you ever even bother to look up "democracy"? UK has a "Prime Minister", and it's still a democracy, because he's selected through a democratic process. A dictionary will clear up any remaining doubts.

    179. Re:Technically... by FridayBob · · Score: 1

      Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic...

      Excuse me, but the United States is both a republic and a democracy. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

      The US is a republic as opposed to a monarchy, even though today most monarchies are constitutional (as opposed to absolute) and, in almost all other ways, function as republics. The US is a democracy in that all of the people in the country have an equal say (equal vote) in whatever may affect them, or more specifically, who gets to represent them. In that sense, the US is a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy, but it is still a democracy. AFAIK, no governments today function as direct democracies on the national level.

      Some may argue that, in Washington, corporate lobbyists have more influence than the electorate, but I still prefer to think that democratic republic is a more descriptive term for the current form of government in the USA than, say, autocratic republic (e.g. the Democratic People's Republic of Korea), or theocratic republic (e.g. Islamic Republic of Iran).

    180. Re:Technically... by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Medicare is government run socialized medicine, but it is not universal healthcare because it is not, you know, universal. It's something you become eligible for once you reach retirement age.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    181. Re:Technically... by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      I am Jack's Wall Street Bailout.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    182. Re:Technically... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Hitler was not elected, but the reason why he was appointed chancellor is because his party had the majority in the parliament. Of course, merely being appointed chancellor didn't give him all the power, since that was a position within the democratic framework of the republic. In fact, it was a fairly weak one - chancellor couldn't even appoint other members of the cabinet (he could only make a request to the president to do so, which the latter could deny), and within the cabinet decisions would be made by majority vote, with no veto power. Nor did chancellor sign into law bills voted in by the legislature.

      It was the Enabling Act which really turned Germany into a dictatorship, by saying that "In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich ... Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat" - which gave extra (unconstitutional) powers to the cabinet, then dominated by Nazis - and they used said powers to restructure the government according to their Fuhrerprinzip.

    183. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original, literal meaning, from Greek, is "people's rule". This does neither imply direct or indirect (representative) rule.

    184. Re:Technically... by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 0

      Democracy, republics, liberalism, socialism, etc, etc(well maybe not that much etc) are umberalla terms for a heapload of other branching theories under them.

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    185. Re:Technically... by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      That's because our founders typically used the word "Republic" to mean "a representative government", and "Democracy" to mean "majority rule".

      A read of the Federalist (or Anti-Federalist) Papers bears this out, as do many well-known quotes by founders ("A Republic, if you can keep it").

      Many of those outspoken on the terms are students of American History, but not necessarily political scientists. Therefore, they see these terms defined by their usage in the formation of our government.

      This is why you hear people declaring that the US is a Republic, a representative Democracy, or as a Constitutional Republic.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    186. Re:Technically... by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      I subscribe to the variation of a maxim:
      That which can destroy a thing, controls that thing. - Paul Muad'Dib (Dune)

      In this, the executive branch is technically the head of the US government...plus the military. Most children only recognize this structure. With a complicit military, the executive branch is the controlling arm. From this perspective, a characterizing the US as a republic is perfectly reasonable.

      Turns out, the world isn't so simple. The US cannot be categorized as anything but a hybrid of traditional governmental systems.

      > We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic

      The US is many forms of government, depending on the locality in question and with a separation of powers.
      The federal legislative branch is elected via a representative democracy. The executive branch is formed per a democratic republic. This does not make the US either.

      > As in we have a representative government, but we vote for the representatives

      Saying that individuals can write down a candidate on a ballot for submission, does not decide the nature of the national government (people in China vote for their communist party members too, so do they have a representative government?). Also, see the electoral college. The president is a representative, regardless of formal title. The US does not have a representative national government in any practical sense.

      > A nation as large as the US does not function with direct democracy.

      Not only is incorrect, it's irrelevant. While a country as large as the US has not operated as a direct democracy, that does not preclude the existence of such a state. Technology is a wonderful thing that may one day put this into practice.

      > There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.

      There are many kinds of democracies and none of them precludes a tiered legislative system. While your local US government (city or even HOA) probably functions as a direct democracy, this has little to do with the day to day operations of your national government and vice versa.

      HTH

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    187. Re:Technically... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Actually this is a prime example of just how bad and biased Slashdot summaries could be. If you read the article you will find nothing about the Democrate in it!

      Or "Democrat". The summary is a blatant lie. The bill has nothing to do with "Democrat", and "Democrat" does not appear in the word "democracy" to begin with.

      http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0220.htm is a link to a page with the history of the house bill. It specifies a thorough education in forms of government, including that the US is a constitutional republic ("and to the republic, for which it stands").

    188. Re:Technically... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.

      Don't expect this to be the case heading into the future. I'm sure at some point Google, Facebook, et al will develop some kind of voting mechanism making it easier for everyone to participate directly in the democratic process.

      The days of career politicians playing middle-man for us are numbered. Just as the Internet has allowed people to bypass travel agents, letter carriers, and record producers, government too must eventually succumb to the increased efficiency of communication.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    189. Re:Technically... by yuje · · Score: 1

      We're a democratic republic.

      We're a republic because we're not a monarchy and instead represented solely by elected representatives. We're a democracy because the people have a vote and voice in the government.

      Another democratic republic is India (The Republic of India)
      Sweden, by virtue of being a monarchy, is a democratic and constitutional monarchy but not a republic
      Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, is a non-democratic monarchy.
      Switzerland has direct democracy, but is still a republic.
      Libya is a republic, since it has no monarchy, but is not a democracy, either.

      Everyone get the difference now? The only reason the government has been trying to shift the definitions of "republic" and "democracy" are for political reasons, and wanting to emphasize the Republican Party at the expense of the Democrats, and also possibly to de-emphasize the one-man, one-vote principle. "I'm sorry, did you actually want your vote to count? Sorry, but we're not a democracy, if your vote counts, it'll inevitably lead to the tyranny of the majority!" (never mind that we have constitutional protections against that, and that the clearest example of tyranny of the majority was Prop 8 in California denying the rights of homosexuals).

    190. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, in a simple or "pure" democracy, the majority rules at all times. In a representative democracy, or more properly a democratic republic, we elect representatives to make those rules for us. We do not vote on the rules ourselves.

      We elect representatives to Congress. We use democratic means (a vote) to instruct the Electoral College who to elect as President (although they are not bound by those instructions). In almost every case, we choose who will represent us in our republican government by a more or less democratic means.

      So yes, we are a constitutional republic, or democratic republic. Either is somewhat more accurate than representative democracy, but even that is not "wrong".

    191. Re:Technically... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.

      Really only one smaller country, which is Switzerland. And honestly, there's no reason their system couldn't scale. We already have the infrastructure in place for performing direct elections, and it could be easily used for national issues. Not that I think it will happen in my lifetime -- people don't want the responsibility and politicians don't want to relinquish control -- but the arguments against it are little more than excuses.

    192. Re:Technically... by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      So, basically, instead of being a StarTrek-like Federation, it is a StarWars-like Republic. Nice.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    193. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Actually, the electoral college is an example (although not a good one) of our actually being a representative democracy.

      We use a democratic process (a vote) to instruct our appointed electors who to elect as President.

      True, they are not strictly bound by our vote, and in one case the electors did not elect the most popular candidate. (We can exclude Bush from that list because it was ambiguous who the most popular candidate actually was.)

      Nevertheless, we do vote on the matter, which is a democratic process. And if the electors often deviated from the popular vote, they know damned well that we would change the system to a direct election. So they don't.

    194. Re:Technically... by norminator · · Score: 1

      Hitler was not elected, but the reason why he was appointed chancellor is because his party had the majority in the parliament.

      That was a large part of it. The other large part of it was the years of immense pressure exerted on President Hindenburg by those around him, including his own son, compounded by Hindenburg's advancing senility.

      But Parliament's effect on the matter is not indicative of a problem with democracy. If anything it's the representatives in this case who are part of the problem.

    195. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That is simply false. The Civil War changed nothing in that regard. The only thing the Civil War "decided" along that line is that states cannot secede through violent or military means.

      The Federal government is a compact, or contract, between the independent and sovereign states. That is clearly spelled out in the Constitution and the law. The only power the Federal government has is what the states delegate to it. That is the whole basis of the Constitution.

      States have never waived their essential sovereignty. The "supremacy clause" in the Constitution only holds for federal laws that are made "in pursuance of" the powers delegated to that government by the states. That, too, is in the Constitution.

    196. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founders actually didn't like "democracy". Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

    197. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting for representatives does not make it a democracy. The Romans elected their own representatives as well. And had a constitution. One of the major differences between our own government and the Roman republic, however, is that the officials elected by the Roman citizenry did not directly elect the consuls (prime ministers/presidents). However, these officials did have veto power over the highest of assemblies.

    198. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few republics which are of this sense (for example, China, North Korea, Kazakhstan, and Iran).

      They are also democracies in that the people get to vote if they like. Note many of their names include "democratic" as well. So just looking at their names to define the word is stupid. They purposefully misuse the word to push their agenda, and by agreeing with them, you are supporting communist dictatorships.

    199. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You contradict yourself. Votes can't be meaningless, because eventually somebody is elected. By vote.

      You confuse the psychological effect on the people with the significance of their votes. They are two different things, although admittedly one can affect the other.

      The problem is just exactly that too many people think like you do, and try to game the system with their votes, second-guessing who are going to be the popular candidates and who are not.

      There is a solution to that problem: stop the B.S.! If you let other peoples' votes influence your own, then you're not really voting, you're playing a bullshit celebrity game.

      Stop paying attention to how other people are voting, and vote on principle. That is how the system was designed to work. That is what you are supposed to do as a responsible citizen. If you're not, then you're not doing your job.

      Voting for who YOU want would eliminate all this gamesmanship, second-guessing, and B.S. about "wasted votes". Even if your candidates do not win, if you vote properly your vote may send a strong message to those who do.

      --
      "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams

    200. Re:Technically... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Or take the 2010 election. Party X, the Lib Dems, got 23.0% of the votes and 8.8% of the seats; Labour got 29.0% of the votes and 39.7% of the seats, and the Tories got 36.1% of the votes and 47.1% of the seats.

    201. Re:Technically... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If we had a "corporate run government" there would be no antitrust laws, no coffee-spilling spastic winning a lawsuit against McDonalds. Corporations have undue influence in certain ways, but they don't run the gov't.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    202. Re:Technically... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The country was designed to be a a union of states, so it really should be the states making the decisions, not the entire mass of the country as a whole. My point is that the states vote according to the democractially-determined election, and then the states cast their votes almost exactly according to the will of the people that voted, with very little room for decision by any individual representative.

      It's not "almost exactly" except in states that are completely one-sided. They're only going according to the will of the majority. A proportional allocation system would be almost exactly the will of the people, at the granularity of electors, yet still be the states making the decision. It's superior in every way -- unless you're a specific state thinking about being the first to pursue the idea when everyone else is winner-takes-all.

      I can see why you'd be upset feeling that your vote is essentially thrown away, but even in a straight popular vote, the votes of the minority don't "count" anymore once the winner is determined.

      It is an essential aspect of electing a President that there is only one winner. It is not an essential aspect that their be a first-level filter on the votes before the real vote. And the thing is, in a straight popular vote your vote would "count" in the only way that matters -- that the result would shift proportionally towards the person you voted for. The problem is, the only vote that matters is the electoral vote, and in that vote if you aren't in the majority in your state then your vote does not count at all.

      We're not counting votes, literally. We're throwing votes out, then performing the real election. That's busted. There's no reason for it.

      The rural areas would be completely swept away in a straight popular vote. At least the electoral college does provide some added representation at the state level for sections of the country that are almost completely rural compared to states that are completely urban.

      The rural areas are completely swept away even more by the current system. All the rural states can't overcome New York and California, and rural New York and California can't overcome urban New York and California. The (very large) rural areas of those states are truly swept away in the sense that their vote does not matter at all.

      In a proportional allocation system, the votes of rural NY and CA would combine with the votes of all the Mountain and Plains states, and rural Ohio, etc, to be a major segment of the vote. Their power would be increased, and votes would not be ignored.

      Arguments about rural areas being better served by the current system fall completely flat with me unless they take into account rural CA, NY, MI, OH, and IL -- states with large rural populations that are nevertheless dominated by the urban centers.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    203. Re:Technically... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The reason for rejecting some modern usage is that it blurs definitions so that clearly identified things come to include other things, opening a path to increased government interference in private lives. Consider the term welfare, which once meant well-being, and now means theft for the benefit of those who refuse to work.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    204. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "socialism for helping old or needy people"

      you left out C.E.O.s

    205. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Like many other people, you are (in part) confusing a representative democracy with a direct democracy.

      A direct democracy is vulnerable to what is called "the tyranny of the majority". In other words, 51% of the people can vote to enslave the other 49%. It sounds absurd, but believe me, it has happened in "democratic" societies.

      Our government was specifically designed to minimize "the tyranny of the majority". In general, the majority rules, but only to an extent. There are exceptions, checks, and balances.

    206. Re:Technically... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. In fact I think we have too many "Here have a fish" programs, and not nearly enough "How to Fish" programs. Heck if we at least gave them a "How to fish" pamphlet along with their fish, then we could employ someone to clean up the pamphlets thrown on the floor right outside the door. One job created. The system works!
      We've made it too easy to live off of the government. I know one couple in their 30s who live rent free in a two bedroom house, have no children, have not had a job in years, have two newer model cars, big screen TV, game systems, and can afford to go out drinking and eating.
      Meanwhile, my wife is worried about whether we will have grocery money, my car is pushing $120k and I can not afford to get a new (used) one, because the government needs so much of my paycheck to support these peoples' lifestyle which is more affluent than mine. If it wasn't for my pride of doing my part and my desire not to be an unfair burden on society, I would just quit and let the government support me.
      The welfare system ought to be graduated just like the tax system. Basic welfare ought to only cover the necessities (no cable TV, no big screen TV, no new car). Then if you earn money, they reduce it by about 1/4 of what you earn until you reach a point where there is no welfare paid. This makes your increase in income cause an increase of lifestyle. The way it works now, you can have a better lifestyle on welfare than as a lower (and sometimes middle) income wage earner.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    207. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "If you want to be pedantic, a real democracy, or even a democratic republic, is a complete and utter fiction."

      It's not a fiction. Relatively "pure" democracy has actually been tried, not just once but many times. It invariably failed. One of the problems with it, as I pointed out elsewhere, is the "tyranny of the majority".

    208. Re:Technically... by fredjh · · Score: 1

      I agree... I think the system needs to be overhauled, but it would still include help for those who need it and probably still save 10s, if not 100s of billions of dollars. What do we need 20 food assistance programs for?

      What got me riled, though, is the belief that Americans don't care.

      --
      Stupid, sexy Flanders.
    209. Re:Technically... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't actually say "because it has democrat in its name". That was a lie. A blatant slander, I would call it.

    210. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "In modern, common usage, "Democracy" and "Republic" are close to interchangeable."

      No, they aren't. Democracy means majority rule. A democracy does not elect representatives. It votes on everything.

      It is true that some dictionaries now describe our form of government as being a "democracy", but it isn't. A dictionary lists popular usage, it does not reflect accuracy. If you want accuracy, go to an encyclopedia instead.

      But that is what you said, yes? Common usage. But what I am getting at is that while you are correct in a sense, it is only "commonly" used that way by people who are ignorant of what it really means. Those are people who think we actually do live in a democracy.

      In a political discussion like this one, it is simply wrong to call a republic a democracy, no matter how popular the usage is today. The word actually has meaning, and that isn't it.

      Just as the popular meaning of the word "paranoid" has little resemblance to the technical meaning, the popular use of the word democracy that you mention has little resemblance to its technical meaning.

    211. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, Mormons fought for the right of polygamy (and lost). Jews didn't fight for the right of being stingy, that was essentially required by law of them.

      Secondly, "socialist" is synonymous with "Democratic Party" to the conservatives, so any comment against socialism (and there were some direct ones against socialism) is a stab at the Democratic Party. But even if you don't accept that, you'd have to explain why this is necessary to differentiate us from socialists (of course, that's begging the question by assuming that socialists == evil). Some non-socialist countries called socialist by themselves or others also have "democratic" or "republic" in the name. But why single out just "democratic" and not "republic" for this bill?

      The only logical reason is party politics in one of the most conservative states in the Union.

    212. Re:Technically... by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Or '96. He got roughly 43% in 92, and 49% in 96.

    213. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sophomoric and regurgitative statement is not a substitute for enlightened opinion.
      Perhaps your research should go beyond the dictionary next time you attempt to opine on political science.
      So in your case, yes I agree, the nonsense has to stop.

    214. Re:Technically... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 0

      As another practicing member of the LDS Church, I second LWATCDR's objection to Cmdr Taco's tag line. We do not practice polygamy, and using a story tag to imply that we do is a deliberate participation in perpetuating that incorrect idea.

      I'm also getting quite frustrated with the Slashdot editors' complete inability to do even a quick reading of the referenced article before posting a summary, especially when the summary is inflammatory like this one. The article makes no reference to political party affiliation as a motivation for the bill, nor does it reference the LDS Church in any way.

      Why does Slashdot even *have* editors, if they're not going to fact-check?

    215. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Where and when the unmodified term "democracy" got morphed into being interpreted as "direct referendum on practically everything" is unknown to me..."

      That's because it didn't happen. It is actually the other way around: democracy, which plain and simple means majority rule, gradually "morphed" in common usage to include "representative democracy" or more properly "democratic republic" like our own.

      The word democracy has a specific meaning, despite how it was popularly used in your Poli Sci classes in college. Regardless of whether your definition of a "pure" democracy ever actually existed, the concept still exists. True communism has never existed, either. Yet that doesn't stop us from calling countries "communist", even though none of them were ever really even close. But... that doesn't mean that the technical meaning of the word "communism" has changed.

    216. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically they don't seem to know very well about the meaning of the words, but still they are right in saying it is a republic and wrong in saying that it is not a democracy.
      Democracy is always about the way power is distributed inside the country, since you have free elections and many political parties you are a democracy, this means demos+cratos, people power.
      Republic is mostly about the way the country is organized: you have a senate, you have some person or people in charge hence you are a republic, even though you can have non-democratic republic in which the senate maybe accessible only to some people and decisions are not shared among the people(see the NS Germany for instance).

    217. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You seem to be arguing that pure democracy is a good thing. It wasn't, and it isn't. Even in theory, it has many, many serious problems. And that is why we don't have one.

    218. Re:Technically... by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Technically, the monarch has a veto power - the Queen is required to grant Royal Assent for laws to take effect, and has a number of other "reserve powers" that are almost never used (the power to appoint her own choice of Prime Minister, for instance.) In that sense, the UK is less de jure democratic than the US is by quite a bit.

    219. Re:Technically... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Heh, I'll admit I was too lazy to hunt down those stats - but thank you, they demonstrate my point sadly too well.

    220. Re:Technically... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

      Technically you are wrong
      Technically you are also right, right after being wrong.

      The US is a democracy
      The US is a also republic
      The US is a also federation
      The US is a also union
      The US is a also basic on a constitution

      What is the obsession with thinking only things can only have one characteristic? The summary is right, the only explanation is that democracy is similar to democrat, that atleast makes the reaction an emotional one. Any other explanation would conclude the Republicans in Utah are hopelessly retarded.

    221. Re:Technically... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      All's I know is that chap Obama must be our President, because he hasn't got shit all over him.

    222. Re:Technically... by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      It's not brainwashing nor nonsense. From the same dictionaries you referenced:
      Reference.com:
      republic
      /rpblk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
      –noun
      1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
      2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
      3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

      Or Miriam Webster
      Definition of REPUBLIC
      a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
      b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

      I think we're actually considered a Constitutional Republic.

    223. Re:Technically... by inerlogic · · Score: 1

      You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self- perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

    224. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rome was born as a kingdom. Its kings were Etruscan. They revolted and had their own kings.

      Latins were conquered peasants living next to Rome. They conquered so many Latins that there language became Latin.

      Since peasants were unhappy with the government, they withdrew the government and created a democracy, second to Athens.

      SPQR = Senatus Populus Que Romanus or Senate of the People of Rome.

      Later an emperor closed the senate and Rome became a monarchy again. To be destroyed by Vandals and Goths (german tribes).

      Plato wrote "The Republic" top criticize democracies. According to him democracies can't exist. Given that germanic tribes didn't want conquered romans to think they could rebel against their kings, that was almost the only knowledge that was passed through medieval times to this day.

    225. Re:Technically... by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      And republic used to mean "not a monarchy"...

      Even the most democratic country in the world, Switzerland, is a republic.

      What I look forward to the most, is the fact that US is still going out into the world to spread democracy, but refuses to be called one themselves...

      --
      This is blinging
    226. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, in the definition of democracy we find the difference between democracy and a republic "their elected agents under a free electoral system." sorry, your 'authority' has been changed to be politically correct and actually isn't. fyi the incredibly imprecise modern english language is not the best measure for borrowed governmental concepts from thousands of years ago

    227. Re:Technically... by adamdoyle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article never says anything about "because democracy would have democrat in it." I'm guessing the story submitter made that up.

    228. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      United States is a Republic - that's in the Constitution. .
      The use of voting to nominate members of the government is also in the constitution.
      Barring invasion, sedition or a Constitutional amendment - they are facts that are not going to change.
      However, the constitution also embodies an ideal ... that "The people", and not Kings should be the decision makers in this land)
      The extent the United States lives up to the democratic ideal embodied in the Constitution - well that's a matter for debate.

      Having voting doesn't automatically make a country a democracy. The parent notes that there are many countries that have voting, but aren't democracies because the only choice the citizenry get to make is which yes-man gets to be the "people's deputy".

      Engaged citizenry who participate in politics and have freedom of political expression without fear of persecution - and where every citizen has access to a "one citizen, one vote, one value" voting system - make a democracy.

      Measures that exclude certain groups (e.g. women, certain racial groups, felons), the presence of criminal gangs (e.g. KKK) that prevent people from voting, or institutions that give some voters greater influence over the outcome than others (e.g. aspects of the electoral college system) are all challenges to democracy
      At best they are real-word imperfections to the democratic ideal and at worst they represent the corruption of the highest principle of your republic

      There have been plenty of times in American history (perhaps even today) when the United States could be most accurately described as a Republic, but not a democracy.

    229. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely correct. Their reasons aside, we are a republic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

    230. Re:Technically... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Actually, some corporations benefit from antitrust laws, since they can be used as weapons against their competitors.

    231. Re:Technically... by opinionbot · · Score: 1

      Whilst I agree with the above (there seem to be several different but widely accepted definitions of "republic", and this is one), words like "Republic" and "Democratic" in country names is usually more of a warning sign than a description...

    232. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 Insightful???? Riiiiiight.....

      A Republic is goverened by a charter as opposed to a Democracy which is goverened by the majority. I think I remember some of your charters. Like....

      The Declaration of independence
      The Constitution of the United States
      The Bill of rights

      Next time try to read up on what you're discussing instead of just doing a few searches to justify your own preconcieved notions.

    233. Re:Technically... by metacell · · Score: 1

      I'm just a European, so please bear with me, but wasn't it the Northern states who attacked the Southern states when they chose to peacefully secede?

    234. Re:Technically... by Joe85 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you can look up the definition for democracy, but you forgot to do the other half of your research. Merriam-Webster Definition for Republic: b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government. Turns out they're the same thing worded differently, at least according to these relatively simple definitions. Don't worry, as of the writing of this comment over 1000 other people are just as convinced that they're just as right as you(and that everyone on the other side is wrong).

    235. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founders of our country referred to our form of government as a Republic. Our Republic is a form of a representative democracy, ".. and to the Republic, for which it stands,..."

    236. Re:Technically... by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      It is a Democratic Republic. From the text it actually seems like a good idea. I am not sure that it needs to be law. The problem is will the class be useful or not. From my school years I have to worry that it will be "you have to pass to graduate class". In my High School you where required to take and pass American History and what they called Comparative Government. Comparative Government was all about why the US system was better than the USSR and China.
      Hey it was in the early 80s and the cold war was pretty dang cold. Thing was I loved history as did a few of my friends. The classes where not leveled so everyone had to take the same class. After the third week my teacher pulled myself and my two friends to one side and told us that we where going to get an A. He also asked us to stop asking so many questions. As he put it, we where going to pass but some of the other students might not. The tests where on Friday. On Monday he put up notes on the overhead and if you wrote them down and handed them in you got a C no matter how bad you did on the test. The same thing could happen with this law.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    237. Re:Technically... by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      We've made it too easy to live off of the government. I know one couple in their 30s who live rent free in a two bedroom house, have no children, have not had a job in years, have two newer model cars, big screen TV, game systems, and can afford to go out drinking and eating.

      [Citation needed]

      Do they have savings from when they worked? Do they have a rich uncle who died? Are they on disability from a workplace accident? Did they win the lottery? Are they running up 10's of thousands in credit card debt?

      I don't think you actually know anything about the welfare system and its limitations. Maybe you should actually talk to your neighbors and ask them what they're doing, instead of being mad at how they took yer jerb^H^H^H munnies. That, or you just made up the story out of whole cloth because it fits your worldview and is easier to deal with than examining situations from actual reality.

    238. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I have not (I apologize for not clarifying that), and I agree with you - Democracy can not exist as pragmatically viable in its purest rendering. It failed miserably in Athens as its only truly known example. ...yet on the other side of that coin, its the core of the debate for pundit thinking liberals are taking us to socialism when its the farthest thing from actual.

    239. Re:Technically... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is a Democratic Republic. From the text it actually seems like a good idea.

      I must admit that I was wrong about "... not a democracy" being in the text of the law - that's plain false, and I was misled by another /. commenter. After reading the law myself, it seems that the original version of it did carry the indirect implication, but as amended the terms are all used correctly.

      I am not sure that it needs to be law.

      I'm actually wondering - why such things need to be be coded as separate laws? Surely there is some minimal educational standard in place already, both at federal and state levels? So why don't they just change the standard accordingly? Why does this have to go through legislature?

    240. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. The northern states told the southern states (very possibly incorrectly) that they had no right to secede. The southern states then resolved to do so anyway, by force if necessary.

      The North may have been the aggressor, but both sides were prepared to go to war over the issue.

      Many modern Constitutional scholars say that technically, the South was in the right. The only thing that was firmly established by the Civil War was that some people believe might makes right.

      It wasn't all just about slavery, either. The North, which was politically more influential at the time, had passed some laws that were economically harmful to the South. One illustration of this was the South Carolina "nullification crisis".

      It should be noted as an aside, however, that contrary to what many federal politicians are self-interestedly saying today, the concept of State Nullification was never used to support slavery. On the contrary, it was the other way around. In North Carolina's declaration of secession, one of the justifications they listed was that the North was using "state nullification" too much to negate fugitive slave laws.

    241. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your argument, then perhaps we should not be referred to as a democracy either, since that would seem to support the notion that we are biased towards "big-d" Democrats.

    242. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today - anywhere in the world outside the US - the US would be described as a representative democracy.

      If you describe the US simply as a democracy, though, you imply that it is governed directly by the people (rather than indirectly, through representatives).

      (I don't think this point of pedantry is actually worthwhile, but it's a possible objection.)

    243. Re:Technically... by onemorechip · · Score: 2

      Eh, democracy has no requirement for majority rule, which often can't be had anyway (think what happens when number of alternatives > 2). You can start your education with the wikipedia article.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    244. Re:Technically... by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      Preaching to my sig, you are.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    245. Re:Technically... by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      You can be two things.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    246. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's true, but by that strict definition are there any democratic countries in the entire world?

    247. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States has three branches of government - Executive, Judicial and Legislative. All three have the same degree of power to check and balance each other. The president is not elected by popular vote - the electoral college has resulted in presidents being elected in the past who do not garner a majority of the votes. The senate likewise represents each state equally with 2 senators, regardless of population. This means a senate majority vote could pass with representation of only 30% of the population. The Supreme Court has no democratic representation whatsoever. That means only 1/6 of our government can be said to be "democratic."

      We are, by definition, a "Constitutional Republic." There are laws and rules and standards in this nation that cannot be overturned by democratic vote of any kind. Our system is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, NOT to insure that the majority always rules. Get it straight.

    248. Re:Technically... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

      P.S. Registered Democrat speaking here.

      yes, but their reasoning is flawed. If they aren't using the word democracy because it has the word democrat in it, then why use republic when it's part of the word, republican?

      Is this seriously what we want to teach our kids?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    249. Re:Technically... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

      P.S. Registered Democrat speaking here.

      yes, but their reasoning is flawed. If they aren't using the word democracy because it has the word democrat in it, then why use republic when it's part of the word, republican?

      Is this seriously what we want to teach our kids?

      oh, great, I read the article and see that what i'm referring to is probably just added opinion by the 0ryan0.

      I fail. Should of read the article first.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    250. Re:Technically... by AeonEchelon · · Score: 1

      Well, we're a representative democracy, which is a sort of republic. But first and foremost, we are a democracy.

    251. Re:Technically... by LukeWebber · · Score: 1

      I went looking for it too, and... Oooh look! There's some lovely muck over 'ere!

    252. Re:Technically... by savvysteve · · Score: 1

      And there are many reasons why we have the electoral college in place. The electoral college is an example of the great forethought of our founding fathers. If the majority rule was true you would have seen the USA collapse long ago. I implore everyone to read and understand the electoral college and why we have it.

    253. Re:Technically... by Maniacal · · Score: 1

      I'm frustrated as well but I doubt it's a "complete inability". I can't remember a summary that was incorrectly right leaning. Seems intentional. I've been coming to this site since the beginning and, I know it's Taco's blog, but it seems to be transitioning from a geek site to a liberal politics blog. Since there are over 1000 posts here (which is usual for the politics postings) and much less on the tech postings my guess is the politics are here to stay.

      --
      MG
    254. Re:Technically... by IICV · · Score: 1

      ... what? We democratically vote for representatives in the electoral college, and that's "our government not being a representative democracy"?

      What madness is this?

    255. Re:Technically... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      By your argument, then perhaps we should not be referred to as a democracy either, since that would seem to support the notion that we are biased towards "big-d" Democrats.

      That would apply, if the term hadn't changed hundreds of years ago, and now the Democrats were pushing for the term "representative Democracy" even though "Republic" was used all over the world and in all American dictionaries. It would be a despicable move, yes. Going back from the hypothetical situation to the actual one ... well the blame should go to the Utah Republicans.

    256. Re:Technically... by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
      We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more.
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    257. Re:Technically... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      If you describe the US simply as a democracy, though, you imply that it is governed directly by the people (rather than indirectly, through representatives).

      No I don't - I just indicate that it has some form of democratic election system. To describe the US system "representative democracy" is used, to explain what kind of democracy it is. Of course political systems come in many flavors - the US has some fairly direct democratic participation as well. For example in the US you can elect judges - that amount of direct control is quite extraordinary among democracies.

      Of course other countries have direct participation which in the US isn't possible, too: e.g. in Switzerland referendums are frequently used to set limits on government action or to directly implement laws. (I guess California has that option as well.) Then again the UK and Germany have the "crown in parliament" system (sans the actual crown in Germany), so the head of the executive is elected by the parliament, the population at large has no direct say. (Not even via electoral college.) (I'm sorta skipping the official head of state for these two countries - the German president and the British queen are basically ornamental.)

    258. Re:Technically... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. The northern states told the southern states (very possibly incorrectly) that they had no right to secede. The southern states then resolved to do so anyway, by force if necessary.

      The North may have been the aggressor, but both sides were prepared to go to war over the issue.

      I may be missing something, but that sounds like weasel talk to me. if the Northern states tried to make the Southern states stay in the union, and the Southern states just wanted to be left alone, then it was the Northern states who used force.

      There's a huge difference between forcing someone to do something, and using force to defend yourself when someone tries to force you to do something. In the former case, you're trying to impose your will on someone, in the latter case, you are only trying to keep someone from imposing their will on you.

      Of course, the Civil War may be justified for a number of other reasons, I'm just objecting to what I perceive to be a distortion of the facts.

    259. Re:Technically... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      In 2000, the Florida legislature considered appointing its own slate. Your argument would seem to legitimize this kind of shenanigan.

    260. Re:Technically... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Also, the USSR (I'm assuming that's what you meant instead of Russia?) and China were/are both republics by name. The US isn't a republic in the same sense that the rest of the world uses the term.

      You have it backwards. A republic is a system of government in which the people elect representatives to govern them. While we democratically elect our representatives, the Utah legislator is perfectly correct - it is better to call our system of government a republic (technically "a constitutional republic of federated states") than a democracy, as we have no direct systems like the referendum, initiative or recall, at the federal level. The US uses the word correctly.

      The USSR and China aren't/weren't republics in any meaningful sense of the word (elections are/were meaningless). They are technically socialist states. *They* weren't republics in the sense that the rest of the world uses the term.

      You can read more about this in any quality high school government textbook.

    261. Re:Technically... by Sean0michael · · Score: 1

      I think it only fair to also present similar definitions for what a Republic is.

      Personally, I feel that Republic is more accurate given the historical meaning of democracy, but that the meaning of "democracy" has changed since 1787 to basically include what the United States is now. The founders generally thought of direct democracy (think Athens) rather than today's broader definitions. Perhaps the most-encompassing term may be that the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

      Definition of REPUBLIC (from Merriam Webster)
      1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
      (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
      b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.


      Or from Dictionary.com:
      republic
      /rpblk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
      –noun
      1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
      2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
      3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

      --
      Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
    262. Re:Technically... by guspasho · · Score: 1

      It's the Democratic party, not the Democrat party. You make all this hay about being correct and accurate and yet you undermine your own point by revealing a bias toward political slurs over accuracy.

      Also, a few states currently apportion some of their electors based on the votes in their individual congressional districts, in order to more accurately approximate popular vote rather than winner-take-all. So in 2008 Nebraska gave the Democrats one elector and the Republicans four electors.

    263. Re:Technically... by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 1

      US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4
      The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    264. Re:Technically... by angus77 · · Score: 1

      And when people say "gay" with no modifiers they universally and unambiguously mean to say that the person being described is "happy".

    265. Re:Technically... by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      I think it is just a politicians way of trying to do something.
      The logic goes like this. There is a problem with education. By passing a law that "improves" education but doesn't cost anything is an accomplishment without any risk.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    266. Re:Technically... by cynyr · · Score: 1

      or all the "good" ones too...

      Early Rome (corruption and size made it not function in the end)
      Ireland shortly after the romans, and before the saxons.
      The vikings used is system similar to a republic.
      A fair number of tribal systems are also similar.

      There were/are quite a few human rights issues with the ones you listed, but they also did or are achieving things most other government systems could only hope to.\ in time frames that are similarly impossible.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    267. Re:Technically... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I think I know how the welfare system works. I have relatives who have been on various programs. I have renters who are on these programs. My sister lived with me for awhile and she got food stamps. Thanks to her food stamps, she was able to spend $400 a month on food. At the time, that was something like 4 times my food budget for the month.
      One of my renters is also a close friend from high school and he has the gift of gab and is also close friends with the couple I mentioned. He is always grousing about how they got this or that new thing. He has even more reason to grouse about it because he is quite definitely in the barely scraping by category and works very hard to have a much lower lifestyle than his neighbors on the government dole. He complains that he would like to quit his job, but then the state would throw him in jail because it is illegal to quit your job when you have to pay child support (that is probably not true, but then, knowing our government, maybe it is. He is one of these kinds who goes above and beyond for his ex, even helping her fix her car, paying more than the agreed child support, and so forth. I'm sure the government would rather go after him than one of these deadbeat dads who might actually be dangerous).

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    268. Re:Technically... by maraist · · Score: 1

      That's not true.. The poor get welfare and medicaide. The government and constitution makes no mention of the poor or health so technically you might be right, but these and similar laws were enacted as a matter of policy. Likewise, as a matter of policy, the middle class is purposefully left to fend for itself. With the generally accepted idea that a free market of employers and employees can produce the most efficient / desirable outcomes for both. Thus very few states have any laws mandating or prohibiting unions. The few exceptions are min wage, max work hours without overtime pay. But states tend to be more liberal than the federal government.

      --
      -Michael
    269. Re:Technically... by maraist · · Score: 1

      How to fish - that would be state sponsored colleges (community, trade and even big ivy league - I had a nice tier-1 subsidized state education at 1/20th what I hear people say they paid around the same time). It would also be that whole - I don't know, K-12 free system. (usually funded by gambling and property taxes). Once upon a time, teaching how to fish actually meant just that.. learn how to catch freaking food because they've literally not known anything else in their entire lives except how to learn how to beg. While we may still seem archaic, the poor have EVERY opportunity imaginable in the US. Some people are hit with unfortunate disabilities, or are part of really socially / emotionally destructive cultures. But the opportunities are there front and center. They have only to decide they need to make the effort to learn to read, and thereafter to actually take time from sports/TV/music and actually READ. That is so much more than most of humanity has ever had before it.. Public libraries and a mentor willing to sit with you for 12 years until you can learn to read.. That was so far removed that thousands of years went by with only listening ot a catholic priest remind the head-of-household how to treat the rest of the family while they weren't hunting/farming.

      --
      -Michael
    270. Re:Technically... by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      America can't be a socialist state - you don't help the needy at all!

      The fat check that every lazy person in the country gets every month begs to differ.

    271. Re:Technically... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Thats a republican "culture war" myth and its not sound piolitical science at all.

      The united states is a democratic republic (as opposed to australia which is a democratic constitutional monarchy for instance).

      Examples of republics:
      United states
      North Korea
      Cuba
      France

      Examples of non republics:
      Australia
      UK
      Canada
      Saudi Arabia

      You will note there is NO correlation between "Is this an independent nation with no monarchy" and its political system, with the possible exception of a monarch that (for instance in the UK, Canada or Australia) has no real powers other than symbolic and breaking supply deadlocks.

      The Correct term for Americas political system is "A democracy", or "Democratic republic" if you really want to include its independence status in there.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    272. Re:Technically... by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      as someone from utah, im going to start referring to the usa as the INDEPENDENT usa
      as republic sounds like republican, and democracy sounds like democrat

      --
      warning pointless sig
    273. Re:Technically... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      In a parliamentary system the government is formed by part of the parliament. The rest is the opposition. In the UK for example Labour is in the parliament. It is not part of the government.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    274. Re:Technically... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Technically they're right.

      No. They, and you are not correct at all.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1728628&cid=32997544

    275. Re:Technically... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      I take it that you also think it's an innocent slip of the tounge when the Republicans say "the Democrat Party"? It's not, and neither is this.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)

    276. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CEOs are needy in that way too. But don't give them anything after midnight!

    277. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's only for the presidency, but the electoral college isn't elected by the people :/

    278. Re:Technically... by swalve · · Score: 1

      Democracy as a form of government is silent on protection for minorities or informed voters. In fact, in a pure democracy, where all decisions are put to a vote and aren't restricted by some constitution, the rights of the minorities are easily trod upon. See: Wisconsin. Some silly people believe that we, as free people, have the right to coalesce into a union to collectively bargain. Wisconsin GOPers, by virtue of being in the majority, simply voted away that right for some workers. Because in a pure democracy, might makes right. I suspect the law will eventually be overturned by "activist judges" in the court system, and future bully-majorities will be restrained by law.

      That's what makes the US system so undefinable. The checks and balances and the supremacy of the constitution muddies the ability to easily define what form of government it really is. Because it is a hybrid form of government. The democratic portion is supposed to be the most volatile, since representatives are elected every two years, and the law portion is the least volatile, since Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.

    279. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad when even the dictionary mixes Democracy and Representative Democracy. You don't have to go back far to find that second definition listed.
      Then again, the dictionary represents "popular usage" of words, not the original definition. That we have profaned Democracy and Representative Democracy by the unknowing to mean the same thing does not change the underlying structure of "the system"

      As to Republic, you only need go the the "Pledge of Allegiance" to read, "and to the Republic for which it stands".
      My "Us History to the Reformation" lists the US as a Republic using a Representative Democracy form of government.

    280. Re:Technically... by swalve · · Score: 1

      First of all, the President is not a representative of the people. To use the language of the corporation, he is a CEO of a holding company of 50 sub corporations. Remember, the US is a federation of states, not one homogeneous land. (Even though history is trending toward that homogeneity.) Similar to the EU. From the outside looking in, the US is one country. But on the inside, it is a collection of quasi-sovereign nation-states who banded together in a mutual protection and cooperation scheme. The states gave up certain nation types of rights, like the ability to levy tariffs on other states, to make war, to make their own currency, to engage in diplomacy, etc. In exchange for an umbrella government that takes care of all of that. The president of the US is nowhere near an elected king from whom the power of government derives. So what the electoral college does is balance the rights of the entire population to elect their head of state, with the rights of the individual states to have an executive that acts on their behalf. (And those state governments were elected by the people for that purpose- to run the state, and to also represent the collective interests of citizens of the states at the federal level.)

      All governmental power stems from the people, and in that respect it is a democracy. But functionally it is a representative republic. Because the founders of the nation knew that a pure monarchy (even an elected one) leads to trouble, as does a pure democracy. So there are layers of obfuscation that blends the good aspects of each and negates the bad ones. It respects the right of the people to self-govern, while also acknowledging that a citizenry (as a whole) will vote in its short term interests without thinking more long term. So, in theory, the people elect their various layers of leaders on the basis that they trust those leaders to make good decisions that will balance the short term needs of the people with the long term stability of the state or nation.

      This system is unfortunately broken, because some geniuses decided that the Senate ought to be popularly elected rather than appointed by the states. The original idea was that the Senate would act as a damper on the fickle will of the people. A Senator could make tough decisions like raising taxes or reducing spending because they wouldn't be beholden *directly* to the people for their jobs. That is why there were two houses to begin with. To balance out the short term interests of the people (the house) and the longer term interests of the people of each state (the senate). Popular election of the senate muddies that distinction and removes the value of having (what amounts to) a house of Lords that are caretakers of the nation rather than representatives of the people.

      A good example is Illinois. For all the crap Obama takes for being an Illinois or Chicago politician, he probably couldn't have been elected mayor of Chicago or Governor of IL, had he chosen to run for either of those instead of President. Because the people vote for different kinds of politicians who espouse different policies depending on what they are running for. We want a bully for mayor, a nebbish for governor, and a big picture guy for president.

    281. Re:Technically... by Smurf · · Score: 1

      It's not brainwashing nor nonsense. From the same dictionaries you referenced:
      (...)

      Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).

    282. Re:Technically... by Smurf · · Score: 1

      Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).

      (Sorry for cross-posting a reply, but you said the same thing as another guy).

    283. Re:Technically... by Smurf · · Score: 1

      Of course. That is because the US is a republic. I am not arguing against that. I am only arguing against the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies and how the US can be a democracy (and at the same time a republic).

      (Sorry for cross-posting a reply, but you said the same thing as two other guys).

    284. Re:Technically... by Smurf · · Score: 1

      It's sad when even the dictionary mixes Democracy and Representative Democracy. You don't have to go back far to find that second definition listed.
      Then again, the dictionary represents "popular usage" of words, not the original definition. That we have profaned Democracy and Representative Democracy by the unknowing to mean the same thing does not change the underlying structure of "the system"

      The problem is that you and the GP poster are equating Democracy with Direct Democracy. Think of Direct and Representative Democracies as two forms of Democracy. Then, it is reasonable to mention both definitions in the same entry.

      As to Republic, you only need go the the "Pledge of Allegiance" to read, "and to the Republic for which it stands".
      My "Us History to the Reformation" lists the US as a Republic using a Representative Democracy form of government.

      I agree, the US is a Republic. I never argued it is not. I only argued against the misconception that the only form of Democracy is a Direct Democracy.

    285. Re:Technically... by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

      finally, an intelligent Democrat. Thank you for making me not lose complete faith in you guys.

      --
      There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
    286. Re:Technically... by swalve · · Score: 1

      You miss the point of voting, I think. The votes of the people who voted in the minority aren't thrown out, they simply lost the election. You take all the people, you ask them to choose Johnson or Muddlesworth, and whichever candidate gets more votes wins. The point of a vote is to communicate an individual preference and then put that up against every other voter's preference and see which option is more preferred. Losing an election is not a disenfranchisement.

      The EC was made the way it is made on purpose. It is a compromise that respects two competing forces: each state wanting to have an equal say versus the other states regardless of population, and each citizen wanting to have an equal say versus every other citizen. Both forces are necessary because of the unique structure of the US government.

      On one extreme, each state could get one vote, and whoever gets 51 votes wins. This would give the less populous too much power- presidents would routinely be elected based on the preference of a vast minority of the popular vote. A Wyoming citizen's vote would count something like 40:1 against a Californian's. If the 26 smallest states voted for one person and the 24 largest voted for another, you would have a mismatch of 54 million voters versus 215 million.

      On the other, with a purely popular vote, you would have California, Texas New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Georgia conceivably electing the president. 9 states out of 50 possibly controlling every election.

      Neither is fair. So the EC is a compromise. Big states give up a little of their power of population, and little states give up a little power of their statehood. If you look at the numbers, the difference between the EC and popular vote is pretty small. California gives up about 1.8% of their popular vote, and the smaller states get an advantage up to 0.4%.

      The difference between the EC and a purely popular vote is mostly an illusion. Any actual changes in the results of an election are at the margins- instead of the 9 most populous states beating up on the rest, it would take 11. Instead of the 26 least populous states beating up on the big boys, it would take 40.

    287. Re:Technically... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      you don't help the needy at all!

      You're either a troll, or completely misinformed.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    288. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. Latin "res publica" is NOT = to Greek "demokratia." A republic has elected individuals representing the will of the people, a democracy is government _by_ the people. In Athens this was done by assigning government positions by lot. Athenian "politicians" were not elected, and did not represent constituents. There's a fine line between calling something modern usage and just being sloppy. The US is a republic, plain and simple. On paper anyway. More of an oligarchy, really...

    289. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are in Germany, do not belong (basically an illegal, etc), then upon going into the hospital, they stabilize you and then export you to your original nation. That is true even if you have been working for them for 10-20 years and paying into the system. The fact is, that it is NOT universal.
      In America, Medicare applies to the old. Medicare applies to anybody that does not have the money to pay. The assumption is, that if you can pay, then you should.

    290. Re:Technically... by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      - What country are they?
      - People's Democratic Republic of ...
      - Oh, a communist dictatorship.

    291. Re:Technically... by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      here you go - it mentions free elections, therefore not applicable to USA.

    292. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "if the Northern states tried to make the Southern states stay in the union, and the Southern states just wanted to be left alone, then it was the Northern states who used force."

      Isn't that pretty much what I said? Why do you call it "weasel talk"?

      "There's a huge difference between forcing someone to do something, and using force to defend yourself when someone tries to force you to do something. In the former case, you're trying to impose your will on someone, in the latter case, you are only trying to keep someone from imposing their will on you."

      Other than my use of the words "not exactly", just where do we differ? It seems to me we are saying the same things.

      Wait. I think I see. Pardon me; I am coming back to this conversation after having been involved in others.

      The North might have fired the first shot. But it was firing at somebody. My point was that it takes two sides to make a war. If the South wanted to remain peaceful, they need do nothing. But they did go to war.

      You make a good point about their initial desire to secede peacefully. But that is not the way it turned out in the long run.

      But to explain my original point more fully: the Civil War did nothing to change anything in (or out of) the Constitution in regard to States' rights. All it really decided was that the Northern states were militarily stronger than the Southern states. And a couple of amendments were made to the Constitution, but those only clarified what was implied in most of the document already anyway, and did not change anything having to do with the "balance of power" (which is a misnomer) between the States and the Federal government, except to make it clear that slavery was not allowed.

      Most people (including Americans) tend to view the U.S. as a nation, ruled over by a National government. But technically and legally, that is not so. We are a Union or Federation of States, with a limited Federal government. All other powers belong to the States. Feel free to look up the difference between National and Federal.

      Our Constitution was formed (as a great many historical documents clearly state, in so many words) as a Compact, or contract, among sovereign States. Those States delegated to the Federal government certain limited powers to act on their behalf, which were not to be exceeded (guarantees that those powers would not be exceeded were given to the states before they would agree to ratify the Constitution).

      It is true that after the Civil War, the Supreme Court basically declared that the Federal government ruled over the states. However, the Supreme Court itself never had the legal authority to do that. None of the branches of the Federal government -- including the Supreme Court -- were given the power to decide that the Federal government's own powers would be. That is called "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse" and our forefathers were not that stupid.

      Read what James Madison wrote, in his Report of 1800:

      " "The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

      "However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last re

    293. Re:Technically... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      In case there is any difficulty understanding that older English, "the parties to the constitutional compact" are the States that formed the contract, or compact, among themselves that is the Constitution. All power in our Constitution therefore derives from the States, not the Federal government itself. It was just a construct of convenience, making it easier for them to trade among themselves and provide for a common defense.

    294. Re:Technically... by Slur · · Score: 1

      You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working classes...

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
    295. Re:Technically... by Celestialwolf · · Score: 1

      I'm from Utah. Two things:

      1) Why are there political pieces featured on /. that have nothing to do with technology? This isn't the first time this has happened either. I realize most people on here seem to lean to the left. Great; I don't really care. What does bother me is that I come here to read about TECHNOLOGY and not POLITICS (unless the political issue in question at least vaguely has something to do with technology).

      2) No, that law wasn't created because "democracy" contains "democrat." It was created because we are not, in fact a democracy, but a REPUBLIC. It's an attempt to undo the years of people inaccurately referring to the United States as a democracy and having everyone start to parrot the misinformation. Remember how the pledge of allegiance says "and to the Republic for which it stands"? Yeah.

    296. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typically through elected representatives

      And just what, precisely, do you think the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate, are, exactly?

      Oh right, elected representatives, through whom most of the decisions of government -- insofar as the public holds any influence at all (which isn't much) -- effect change.

      We are still a republic, and are not, nor ever have been, a democracy (and certainly not a direct democracy, Californian elections aside).

    297. Re:Technically... by metacell · · Score: 1

      So regardless of anybody's opinion of how it stood morally, the Federal government acted quite illegally and outside its authority in making war against the South. And nothing has changed in that regard. If it did the same today, it would be just as illegal and outside its authority as it was then.

      I guess we agree then. I just thought it sounded odd to say that the South was partially responsible for the war, since they refused to stay in the union. To me, it sounded a little like saying that a victim of robbery has partial responsibility in being shot, since he refused to give up his money.

      But to explain my original point more fully: the Civil War did nothing to change anything in (or out of) the Constitution in regard to States' rights.

      I'll have to trust you on this one.

      We have roughly the same situation in Europe since the European Union formed - the member nations of the EU give up part of their legislative power and have to accept what the majority decides.

      EU "laws" don't apply directly in the member nations, though. The EU only issues directives telling the member nations what their laws should look like. Each member nation is then obliged to change and amend their own laws so they conform to the minimum requirements in the EU directive. The directive doesn't apply within a nation until it has been implemented in national law.

      So there's no equivalent to a "Federal crime" in the EU - only the national laws apply to the people within a country.

      After seeing what a mire of beareucracy, lobbying and corruption the EU has become, I'm starting to think it's better if each nation keeps their full legislative power, and only cooperate through voluntary agreements. It's easier to keep checks on your national government than on the huge and distant EU government. Most people have no idea what's going on there, or even how the EU's legislative process works.

    298. Re:Technically... by metacell · · Score: 1

      All power in our Constitution therefore derives from the States, not the Federal government itself. It was just a construct of convenience, making it easier for them to trade among themselves and provide for a common defense.

      That's very similar to how the EU started. It has it roots in (mostly) voluntary trade agreements, before the member nations gave it independent legislative power and aspirations at becoming a European super-state. There's even talk about appointing a common European president.

      I think it's a general principle that governments and beareucracies tend to grow and extend their sphere of influence over time, unless something drastic happens. Even the parties which are against the EU (like the Greens) quickly discover that lobbying within the EU is the most efficient way to achieve their political goals (regarding the environment). The rewards with central legislation are direct and tempting, while the negative side effects are spread out and accumulate over time.

      I think it's only recently that defense has been coordinated within the EU, though, since Western European nations had their own armies and coordinated their defense with eachother and with the USA within the NATO agreement.

    299. Re:Technically... by doug · · Score: 1

      I thought that the US of A never recognized those states as leaving. Wasn't the whole war fought over that issue? If the goal was to eliminate slavery by invading a foreign country, why stop with the CSA?

    300. Re:Technically... by Sparrow1492 · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

    301. Re:Technically... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The Confederacy had it's own government, it's own money, and it's own army, and it's own Constitution. The USA not recognizing the CSA as a separate country is like you not recognizing that the woman that just moved out of your house and told you she was leaving you, isn't your girlfriend anymore. The USA did not conquer the CSA to 'end slavery'. That is a nice fairy tale, but it isn't the case. While slavery was a hot political topic at the time, it was central to much of the North/South disagreements, and the North took the opportunity to put an end to it, it wasn't the reason for the war. The reason for the war was because the USA was an expansionist nation. It was shooting to stretch from 'Sea to shining sea". Having large chunks of your country split off would be enough for a non-expansionist nation to go to war to reconquer a seceded territory. It certainly is enough to drive an expansionist nation to war.

    302. Re:Technically... by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      I don't know what people outside the U.S. have been taught, but it's hardly the hellhole you've been lead to believe.

      As has been commented on, I think you can squarely blame the likes of Fox News, and the Republican party as a whole for the kind of view other people think of the US. My own personal perspective is that as a gross generalisation:

      * You are all gun crazy, to the point where your solution to school shootings is MORE guns, not less. This despite your second amendment being very clear that the citizenry should only be allowed weapons if they are part of a well regulated militia.
      * You are all uncaring - you don't even have the common decency to provide healthcare to your entire population
      * You are all greedy, and money grabbing
      * You are all loud and brash - something a lot of British people find very difficult to cope with.
      * You hate anything that looks like it might be a good solution to society as a whole, but which might not be so great for a few people. This despite the effect the Federal government has had on the indigenous populations. See my comments about being greedy

      My personal view of Fox News is that they are the Sinn Fenn to the IRA. They are the mouthpiece to a bunch of loonies.

      This is of course my own personal perspective. I'll go and put my flame proof clothes on now..... :)

    303. Re:Technically... by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      Oh - and did I mention the bit about most of the world wondering why it is America has constitutionally separated church and state - and yet it would seem you can't get elected UNLESS you go to church once a week?

    304. Re:Technically... by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      I'm not a troll, so I guess I am misinformed. See my previous comments about how this Brit views America in general.

    305. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Today - anywhere in the world outside the US - the US would be described as "... the biggest collection of losers in the galaxy....

    306. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's the point of obscuring modern use and going back to terminology last used hundreds of years ago? I think it's a political motivation, suggesting that the Republican party is the natural ruling party of the country."

      I think the only reason you want to call it a "representative democracy" is because you're politically motivated to suggest the Democratic Party is the natural ruling party of the country.

      If America doesn't give more weight to the vote of a rich man, then why does every Elector in every state vote for the party that is supported by the richest people of that state?

    307. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      republic (r-pblk)
      n.
      1.
      a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
      b. A nation that has such a political order.
      2.
      a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
      b. A nation that has such a political order.
      3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
      4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
      5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

  2. Obviously by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

    I've been saying the same thing for a long time... Just look at the electorate system, etc... Obviously not a democracy in any useful meaning of the word.

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  3. editorialize much? by X_Bones · · Score: 5, Informative

    because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.

    This is completely unsupported by the linked article. Either include the proper links to back up your statements, or stop editorializing in your submissions.

    1. Re:editorialize much? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Welcome to the new Slashdot. Sadly I think Encyclopedia Dramatica is more right about "us" every day.

      (And don't let my high UID fool anybody, I only registered for the 10th anniversary parties, but I was reading from year one.)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.

      This is completely unsupported by the linked article. Either include the proper links to back up your statements, or stop editorializing in your submissions.

      Bull, of course it does.

    3. Re:editorialize much? by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      this sort of flame baiting the subby engages in just annoys the shit out of me. Utah might be a tight-ass place to live, what with all the clean cut, non offending Mormons about, and I would never consider living without beer, but I can think of a whole pile of worse places to live. Like New York City, or maybe anywhere where the lovely other religious majorities slaughter non believers, like most of the rest of the planet.

      Hell, the only complaint I can come up with against the LDS people is the whole subjugation of women thing, but that's hardly unique to them, and the vast majority of the time, the women can get away. It's not like the Mormon Mafia will track them down and honour-kill them.

    4. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the actual purpose of it is to "protect our children" from "being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum" so it might not be THAT far off.

    5. Re:editorialize much? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Your reply doesn't even parse correctly as a response to his statement.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:editorialize much? by shess · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article quotes a supporter:

      "But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum."

      They're making an entire law without backing up their statements over there, I bet that will have more ramifications than an editorializing slashdot submitter.

    7. Re:editorialize much? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the word "democrat" literally isn't in "democracy". Cleverness fail.

    8. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can get beer in Utah (UNOB lists at least a dozen+ brewpubs and micro breweries in Utah), and they made it legal to homebrew last year (or was it two years ago), leaving only 2-3 other states where homebrewing is illegal, and thus worse to live in than Utah.

    9. Re:editorialize much? by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      That's not the reason they passed this bill. That's just one of the things that the state Senator said among many other things about the bill. The SL Tribune, while a decent newspaper, is not usually very favorable towards Republicans in Utah. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, you just have to realize that this is a quote taken completely out of context. It was only one of the rationales for the bill. Besides, it is true - many places do teach socialist policies as part of their education curriculum (I got it in some of my classes in middle and high school, not that I cared). We also teach capitalism via some curriculum as well.

    10. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I maintain the Democratic party needs to change it's name. Back in the early 1900's they were Democrats, but they are not anymore. In fact, the Republicans aren't Republicans anymore either. The entire conventions for naming was that Democrats were essentially what we have now declared to be Libertarians, while modern Democrats are actually a hybrid or Republican and Socialist as they believe is expansion of government to manage the people (Republic) and expansion of government role is providing service (Socialist). Republicans are not actually much different in todays world, at least not in comparison to the turn of the century. Republicans were at one point the polar opposite of the Democrats, however, they are not only differing in scope more than anything. Republicans have reduced their push for government expansion, however still favor it, while now preaching Libertarian and Populist views. These changes in political drive with the names of old make the average person very confused. Some still believe the Democrats are pro Democracy and Republicans are pro Republic, when it's not so clear cut.

    11. Re:editorialize much? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You left out the bigoted addition from Cmdr Taco. Man what is next From the harder than getting money out of Jew department?
      Really Cmdr Taco that is really just not cool.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman M Thomas

      "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform." -- Norman M Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate on the Socialist Party ticket.

    13. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you read the article, but glossed over these parts? "HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday [...] The bill passed after weeks of debate over the differences between democracies and republics and whether socialism is a form of government or a philosophy." and "
      Between comments that pull out-of-context quotes from out-of-context senators and the blatantly sensationalist, unsupported summary, I have no idea what the fuck anymore.

    14. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utah does have some strange laws when it comes to drinking. But, I have been to Moab twice and was able to drink beer without much of a problem. And I'm from Wisconsin so I don't stray too far from where I can get beer.

    15. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this may seem backhanded it still does not support the original submitter's assumptions.

    16. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poster is full of BS. I think he deliberately misrepresented the article, probably trying to suggest Utah is anti-intellectual or something. But this isn't a conservative/liberal issue; it was passed by unanimous vote. The linked article gives no impression this was motivated by wordplay. As to whether socialism is being taught? Duh. Of course it is, and it should be. Even hard-core conservatives want socialism taught; provided it isn't the only thing presented in a favorable light. This bill wasn't about socialism though. It was about teaching the distinction between a republic and a democracy. The article says they debated whether socialism is an actual form of government or just a philosophy, and that's fine. I think the poster’s interpretation is that democracies are seen as socialist in some way. While mob rule eventually trends toward populism, which is a stepping stone to socialism, democracy is not a proxy for socialism (not even to hard core conservatives).

    17. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA quotes one rep's opinion.

      "HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday...

      The bill passed after weeks of debate over the differences between democracies and republics and whether socialism is a form of government or a philosophy."

      The reality of the situation is that we are much closer to a republic than a democracy, despite popular belief. Not sure why people find that so offensive, we strayed from constitutional ideals a long time ago.

    18. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making an entire law without backing up anything about it?

      Must be taking cues from lessons learned during the health care bill

    19. Re:editorialize much? by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      imagine a time when homebrewing was illegal, <shudder>. Now if we can make home distillation legal, we'll be even more free.

    20. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you follow that logic doesn't "Rebublic" kinda say "Republican"? What is he trying to say with that comment anyway???

    21. Re:editorialize much? by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      The problem is the extent to which they lie to themselves about their "conservatism". The only reason Utah isn't a shithole like Nevada (where I live, btw) is that the Mormon church takes on the role of big government, providing social services and seeing to it that deviant behavior isn't (openly) tolerated. This is easy when most of the state is Mormon, and those Mormons are required to pay a tax to the church (and yes, you are ostracized if you don't pay -- they keep records).

      (btw, every Mormon female I know was molested by a family member, but I don't know if that's a Mormon thing, or a Mormons-living-in-Las-Vegas thing.)

    22. Re:editorialize much? by FtDFtM · · Score: 1

      Agreed, inference is not always editorializing - given their choice of an alternative designation, I think you can infer what about "democracy" they did not like and what about "republic" they do like.

    23. Re:editorialize much? by hsjserver · · Score: 1

      It may be speculation, but if you know anything about State Governments, especially in extremely lopsided states like Utah, then it's probably true.

    24. Re:editorialize much? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      This is /. - And you don't expect editorializing? You have to be kidding.

    25. Re:editorialize much? by ichthus · · Score: 1

      That would be a concession that "democrat" and "socialist" are synonymous.

      --
      sig: sauer
    26. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... Are we to believe that you're not that bright? Or simply being dishonest in this discussion? And the way that the right wing has been constantly mispronouncing Democratic Party as "Democrat Party"? I suppose there's no agenda there either, right? I'm sure nobody in the G.O.P. would mind if we started consistently using malapropisms like Rethuglican, Repugnacan, or whatever suits us on the left to refer to them in public discourse.

    27. Re:editorialize much? by Cruntis · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the word "democrat" literally isn't in "democracy". Cleverness fail.

      yet "Republic" is in "Republican"

    28. Re:editorialize much? by butalearner · · Score: 2

      It was only one of the rationales for the bill. Besides, it is true - many places do teach socialist policies as part of their education curriculum (I got it in some of my classes in middle and high school, not that I cared).

      So? Socialism is not a curse word, despite what Republican pundits would have us all believe. Why not call certain policies what they are? For example, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program has virtually universal bipartisan support. It's a socialist program because it uses tax dollars to provide food, care, and education for low-income pregnant and postpartum women and children up to age five.

      Everybody with half a brain knows that some level of socialist programs are good for society; the two main parties just disagree on what level is appropriate. That Democrats support more socialist programs doesn't make them socialists -- just look at how Dems are in bed with Hollywood and the RIAA/MPAA. Now I'm no political scientist, but I can't think of any kind of socialist that would ever side with them, and yet the Justice Department is now ruled by RIAA lackeys thanks to Joe Biden.

    29. Re:editorialize much? by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.

      This is completely unsupported by the linked article. Either include the proper links to back up your statements, or stop editorializing in your submissions.

      Not only is it unsupported by the linked article, but it's completely incorrect.

      Python-assisted Proof:
      >>> "Democracy".find("Democrat")
      -1
      >>> "Democracy".find("Democra")
      0

    30. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... anywhere where the lovely other religious majorities slaughter non believers, like most of the rest of the planet.

      You don't get out of the USA much do you?

      "Most of the rest of the planet" is water. Of what's left, the largest country is Russia, not noted for slaughtering non-religious believers. Same goes for the 2nd largest country, Canada. In third place, China, does pretty much the opposite of what you're implying, fifth and sixth place, Brazil and Australia don't slaughter non-believers either.

      Take your yankee doodle tar brush and shove it up your ass.

    31. Re:editorialize much? by muchmusic · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'll keep reading and moderating and meta-moderating etc to try to do my part to keep things from going in this direction, but feels like I'm losing this battle.

      --
      -- If an artist saw things as they truly are, they would cease to be an artist.
    32. Re:editorialize much? by norminator · · Score: 1

      Interesting that they're trying to emphasize a republic as being the fundamentally opposed to socialism... Because certainly there could possibly be any Socialist Republics. Or even a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...

    33. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(And don't let my high UID fool anybody, I only registered for the 10th anniversary parties, but I was reading from year one.)"

      You aren't the only one.

    34. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or it will be totally meaningless and people will keep doing whatever it was that they were doing that some people may or may not be upset about.

    35. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News for malcontents. Stuff that trolls.

      People don't even bother to ask what these editorialized political 'stories' have to do with geeks any longer. The place is a hollowed out backwater.

    36. Re:editorialize much? by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform." -- Norman M Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate on the Socialist Party ticket.

    37. Re:editorialize much? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Or maybe Slashdot needs a democracy? I personally have never voted for these editors who keep screwing things up regularly or injecting sensationalism.

    38. Re:editorialize much? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me, I voted for CowboyNeal.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    39. Re:editorialize much? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's still keeping with conservative principles. The issue most conservatives have with socialism is that when it's being done by the government. They're fine and dandy with charitable institutions providing the same services. (whether or not the LDS is a charitable institution supported by voluntary donations is a different debate)

    40. Re:editorialize much? by kenh · · Score: 1

      That mis-statement was from 0ryan0, not CmdrTaco - just pointing out the attribution, but CmdrTaco choose to retain it, so he's not blameless... I'm just sayin'.

      --
      Ken
    41. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree. I see nothing in the article supporting ""Democracy" would have "Democrat" other than the OpEd stating a personal opinion which is not supported.

      And searching the bill at http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillint/hb0220.htm - I see no such nonsense.

      "A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. "
      This happens at state and federal levels. About the only place this doesn't happen is at the local levels where the majority does indeed decide.

      "...And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

      Even the presidential election is determined by the Electoral college and not popular vote (something MANY tend to forget).

    42. Re:editorialize much? by unjedai · · Score: 1

      "from the only-two-of-three-wives-agree dept" is also not cool. There are some polygamists around somewhere I hear but I've never seen one and I've lived in Utah for 20 years. And Utah doesn't have a monopoly on them - they are also found in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Canada, Montana, South Dakota... Zero members of the LDS church are polygamists because it's against church doctrine and has been for over a century. Further, only 60% of Utahns are reportedly LDS of which who knows what percent are active church goers. Yeah the state legislature are a bunch of nut jobs but with the most national parks of any state (7) and the greatest snow on Earth, there's a lot to like about Utah.

    43. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.

      This is completely unsupported by the linked article. Either include the proper links to back up your statements, or stop editorializing in your submissions.

      BINGO. The reason given was strictly editorial.

    44. Re:editorialize much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or...what? You'll hold your breath until you turn blue?

  4. More Accurate? by sjpadbury · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.

    --
    We're all full up on Crazy here...
    1. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a bit more precision, I've heard it as a Constitutional Republic.

    2. Re:More Accurate? by bunratty · · Score: 2

      School children even recite it every day. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    3. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and thats working out real well, NOT!

    4. Re:More Accurate? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not more accurate. We're a representative democracy otherwise known as a democratic republic. A republic does not suggest that you're voting on representation. It's equally valid to have a system like they did in Rome where the oldest citizens are automatically representing the people. Consequently, the term representative democracy is the term to use or democratic republic.

    5. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, which would be true if we went with a required 100% quorum. Oh, and if we didn't have the Internet. Hmmmm, perhaps it is time to revisit being a real Democracy vs having liars and crooks represent us.

    6. Re:More Accurate? by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative

      a democracy is where everyone makes every decision

      Wrong. What you're thinking of is direct democracy. Contrast that with, say, representative democracy.

    7. Re:More Accurate? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.

      I think congress has demonstrated that this is impractical as well.

      --
      ~X~
    8. Re:More Accurate? by Smurf · · Score: 5, Informative

      We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.

      I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):

      democracy |dimäkrs|
      noun ( pl. -cies)
      a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)

      Or Merriam Webster:

      democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
      plural democracies
      Definition of DEMOCRACY
      1
      a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
      b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)

      Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:

      democracy
      [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
      –noun, plural -cies.
      1.
      government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)

      Regardless of that, it must be noted that the article makes no mention of Utah making the decision because "democracy" suggests a relation to the "Democratic" party.

    9. Re:More Accurate? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes and it needs to stop. They don't even know what they're saying. Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government; if they tell you to slaughter innocents it's okay, because you've sworn to that anyway and besides, american lives are way more important than foreign scum.

    10. Re:More Accurate? by vlm · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid they had the "under god" phrase in there, so that makes your list of "old testament" style activities OK.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:More Accurate? by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      We are a federal republic, not a democratic republic.

    12. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody actually listens to the POA.

    13. Re:More Accurate? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Wrong. What you're thinking of is direct democracy. Contrast that with, say, representative democracy.

      With this issue settled, the Utah State legislature will now work on tackling the issue of legislating whether brunch is in fact breakfast, or lunch.

    14. Re:More Accurate? by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      The two are NOT synonyms. It may be appropriate to say that a democratic republic is a type of representative democracy, but a democracy per se has no protection against the tyranny of the majority, while a democratic republic may. So, with some hand waving, yes, the US is both, but calling it a republic is more accurate and better describes how the government actually works.

    15. Re:More Accurate? by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      I think the point of the parent poster was that in a democracy, representative or not, the majority always rules (be it a majority of the people, or a majority of representatives), and rules on everything. This quality defines the government. In the US, things are much more complex, and a democratic or constitutional republic is a more accurate description. (You could argue that a democratic republic is a type of representative democracy, but the reverse is not true.)

    16. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

      "For example, "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."[2]"

      The wiki describes many governments that are representative democracies, but the US is not one of them. The US is a constitutional republic based on democratic principles. That does not make it a representative democracy. It is a republic and always has been. This is grammar school level civics. I was taught this in 6th grade.

      The wiki for the US states this as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

      "The United States of America (also referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district."

    17. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From your link to the Wikipedia article on representative democracy:

      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.

      The United States is a constitutional republic.

    18. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes , that is the truth. patriotism does have a dark side at times. we are more important then other countries, naturally, that's why we have a country inthe first place, we banded together to promote our own ideals as better than others. if it wasn't that way then why would everybody and there brother be trying to get into the US?

      wakey wakey leftist, America, your homeland i would surmise, is the greates country in history. that what should be tought, republic is not enough, we need to instill pride as well.

    19. Re:More Accurate? by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2

      You are correct but even in the article you linked to we read: "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." In other words, a compound constitutional republic, which is what this Utah bill calls the U.S. So calling the U.S. a representative democracy is accurate, it's just not the most accurate. A modified (compound) constitutional republic is the best term. Yes, it's largely semantics but the fine distinctions are important.

    20. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the choice is between me or them. Hmm let me think about that for a nano second. Uh me.

    21. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a form of education

      you learn it and once you come to think about it, you think about it.

      not everything is stupid and will be used for the bad.

    22. Re:More Accurate? by Petron · · Score: 1

      Note the "Rule of the majority", "Supreme power is vested in the people".

      The majority does not rule here. If it did, we would only have the house (were seats are determined by who has the most people), and we would elect people solely on popular vote (we don't).

      Doubt the majority doesn't rule? The majority of California voters voted against gay marriage. This was overturned by the courts (last I heard on the topic). The majority lost. Look at all the civil rights movements out there. We have laws in place that work AGAINST "Majority rule". The Senate was created purely against majority rule (Each state has 2 representatives, regardless of state population.. So Rode Island has the same pull as Texas, California, New York, etc).

      The President is not elected by Majority vote either.

      We are a Republic. We do have Democratic tenancies, but we are still a Republic.

      ... and for the Republic for which it stands..

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    23. Re:More Accurate? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      The point of the Pledge of Allegiance is not to actually teach kids anything, but to indoctrinate them into being good loyal patriotic Americans ready and willing to do incredibly stupid things (e.g. sign up for the army to go fight in a country they've never heard of who poses no threat to us) on behalf of their country. It's the same sort of instinct that led my schoolteacher to use class time to force me and my classmates to make yellow ribbons and care packages for soldiers back during the 1991 Gulf War, despite my opposition to the war.

      The "under God" bit, besides being completely unconstitutional, was introduced in the 1950's solely to demonstrate how much better we were than the godless Commies because we didn't try to indoctrinate our kids with lies about patriotism and duty to country (yeah right).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    24. Re:More Accurate? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      AARGH!

      You're both!

      Didn't you do Venn diagrams at school?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    25. Re:More Accurate? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      But a "compound constitutional republic" is also a fair description of the PRC. If you can't see the difference between the US and the PRC you've got problems.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    26. Re:More Accurate? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Your pledge was a lot weirder than mine. Where did you grow up?

    27. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Representative democracy' = smoke and mirrors for 'elected oligarchy'.

    28. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):

      Actually the brainwashing was provided by certain dim bulb radio and TV stations that exude ignorance.

      The reason this bill was proposed and passed in Utah is because they want to stop those evil school teachers (who have a great deal more education in history than any of the representatives who proposed and voted on this bill) from teaching socialism ideals such as learning facts and definitions from dictionaries or encyclopaedias when nationalistic chest thumping is of much greater use than thinking.

      Just wanted to make that clarification. :)

    29. Re:More Accurate? by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      Sorry - but there is no more Democracy in our system. its a fault of man, and as such, my linguistic interpretation of the meaning of Democracy for the colloquial use here and now. Democracy is dead. There is common republic indeed, but the voice of Americans is no longer heard.

    30. Re:More Accurate? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      There's that word "representative" again. I don't think it means what the founding fathers thought that it meant, at least not any more.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    31. Re:More Accurate? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[7]

      I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

      The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[6] but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.[8]

      Also amusing:

      One objection[18] states that a democratic republic built on freedom of dissent should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, [...] Another objection lies in the fact that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools, cannot really give their consent or even completely understand the Pledge they are taking

      Most people can't even completely understand the pledge, amusingly most people don't even associate the term pledge with an oath. It's just "something you do" and "you're supposed to."

      I'm amused that there's actually controversy over this; but dismayed that most complaints are due to religion and the use of the term "God." The other arguments seem more legitimate, and I really did think I was the only one that noticed.

    32. Re:More Accurate? by mldi · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Why is this bad? Who the hell is teaching that the US is a democracy? The friggin' pledge of allegiance calls it a republic. I don't care how you spin it, in the end, it's still a republic.

      What a loaded submission.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    33. Re:More Accurate? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Paranoid fool.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    34. Re:More Accurate? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Let's just ignore that bit at the end where it proclaims liberty and justice for all, and proclaim it an evil oath.

    35. Re:More Accurate? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You can proclaim anything. Soviet Russia and China and Hitler proclaimed liberty, justice, freedom, etc. When the damn thing was written, equality for blacks and women was specifically not wanted.

    36. Re:More Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T It's the same sort of instinct that led my schoolteacher to use class time to force me and my classmates to make yellow ribbons and care packages for soldiers back during the 1991 Gulf War, despite my opposition to the war.

        One of the enlightened people that can't tell the difference between supporting the war and supporting the troops.....

      They'd rather have been home like you were.

    37. Re:More Accurate? by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      That's because China calls themselves that but really is not one; well, they are slowly working towards one. The problem with China stems from their organization of the government. In the U.S. the "compound" part is based on democratic principles including liberty; in China, their republic is based on Communistic ideology (in part, having a government headed by a dictator and a one party system) and socialistic philosophy. China has been changing over the years though. So yes, the differences between the U.S.'s republic and the Chinese republic are great because of the implementations of republican (not the party) principles (democracy vs. communism). That still doesn't make the U.S. a representative democracy, it's just that that is the basis upon which our constitutional republic is built.

    38. Re:More Accurate? by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

      ... Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government;...

      Not necessarily. It is a problem, but it does depend on the individual's view of the republic. At least according to the vision the nation was built upon, the republic is not synonymous with the government. Rather, the government should answer to the people and represent their concerns and interests. Thus, when I personally cite the pledge of allegiance it is to the principles of the Constitution and to my fellow Americans, not to the lying scum politicians currently in the drivers seat.

      (Not all of them are lying scum, but the majority certainly are.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    39. Re:More Accurate? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      democracy is where everyone makes every decision

      I have a suggestion here. Can we maybe start a donation website where all the money goes towards buying dictionaries for Americans? So that they, you know, could open them and learn what "democracy" actually means in modern English? I'm tired enough of seeing this myth on Slashdot again and again that I'd donate $20.

    40. Re:More Accurate? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You are both "federal" and "democratic". "Federal" only means that a state has internal divisions with a significant degree of autonomy. E.g. Switzerland is a federal democratic republic. Canada is also a federation, but they're not a republic at all. They're constitutional monarchy.

      "Democratic" only means that governance broadly reflects the will of the people. What mechanism is used to implement that is irrelevant to the broad definition of the word - if it is done through elected representatives, then it is a republic. But it's still a democracy.

    41. Re:More Accurate? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Canada is not a republic, but it is a democracy, and has a constitution-alike thingy (Charter of Rights), which "tempers the majority rule".

    42. Re:More Accurate? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      During 4th grade or so, I realized what they were making me say, and I just stopped doing it. I would stand up with everyone else so as not to draw attention to myself, but I kept my hands at my sides (you're supposed to put your hand over your heart) and just stood silent.

      I don't really remember, but I think they keep doing the pledge through middle school (up to 8th grade). I really hope they don't do it through high school, anyway. In all that time I never did it, and no one (teacher or classmate) ever said anything about it as far as I recall, or even gave me a dirty/inquisitive look.

      So yeah, I agree it needs to stop. But then, they're not really forcing you to take the pledge (I'm sure there are some places where you'd get in trouble for doing what I did, but I think most places are actually likely to be reasonable about it - hopefully the teachers are smart enough to realize how silly the whole thing is).

      I'm not an America-hater, either - I'm actually fairly proud to be American, and while I would love to live elsewhere in the world, it's not because I despise living in the US. There are a lot of things I don't like here, but it's a trade-off - there are a lot of things about the countries I would like to live in that I don't like either, and many of them are worse overall (like the UK).

    43. Re:More Accurate? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      It's not more accurate. We're a representative democracy otherwise known as a democratic republic. A republic does not suggest that you're voting on representation. It's equally valid to have a system like they did in Rome where the oldest citizens are automatically representing the people. Consequently, the term representative democracy is the term to use or democratic republic.

      What distinguishes the definition of a republic from the definition of a democracy is the prohibition against a head of state that is a monarch. The definitions of both often include supreme power in citizens allowed to vote and the direct or indirect election of representatives who exercise power on behalf of the citizens.

      The US government officially describes itself as a constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition.
      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

    44. Re:More Accurate? by Nemesisghost · · Score: 1

      Where's the definitions of what a republic is? I get that the US is a form of democracy, but what about it also being a republic? I know I'm probably spewing invalid facts propagated from biased elementary teachers, but what I do remember is that at the federal level we are a republic. And that's what I was taught in every elementary history class I took, some of which were in California(who probably hate non-celebrity Republics more than Utah hates Democrats). If you are going to state the facts, state all the facts.

      I'm also guessing you didn't RTFA. No where in it do they say that they passed the law because democracy is related to the Democratic party. They have a quote about it being a socialist witch hunt or something, but as far as I can tell not all Democrats are socialists and vice versa.

    45. Re:More Accurate? by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      School children even recite it every day. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."

      I remember asking my mom, "Who's Richard Stands?"

    46. Re:More Accurate? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It's still in there from when it was added in 1954.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    47. Re:More Accurate? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Where I was, there was a mob response if you didn't behave properly; effectively we were forced by mob rule. We're never taught that it's acceptable not to, or stopped from harassing others to do so. We had one person in my class that would stand but not salute or speak, and I never really figured out why until years later.

    48. Re:More Accurate? by volpe · · Score: 1

      Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government;

      "Allegiance" is not synonymous with "Obedience". Nor is "nation" synonymous with "government".

    49. Re:More Accurate? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      To further your point, ask how you could possibly give allegiance to a flag? Can a flag give you orders? Does a flag have interests you can support? It's nonsense, and nonsense accepted by rote is mind-damaging. (Which is what those seeking power want.)

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    50. Re:More Accurate? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's the Republic for Richard Stands. I don't know who he is or why it's not a republic for all of us.

    51. Re:More Accurate? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's easy: the fearless leader waves the flag to remind you he is its guardian, and you do what he says.

    52. Re:More Accurate? by ktappe · · Score: 1

      Yes and it needs to stop. They don't even know what they're saying. Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government; if they tell you to slaughter innocents it's okay, because you've sworn to that anyway and besides, american lives are way more important than foreign scum.

      "...if they tell you to imprison potentially innocent foreigners for indefinite periods with no trial, it's okay..."
      FTFY.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    53. Re:More Accurate? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      The really crappy thing was that, when I was in school, I wasn't a U.S. citizen, but I was supposed to say the pledge along with all the other kids anyway. As I grew toward high school age, this bothered me for a number of reasons:

      1. It didn't seem right to me that I should swear an oath of fealty to the U.S. when my actual allegiance was to another country. Swearing an oath to the United States wouldn't keep me from having to serve compulsory military service back home, for example (though that was unlikely to occur, as there wasn't any).
      2. As a minor, I wasn't legally entitled to swear to anything. I couldn't rent an apartment without my parents' signature, for example, or get a job. And yet I was supposed to "pledge" allegiance to the nation -- to what end? It just seemed like brainwashing to recite those lines mindlessly.
      3. As a non-citizen, I could swear my loyalty to the United States a thousand times and it wouldn't give me the right to vote, or participate in government, or have my needs represented in any way. I couldn't even necessarily expect to have my day in court if I was accused of certain crimes -- they'd just deport me. I was being asked to swear an oath to a country that didn't feel like it owed a damn thing to me in return, except the right to pay taxes.

      On another level, as a citizen of three countries today, I just don't believe in the kind of flag-waving patriotism that has people swearing loyalty oaths -- especially when their only real connection to a given geographic region is an accident of birth. I had to jump through a whole lot of hoops to become a U.S. citizen. I'm proud that I am one, but I swore a real loyalty oath when I was naturalized; I don't feel a need to ever say one again, to anyone. My loyalty is on file with the Department of Homeland Security -- fat lot of good it will ever do me.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    54. Re:More Accurate? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      is this the part where we start shouting YESNOYESNOYESNO back and forth until one of us passes out and is therefore declared the looser? Repeating yourself is usually a sign that you are trying to convince yourself as well as others that you are right.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    55. Re:More Accurate? by Smurf · · Score: 1

      Where's the definitions of what a republic is? I get that the US is a form of democracy, but what about it also being a republic? I know I'm probably spewing invalid facts propagated from biased elementary teachers, but what I do remember is that at the federal level we are a republic. And that's what I was taught in every elementary history class I took, some of which were in California(who probably hate non-celebrity Republics more than Utah hates Democrats). If you are going to state the facts, state all the facts.

      Oh, I agree with you, the US is a republic. I'm not arguing it is not. I am arguing that it is also a democracy and that the reason given by most to say it is not is based on the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies. That's all.

      I'm also guessing you didn't RTFA. No where in it do they say that they passed the law because democracy is related to the Democratic party. They have a quote about it being a socialist witch hunt or something, but as far as I can tell not all Democrats are socialists and vice versa.

      I'm guessing you didn't RTF last line of my post. ;-)

  5. Why start being correct now? by EricWright · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, the USA IS a republic... a (supposedly) democratically elected republic, but a republic nonetheless. Maybe we should leave the terms democratic and republic alone and rename the political parties. How about lazy jackasses and fat ugly elephants instead?

    1. Re:Why start being correct now? by characterZer0 · · Score: 2

      Whigs and Tories.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:Why start being correct now? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      That's true. The hard part is defining what a republic means. It more or less means not a monarchy or dictatorship. I think democracy became the shorthand for the US government, especially in the past where everything else was either a monarchy, dictatorship, or theocracy.

      If we look at definitions of republic they usually describe a democracy. Regardless, like most modern governments, the US is a mixed government. You have:

      Monarchy element: President/Executive branch
      Aristocratic element: Senate
      Democratic element: House
      Judicial/Elders element: SCOTUS

      Obviously, all these branches except SCOTUS are directly voted in by the people. This is also a feature a lot of republics don't have. Instead people vote in the lower houses and the rest get appointed by the higher levels.

    3. Re:Why start being correct now? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      It's stupidly easy to define "republic". It means there's representation of the people in government. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no implied meaning beyond that, like "elected" representation, or "appointed" representation. Recently Egypt was a republic, Rome was a republic, the US is a republic.

    4. Re:Why start being correct now? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Why start being correct now? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Thats a very modern and subjective way of looking at it, and its a bit unfair as we can look at the worst dictatorship and see some basic lower house that is powerless and call it a republic.

      I believe the term, historically, was controversial because its not very meaningful.Wikipedia:

      "he term is generally also understood to describe a government where most decisions are made with reference to established laws, rather than the discretion of a head of state, and therefore monarchy is today generally considered to be incompatible with being a republic. One common modern definition of a republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch"

      So, in other words, there's some basic legal structure in place. The king just can't write up death notices for random people.

    6. Re:Why start being correct now? by mrax · · Score: 2

      It's stupidly easy to define "republic". It means there's representation of the people in government. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no implied meaning beyond that, like "elected" representation, or "appointed" representation. Recently Egypt was a republic, Rome was a republic, the US is a republic.

      Because, for example, UK has representation of people in the government, and is not a republic.

    7. Re:Why start being correct now? by ian_from_brisbane · · Score: 1

      How about lazy jackasses and fat ugly elephants instead?

      How about giant douches and turd sandwiches?

    8. Re:Why start being correct now? by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      How democratic is it really, though? While I understand that the states each get so many votes I thought it was undefined how an individual state chooses how to select a candidate to vote for? So if Michigan decides that from now on all votes will go to the democratic representative, then so long as they follow state laws to come to that conclusion, that would be OK by US law. Is this incorrect? If this is correct then the US is only as democratic as the states choose to be, there is no guarantee of democracy for the individual person, only for the state as a whole.

    9. Re:Why start being correct now? by Bemopolis · · Score: 2

      More like Roundheads and Cavaliers.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    10. Re:Why start being correct now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the president is not directly voted in. See the term "faithless elector."

      -Gareth

    11. Re:Why start being correct now? by EricWright · · Score: 1

      <monotone>We should all join the brain-slug party</monotone>

    12. Re:Why start being correct now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Obviously, all these branches except SCOTUS are directly voted in by the people."

      Technically you're incorrect. The people do not vote the President directly into office. We vote for "electors" in the presidential election who often take an oath to vote as directed by their states voters, but that vote is not always legally binding. In fact at least according to Wiki, only a few states have laws in place to void the vote of an elector who votes against the will of the people. True it appears "faithless electors" have never swung an election, but the system does have some pretty obvious flaws.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Electoral_College

    13. Re:Why start being correct now? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Add to that the people who care more about hugging trees than helping humanity, then the party that cares more about complaining about everything over a cup of tea or pizza rather than offering up any real working solutions, and the people who are secretly lazy jackasses, but want to make everyone happy, so they pretend that they don't care

    14. Re:Why start being correct now? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Assholes and Douchebags

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    15. Re:Why start being correct now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trey and Matt had it right, Giant Douches and Turd Sandwiches... you gotta love the accuracy...

    16. Re:Why start being correct now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bishops and the Mau Maus

    17. Re:Why start being correct now? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Monarchy element: President/Executive branch

      Obviously, all these branches except SCOTUS are directly voted in by the people.

      Not true. POTUS is not directly voted in by the people. POTUS is voted in by the States, using electoral colleges, who are under no obligation to vote the way their own citizens have requested.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    18. Re:Why start being correct now? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      i think you meant "turd sandwiches" and "giant douches" not the other way around. no need to offend anyone one here...

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  6. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen, brotha!

  7. That's because it IS a Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Even the founders said so...
    "AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    http://www.fff.org/freedom/1101b.asp

    1. Re:That's because it IS a Republic by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      if you can keep it. Franklin and Orwell would have gotten along well. Maybe disagreed a lot, but gotten along quite well.

    2. Re:That's because it IS a Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No-one is saying that USA is not a republic. Of course it is. It's also a democracy. The fuss here is that the law explicitly says "republic... not a democracy".

  8. "Utopia" comment reminds me of "Raising Arizona" by carusoj · · Score: 1

    "I saw an old couple being visited by their children, and all their grandchildren too. The old couple weren't screwed up. And neither were their kids or their grandkids. And I don't know. You tell me. This whole dream, was it wishful thinking? Was I just fleeing reality like I know I'm liable to do? But me and Ed, we can be good too. And it seemed real. It seemed like us and it seemed like, well, our home. If not Arizona, then a land not too far away. Where all parents are strong and wise and capable and all children are happy and beloved. I don't know. Maybe it was Utah. "

  9. Not a Republic? by Mage66 · · Score: 1

    Since the U.S. is indeed a Representative Republic and not a Democracy (which the founders despised), why is this an issue. I thought schools were supposed to teach facts?

    1. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only in Canada. Come on over, we've got (good) beer and educated (and slimmer) women.

    2. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since the U.S. is indeed a Representative Republic and not a Democracy (which the founders despised), why is this an issue.

      I thought schools were supposed to teach facts?

      You fail political science forever.

      "Democracy" is not, despite what James Madison alleged, synonymous with "one-person-one-vote-simple-majority-mob-rule." In fact, it is almost impossible to have a functioning republic without democracy. A republic without democracy is typically a front for a dictator who claims he's acting in the people's interest.

      Fighting about the meaning of "Democracy" and "Republicanism" is like fighting over "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux."

      Oh, wait. Nevermind.

    3. Re:Not a Republic? by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Which is why you'll never find anybody teaching that we're a representative republic. We're a representative democracy, we have elected officials that vote for us, which is typically what they mean by representative democracy rather that being a republic. It's also why a lot of people refer to the US as a democracy because we are a type of democracy, even if not always directly. And despite what the founding fathers thought, the constitution ended up forming a representative democracy, which to be fair to them didn't really exist at the time. Representative democracy

    4. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "Republic" is from the Latin "Res Publica", which, roughly translated, is "The Public Thing".

      So, we could do that... or we could just agree as we have for hundreds of years that a Republic is one in which the power is vested in representatives, who may or may not be voted upon by constituents.

    5. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the wiki page you linked?

      "'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.'"

    6. Re:Not a Republic? by Mage66 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, got the highest marks in school for political science.

      Democracy as a form of government is different than using a Democratic process within a Republic, which this country surely is.

      I'd say the fail is yours. But, thanks for playing!

    7. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sure aren't teaching punctuation.

    8. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny, the people who designed our system of government thought differently.

      http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

      “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

          “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    9. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is that you're both. You're head of state isn't a monarch, therefore you're a republic. You're government is elected, therefore you're a democracy.
      No wonder schools fail at teaching facts when they fail at teaching definitions neccessary to describe facts.

    10. Re:Not a Republic? by knight24k · · Score: 1

      Your link specifically excludes the US as a Representative Democracy. Might want to review those links first.

      "For example, "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."[2]"

    11. Re:Not a Republic? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Times change, and so do words. "Democracy" today is an umbrella term that the ancient Greeks would probably have disagreed with. But I also support being more precise about our federalist, limited-democratic republic.

    12. Re:Not a Republic? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Could you tell me why the Founders despised Democracy, given that they had not experienced it?

    13. Re:Not a Republic? by Mage66 · · Score: 1

      No Democracy lasts long, and usually devolves into the majority voting themselves largess from the public coffers.

      "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
      -- Professor Alexander Tytler over 200 years ago

      "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
      -- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

      Here's a link:

      http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/why_our_founders_feared_a_democr.htm

    14. Re:Not a Republic? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Snopes doubts the authenticity of the Tytler quote. Moreover, your source doesn't answer my question, instead repeating canards and urban legends in support of a more theocratic state.

    15. Re:Not a Republic? by Mage66 · · Score: 1

      Snopes.com is not a reliable source. Two people over a kitchen table who have been found to be inaccurate a lot of times, is not an impeccable source.

      Since there's a lot of scholarship on the fact that the founders despised Democracies as a form of government, you are going to have to accept that.

      Remember, Democracy as a form of Government, and democracy as a practice are two distinct things.

      As we can see, despising the former had nothing to do with them incorporating the latter into our Representative Republic.

    16. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say you're arguing semantics on the internet; you both fail, but you get the bigger piece of the fail for starting the argument in the first place.

    17. Re:Not a Republic? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Have you read Toqueville's "Democracy in America"?

    18. Re:Not a Republic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible. Democracy is not a form a government. How hard is this? Democracy is an ideology of where power is derived. Is it derived from god (theocracy), from tradition (monarchy), from the most powerful citenzens (oligarchy), or from the people (democracy)? If power is ultimately in some form derived from the will of the people you are democracy. If you are not a democracy, then you do have not elections, or at least not election that has any influence. If you have elections that has actual influence, you are democracy, but it is never a form of government, and thus the US government (or any state in the world) is never called a democracy.

    19. Re:Not a Republic? by Mage66 · · Score: 1

      Only parts of it. I actually just downloaded it from Gutenberg.org

      http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815 - Volume 1
      http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815 - Volume 2

      I've got a bunch of reading to do before them though. I'm cuurently reading "Blink" by Gladwell, and have two others of his books next.

  10. "There are bigger issues to tackle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That is the most frequently abused red herring.

    People can work on more than one issue at a time; in fact, it's the only way things ever get finished.

    1. Re:"There are bigger issues to tackle" by hedwards · · Score: 2

      They can, but when it's some sort of bullshit like this which the legislature shouldn't be doing at all, the resources should be spent elsewhere. Just because you can do more than one thing at a time, doesn't mean that wasting time on stupid things like this isn't harmful.

    2. Re:"There are bigger issues to tackle" by khallow · · Score: 1

      You ignore the obvious rebuttal. It is better for legislators to be doing this sort of lightweight nonsense than actual work. Legislators are one of the very few careers where it is better to be a complete slacker than to have any sort of industry or ambition.

  11. Republic by ciaohound · · Score: 1

    Yes, and for centuries the Jedi defended the Republic. That was before the dark times.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    1. Re:Republic by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      You fought in the Twitter wars? Did you know my father?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  12. Well, they are right. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    The reasons behind it may be corrupt, but the United States is actually a republic, not a democracy.

    "Congratulations gentlemen, you have a republic, if you can keep it"
          -Benjamin Franklin,

    at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787

    1. Re:Well, they are right. by mikeken · · Score: 1

      How are the reasons behind it corrupt?

    2. Re:Well, they are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reasons behind it may be corrupt, but the United States is actually a republic, not a democracy.

      "Congratulations gentlemen, you have a republic, if you can keep it"

            -Benjamin Franklin,

      at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787

      A republic is a nation with a chief of state who is not a monarch.

      A democracy is a nation in which citizens exert control over decisions, either directly or through representatives.

      We are definitely a republic. We are definitely a democracy. A democracy is a subset of a republic.

    3. Re:Well, they are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A democracy is a subset of a republic.

      Uh, you do know that by this you are claiming that the UK, Canada and Australia all are not democracies?

    4. Re:Well, they are right. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      "Congratulations gentlemen, you have a republic, if you can keep it"

      So, where in this sentence does it say anything about USA not being a democracy?

    5. Re:Well, they are right. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      So it's not The United States of America either? Ladies and Gentlemen, Benjamin Franklin failed to acknowledge that the United States was anything except for "a republic". Hence forth the USA shall be called simply: "Republic".

      Things can be more than one thing--at the same time. I know, it's a difficult concept so I'll wait to cover "gray areas" on a future date and other even more advanced topics.

    6. Re:Well, they are right. by euroq · · Score: 1

      I can't believe there is a whole slashdot discussion devoted to this topic, and I came along a day late. I was hoping that my signature (which I changed months ago) would get me kudos.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  13. Democracy is... by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

    There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system. The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.

    1. Re:Democracy is... by RogueyWon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed, if you want to look at the history of actual full-fledged democracies, you can find the kind of brutalities that would make even the average despot blush.

    2. Re:Democracy is... by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

      Democracy is a horrible form of government, but its the best we have. :)

    3. Re:Democracy is... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system.

      Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination. That's exactly like saying slavery isn't inherently bad as long as the overseer is merciful.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Democracy is... by Devoidoid · · Score: 1

      ... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

      That's why you need a constitution that explicitly denies the Federal government the power to eat the citizenry or any portion thereof.

    5. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incredible - someone intelligent responding with facts for once.

    6. Re:Democracy is... by RenegadeTempest · · Score: 1

      "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others...." -Churchill

    7. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, a failed attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships. We now have one wolf and three sheep deciding what's for dinner.

    8. Re:Democracy is... by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would you care to explain what you mean by your self-determined "right to self-determination"? In doing so, please explain how it restricts an individual from pursuing his own interests, the way a slavemaster prevents a slave from leaving his labor to pursue his own interests.

    9. Re:Democracy is... by I3OI3 · · Score: 1
      > Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

      Anything else is 3 wolves and a sheep having grass for dinner.

    10. Re:Democracy is... by tooyoung · · Score: 1

      That's why you need a constitution that explicitly denies the Federal government the power to eat the citizenry or any portion thereof.

      But what of the Gelgameks?!?!

    11. Re:Democracy is... by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      And Liberty is...

      The Sheep has a shotgun and is able to contest the vote...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    12. Re:Democracy is... by gman003 · · Score: 2

      So, your saying that you would be fine with a dictatorship, as long as the dictator was making moral and ethically sound decisions?

      While a benevolent dictatorship might work for Linux, I don't think it would work well for a full government. You can't fork a country as easily, if you disagree with the decisions.

    13. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.

      Which has made it a corporate fascist state, firmly controlled by multinationals with neither conscience nor moral. Not much of an improvement, if you ask anyone who hasn't been brainwashed into thinking anything even remotely resembling real democracy is "socialism" or "communism". :/

    14. Re:Democracy is... by nhaehnle · · Score: 1

      Looking at the political discourse in Western democracies these days, a more accurate statement would be that democracy is 3 wolves persuading 1000 sheep that the wolves should get meat for dinner. Then, when some of the sheep point out that that's unfair, the other sheep will attack them, having been thoroughly brainwashed by the wolves.

    15. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it somehow better to be oppressed by 51% of the population of your country than to be oppressed by one or a few dictators? Saying democracy is inherently good is like saying slavery is inherently good as long as most people think you should be enslaved.

      Captcha: autonomy

    16. Re:Democracy is... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The inherent problem with dictatorships is a lack of checks on power. Without it, the old adage about absolute power corrupting absolutely holds true. That said, there's nothing in Democracy itself that sets up a check on power, but at least it's possible in the system. Even if you do find a saint to run a dictatorship and keep out the corruption, he's eventually going to die and have to be replaced, and you chances of finding two saints in a row are slim indeed. Once the corruption sets in, it's pretty much impossible to root out as well, you have to have revolution of some kind to depose the dictator and his cronies and start again.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    17. Re:Democracy is... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      And one that defines three branches (wolves) to keep the others in check from eating the sheep. That's the idea anyways.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    18. Re:Democracy is... by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      ... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

      Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    19. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to consider the odds that your interests align with 51% of the population, as opposed to with 0.00001% which happen to own Wall Street, GM, Microsoft etc etc?

    20. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination. That's exactly like saying slavery isn't inherently bad as long as the overseer is merciful.

      True, although a benevolent dictatorship or a merciful overseer isn't as likely to violate such rights to self-determination as much as any democracy would. A tyranny of 51% of the population is still a tyranny, and one far greater than that of most tyrants of history. Benevolent dictatorships might exist, but benevolent mobs never do.

      Naturally, you don't consider yourself a tyrant, but the fact is that you are probably among the worst tyrant of history. You just happen to share your tyrannical power with other tyrants, who have collectively delegated your day-to-day oppression of the minority to a bureaucratic class (conveniently paid for from the involuntary tribute of the people you oppress).

    21. Re:Democracy is... by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system.

      A dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. This is inherently bad.

    22. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

      There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system. The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.

      Nonsense. Looking at income statistics, democracy is better described as 99 sheep and 1 wolf deciding what to have for dinner.

      The true mystery of democracy is why the sheep so often end up on the table.

    23. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, your saying that you would be fine with a dictatorship, as long as the dictator was making moral and ethically sound decisions?

      It would be better than the unethical and immoral elected representation that we currently have...

      Of course, the real problem is what happens when the benevolent dictator is succeeded through hit-by-a-bus or age. Benevolence is a property of a person, not of every person and not of a system of government.

    24. Re:Democracy is... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Again, moral judgment can only be judgment of actions. Inherent good/evil is a false concept. A non-elected ruler of a nation who, in every action, upholds and protects individual rights, is morally judged to be good. An elected senate who, in every action, violates those rights, is morally judged to be bad. No moral weight is assigned to an individual apart from the actions of that individual. Anyone who attempts to do so is simply trying to evade providing a rational argument.

    25. Re:Democracy is... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Now, let me ask you this. How do you feel about a government that requires you to purchase something you may not need, but definitely do not want? Where is the "self determination" in that?

      Look, I'm all for self determination and letting people deal with the consequences of their choices, without pity. Too bad the leftwing dingbats are all for self determination until it affects their Utopian ideals, and then they side more with the dictatorial side of things.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    26. Re:Democracy is... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      A dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. This is inherently bad.

      There is no such thing as collective consent. There are only individuals, and only individuals can provide consent. Consent is also not a primary - if a society of individuals wishes to enslave themselves, or wishes to be able to enact revenge against other individuals without the government acting as an objective intermediary, and the dictator refuses to allow those wishes to be fulfilled, the dictator is in the right.

      Any government, whether dictatorship or democracy, is only bad so long as its actions are bad. There is no such thing as inherent good/evil. Only actions are good or bad.

    27. Re:Democracy is... by gman003 · · Score: 1

      So all we need is an immortal benevolent dictator? Sounds like a theocracy to me...

    28. Re:Democracy is... by Shrike82 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination.

      Nonsense. I live in a country with a democratically elected government, and we've had three different parties involved in leading the country over the last decade and beyond. Nothing changes. That's not self-determination through democracy, that's giving people the illusion of being able to detemrine their destiny through democracy. I'm sure in many dictatorships the people on the street have just as much ability to decide their own fate as I do - they can change careers, can get married, can have kids, can buy a new car or choose to use public transport, and so on.

      Democracy vs. Dictatorship is not as black and white as you're making out.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    29. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, the guy that gives me the paycheck so I can pay excise taxes on my 20 year old car seems pretty merciful to me at face value.

    30. Re:Democracy is... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      He means that because government affects the lives of subjects, participation in directing government action is an essential component of determining one's own life.

      Shit, to me that's totally obvious. How was that not obvious to you? Maybe I don't understand your question.

      PS GP is wrong about one thing -- it is not "exactly the same" as slavery, but rather "is similar in one limited way".

    31. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system.

      Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination. That's exactly like saying slavery isn't inherently bad as long as the overseer is merciful.

      That presupposes that self-determination is _always_ a good thing.

    32. Re:Democracy is... by drcesteffen · · Score: 1

      In a dictatorship, the power is concentrated in the dictator and support structure. In a democracy, the power is distributed throughout the system. The support structure is tasked to maintain this distribution of power. For instance, there exists a mechanism for removing elected officials. If the dictator becomes a greedy monster, the dictator system works horribly. In a democracy, if the leader becomes a greedy monster there are other people representing other interests in the society to hold the monster in check. Of course, if all of the people in power become greedy monsters the democracy will work moderately well if the greedy monsters are at odds. If they are not at odds, then the democracy will work horrilbly as well. So the democracy has the advantage of a distributed power structure. The market ecomomy is another example of a distributed power structure while every company in the market ecomomy is modeled after a dictatorship. Normally, The market economy weeds out the greedy-monster dictatorship companies by letting them fail.

    33. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system.

      Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination. That's exactly like saying slavery isn't inherently bad as long as the overseer is merciful.

      No. A dictatorship just means that one person has ultimate power. To be benevolent, it would have to be what the people want. After the American revolution, the people self-determined that they wanted George Washington to be king (dictator). But, he refused, so they had to go with a republic instead.

    34. Re:Democracy is... by Myopic · · Score: 2

      I'm not clear on your complaint. Government requiring you to purchase things that you otherwise wouldn't purchase is literally the entire reason government exists, and describes every single thing a government does . I probably wouldn't pay for an interstate road system, foreign wars, historical monuments, or even public libraries, unless the government required me to do so. And yet, I definitely absolutely positively without a doubt live in a better world because of that governmental requirement, and so, to answer your question, I feel very good about it.

      Where is the self determination? Good question! It's in the voting booth. We all get together in big groups and decide what we are going to require other people to do, usually indirectly via representatives. It's a great system and everyone (pretty much) gets to participate. And even better yet, people who don't like the outcome are absolutely free to leave the country and pursue their own agenda elsewhere; we don't restrain people from leaving. I hear that Darfur is a nice region for people who don't like government telling them what to do.

      I'm glad we've cleared up these questions for you. I bet you'll have a much better time living in this wonderful stable prosperous democracy we've build here in Western civilization.

    35. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy violates the right of the people to self-determination as well. In the example above, the sheep can vote all it wants and still get eaten. Similarly, I can vote all I want in the U.S. and I'm still going to be paying taxes. Some people then say 'well, if you don't like it you can leave'. So, my options are to be oppressed by the majority, or leave. Sounds like a dictatorship.

    36. Re:Democracy is... by brian0918 · · Score: 2

      He means that because government affects the lives of subjects, participation in directing government action is an essential component of determining one's own life.

      So long as the government is acting properly, individuals have no need to involve themselves in government actions. Individuals who appeal to the government to violate the rights of others should rightly be ignored. Again it comes down to the actual actions of the individuals and the government.

      If you are trying to construct a government safe against the possibility of totalitarian rights violations, I agree that individuals should have representation. But that can lead to rights violations of its own (e.g. death of Socrates, or ubiquitous examples in the US). That is why it is of greatest importance to define the proper role of government, and design government in such a way that it adheres to that definition.

    37. Re:Democracy is... by Wulfrunner · · Score: 1

      So I can choose not to pay taxes? Self-determination is an illusion unless you live by yourself on a deserted island.

    38. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we don't restrain people from leaving

      Just curious, but are citizens entitled to a passport? Here in the UK they are not (it's at the government's discretion) so the government does restrain people from leaving when it chooses to. (I mean aside from obvious cases like you're awaiting trial for murder.)

    39. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not actually nonsense. What if you are a minority in a Democracy? You are being denied the right to self-determination by the will of the majority. Is your discontent any less valid than that of people whose rights are curtailed by a dictator?

      Eg:
      Dictator says: "pay these taxes or face the penalty"
      Elected members of Congress say: "pay these taxes or face the penalty"
      If i don't want to pay taxes, both options are equally bad.

      The argument against this might be: "in a democracy you can change the tax laws with your vote". IMO, that is not accurate - there are plenty of things that will never be changed via a vote, for example the income tax. In fact, it would be easier to convince a dictator to get rid of taxes than it would be to get a majority of people to vote them down.

    40. Re:Democracy is... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      So the democracy has the advantage of a distributed power structure.

      That is its only advantage. A government is only as good as its constitution, and only so long as that government adheres to the constitution. A government founded on a vague constitution referencing "domestic Tranquility", "general Welfare", and other anti-concepts, which can mean anything to anyone, leaves itself open to tyranny, regardless of the form of government.

    41. Re:Democracy is... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It is utterly irrelevant for me personally, what precisely is the mechanism by which my rights are violated.

      For example I am 100% against all income taxes, against taxing income at all levels, regardless of the situation, basically completely against funding government through income.

      Income taxes still exist, so from my perspective these are my rights that are violated to the fruits of my labor, not to what I would spend on myself, but how I would invest my own money.

      How is it different for me whether this is a dictator deciding to share my income or the mob?

    42. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the case where democratic representatives just aren't hold personally accountable for not fulfilling campaign or other promises?

      Doesn't that violate "the right of the people to self-determination" about just as much as a dictator might, putting the actual fulfillment of their "self-determination" into the hands of someone not obliged, albeit maybe willing to do so for popularity reasons?

      It seems to me it's just the same problem for "self-determination" attenuated by the fact that responsibilities are spread over a number of persons... who unfortunately also often seem to be systematically corrupted by some interest groups, in strange ways, negating some of the benefit...

    43. Re:Democracy is... by Nemesisghost · · Score: 1

      Who says that a dictator came to power without the consent of the people? Originally, a dictator was given power by the republic to meet some given demand on the state(ie war). People can, and often still do, give up certain rights for various reasons. The US did after 9/11, and so have many others before and since that time.

    44. Re:Democracy is... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      So, what you're saying is that as long as we vote on it, and the majority want it, it is okay? SO you're okay with Gay Marriage being illegal then right? Obama should be impeached for not defending DOMA then, right?

      Darfur is a strawman and you know it. And this wonderful western stable state hasn't always been that way. There was this thing called the US Civil war. Perhaps you've heard about it. And Western Democracies have had issues, I can recall WWI and WWII. Heck even Hitler was elected.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    45. Re:Democracy is... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Really? And why is that?

      You're immediately assuming a dictatorship is authoritarian. A benevolent dictator could quite easily lay down the rules and allow people to do whatever they want within those rules. Sort of like what we have now except much more efficient.

      All forms of government besides pure anarchy violates the right of the people to self-determination. All laws and regulations restrict what you can and can't do without legal repercussions. The only difference between the forms of government is how those laws and rules come about.

      --
      ~X~
    46. Re:Democracy is... by Vaphell · · Score: 1

      not buying it. In democracy majority can vote that minority has no right to self-determination and the result is the same. Turkey is the most modern muslim country, democracy and whatnot and yet being a Kurd is no walk in the park there. As a counterexample: througought the history there were cases of enlightened countries that practised freedom of religion at levels unheard in other parts of the world - various muslim states in middle ages, India, 16th century Poland
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
      I picked religion but you can be sure that very often it walked hand in hand with economic and political freedom - what more would you want?

    47. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic every election your favored candidate loses is a violation of self-determination. Your slavery argument starts with inherently negative concepts.. That is not the point of the above commenter, if the dictator does everything you want is it then bad simply because you didn't elect him? Inherent rights are a interesting philosophical concept because they only work when enough people believe in them.

    48. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 wolves and a sheep Voting on what's for dinner.

    49. Re:Democracy is... by olau · · Score: 1

      If you're in the 49% minority group, there isn't theoretically much difference between a dictatorship and democracy. The 49% figure is not contrived, even in Denmark where we have plenty of parties, they tend to divide into two blocks of about the same size and only offer the losing group little power after the elections.

      Of course, in practice it turns out there are big differences. For instance, most democracies seem to adopt a constitution that prevents the majority from the most blatant violations of individuals' rights. That's why the OP's assertion is silly, although interesting to ponder.

    50. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government exists to set limitations in order to manage society as a whole. Based on your above statement, it is therefore logical to assume *all* government violates the rights of the people to self-determination, thus making your statement...well...redundant?

      What's bad about a dictatorship is just as bad about a democracy....only the lengths to which these two go in order to limit the rights of the people vary, and they can swing wildly in both directions.

    51. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on that logic a Republic is just slavery where we get to pick our masters.

    52. Re:Democracy is... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      We wanted the public option; those on the right who are terrified of EEEEEEVIL socialism made sure that wasn't a possibility. The only other way to fund the thing is an everyone-pays system, which is ALSO what those on the right wanted. It is most CERTAINLY not what those on the left wanted.

      It's impossible to have discussions with people like you because you START with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a "leftwing dingbat". Get off your high horse and stop it with the fucking name calling -- it's childish and non productive. And on top of that, those on the right are just as guilty in the hypocrisy department: they're all for small government until it interferes with their ideals of not letting women have control of their own bodies. They're all for the sanctity of life until that life is some brown person on another continent.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    53. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dictator can only come up with so many stupid ideas at a time. In a democracy there is no such restriction. On self-determination, do you mean the people as a whole, or every individual? What is so virtuous about 50%+1 telling everybody else what to do? Pure free self-determination (or self-ownership) is anarchy, not democracy (and I do not mean that in any derogatory way). No matter how beneficial cooperation can or might be, voluntary cooperation is not the same thing as mandatory cooperation.

      On slavery, slavery is a concept. It is also complex. Without going into the entire mess of things it is arguable that on the premise that if slavery bad, then if the relationship between person A and B is not bad, then it is not slavery. Is it possible for a benevolent and humble individual could be solely responsible for the life and labor of another person and that such other person could have no legal rights, but this situation would not be slavery? Happens all the time. There are also situations of systemic, institutionalised coercion and fraud inflicted upon people that is not considered slavery. Maybe such situations should be called slavery, but either way that doesn't magically fix anything.

      I expect one is going to say "That isn't what I was talking about" or "That's playing semantics", but there is an important point. The belief that slavery is inherently "evil" judges societies and owners of slaves as inherently "evil". A more appropriate look would be from the economic stand point that in any bad situation what you have is a bad solution to a real problem. Casting a judgement of "inherently evil" on any institution dismisses the problems. Of course bad solutions can create more problems and more bad solutions, but that is jumping ahead.

      If slavery is inherently evil, then the obvious solution is to kill all the slave owners and set the slaves free. If slavery is a bad institution poorly addressing real problems then you have the much more complex situation of needing to find the root problems and finding better solutions for not "slaves" or "masters", but PEOPLE.

      brian0918 makes a solid point. I can't remember who said it, but a quote I like: "The only difference between forms of government are the methods people employ to get rid of bad ideas."

    54. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination. That's exactly like saying slavery isn't inherently bad as long as the overseer is merciful.

      A necessary part of any government is that it violates the right of the people to self-determination. By being in the United States, we all do not have the ability to do many things. I cannot be a doctor without a license; I cannot steal what ever I want; I cannot do many things I want (Yes, I know I could still do them and face the consequences but the same is true for a slave disobeying their master). The whole point of government is that our wants and desires become subservient to it!

    55. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination. That's exactly like saying slavery isn't inherently bad as long as the overseer is merciful.

      Nonsense. Even benevolent mob rule violates the right of the minority to self-determination.

      See what I did there?

    56. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't do too well with thought experiments, do you?!

      Just because we have yet to see a dictatorship that redefines the word as it applies physical reality, doesn't mean it can't exist. And, your comparison is very ironic, considering the history of this country. Are you telling me that this country was a true Democratic Republic prior to the Civil War?

    57. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is all governments tend to violate the rights of self-determination for SOME people be they dictatorship or democracy. One can certainly imagine a monarchy which violates the right of self-determination than many modern democracies.

      Oh, you meant collective self-determination? Sort of a circular line, don't you think?

    58. Re:Democracy is... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Self-determination is an individual issue. Government can frustrate it, but nothing about dictatorship necessarily prevents self-determination. What governments with frequent valid elections provide is a mechanism (one of several) for preserving such rights as self-determination.

      That assumes, of course, that your idea of self-determination isn't "I'm determined to dominate everyone."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    59. Re:Democracy is... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Moreover, a democracy is predicated on an informed, educated public. We've lost those for years in most countries and votes are bought with promises of bread and circuses.

      In general, a well-run government of any type is better than a poorly-run government of any type. The big difference is, a poorly-run democracy takes longer for things to degrade than they do in a dictatorship.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    60. Re:Democracy is... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      "the right of the people to self-determination"
      People absolutely do not have such a right; they only have the power they can seize by whatever means they choose to employ, peaceful or violent.

      There is no such thing as natural law.

    61. Re:Democracy is... by jafac · · Score: 1

      While you are absolutely correct; your use of the term "mob rule" is really kind of an ugly, elitist slur.

      And you're especially correct when you state that it is "an attempt to avoid the common problems..." - because in the end, as our last president pointed out, the Constitution is "just a piece of paper". We sure worship it, but we sure don't seem to give a crap about what's really in our Constitution, and have not in a very long time. The pragmatists are ready to press the reset button; but nobody wants anybody's hand *near* that damn thing.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    62. Re:Democracy is... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But that can be better than a democracy that oppresses or enslaves a minority.

      A benevolent dictator may also arise through democratic processes, they're not all created through violent overthrows against the will of the people. Dictators usually remain in power due to the will of the people who may be happy to see someone taking charge. They may even have direct voting to keep the dictator in power (even if the voting is rigged to discourage the minority opposition). In other words, the majority of the people may decide to use their self-determination to create a strong-man leader, or to repress the self-determination of minorities, etc.

    63. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as does a Democracy, especially in one as divided as the US. those that are in the minority are de-facto having their right to self determination curtailed by the desires of the majority.

    64. Re:Democracy is... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Any government of any form will violate "self determination" for some individuals. The point of government is that the people have decided to abridge their own right to do whatever the hell they want at any time. It starts out simple of course, just a mutual decision that theft or murder should be restricted, and maybe the government are just the village elders or a clean-up-the-neighborhood committee.

      There is no perfect form of government for this reason. We give up some self determination in order to create civil order, and there will always be a segment of the population that remains in opposition to that civil order. There is a large continuum in governments about how much self determination is given up.

    65. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet it has both.

    66. Re:Democracy is... by VShael · · Score: 1

      Actually, sheep generally vastly outnumber the wolves. Sheep being the poor, lower to middle classes. Wolves being the Corporations and the wealthy.

      Democracy is the wealthy 1% and the middle/low 99% deciding what's a fair share of the tax burden.

      Since that clearly doesn't happen, no, it's not a Democracy.

    67. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a benevolent democracy violates the right of the people to self-determination - it's not the people making the decisions, but a group of elected officials who normally don't actually represent the peoples views except on one or two hot-button topics.

      It depends on the laws and rules implemented by the system, whatever it is. If it sets up (and presumably maintains) is a simple common law system that prohibits the obvious crap (murder, theft, kidnapping, etc) without restricting speech, freedom of religion, etc, then the people still have the right to determine how they're living their lives - which is the important bit. At that point, democracy/dictatorship/plutocracy/oligarchy/whatever doesn't matter. It only becomes an issue when the people are unable to live their lives without interference - and that can (and arguably, will) happen under *any* system.

    68. Re:Democracy is... by scurvyj · · Score: 0

      ... 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system. The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.

      PLEASE don't troll old boy, its bad for the forum.

    69. Re:Democracy is... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't mean to say that a benevolent dictatorship might not be very nice for citizens, but I do mean to say that a benevolent dictatorship tautologically indicates a lack of self-direction by the individuals. I mean, by definition, self direction means self direction, and a dictatorship is specifically not directed by the population.

    70. Re:Democracy is... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying what the majority wants is "okay", and I'm also not saying that a majority should always get its way (that's why we're a Constitutional Republic), but in general, yes, I think democratic majorities or super-majorities should be able to basically do what they want. I'm not okay with gay marriage being unrecognized, which is why I oppose that non-recognition, but you don't exactly see me taking up arms against the government over it, and that's because I'm willing to be in the minority. And since you bring it up, even though I oppose DOMA I've discussed with friends whether or not the President should be allowed to ignore laws he doesn't want to enforce. It's an interesting question, and in the end I had to agree that yes, they should have that power, because it is a check against powers in the other branches of government, just as the budget and legal decisions are checks against the President.

      That's all irrelevant to the fact that in the face of my brilliant and complete demolition of your petty complaint, you had to change the subject instead of trying to rebut me, which of course you had to do because there is no rebuttal.

      Darfur is indeed a straw man; I'm sure you don't want to undo government so much as that. But, it's a sliding scale, and if your political beliefs put you in a perpetual minority, then it's not so unreasonable for you to immigrate somewhere more in line with your beliefs. Or, you can stay and try to affect change from within, but you're not allowed to call shenanigans when the rest of us overrule you time and again.

      Final points:

      1. it's a mighty strong democracy that can withstand civil wars, and it's a mighty stable democracy which can go for three centuries with the civil war being the biggest upheaval.

      2. I used to believe that trope about Hitler being elected, but it's actually not true. He was never elected to any office he attained. So, that's a bad example to use in the future.

    71. Re:Democracy is... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Well, just so you know, I'm a full Libertarian. And as such I define self-determinant along the lines of what harm it causes others. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Not whether you think Happy Meal Toys are a bad idea, so you band them. Both (D) and (R) parties have no concept of what is a "right" in any such way as to be even remotely consistent. They think the government should regulation all sorts of things that don't really matter, but should be hands off on things that do affect society.

      Marriage (gay or otherwise) should not involve the government at all. The government should make no law promoting nor punishing people on the basis of marriage (ie Tax Laws). However the government should be able to limit the marriage of underage girls, because that protects the girls from abuse. You see, at that point it isn't marriage, it is protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. What people do as adults ... I couldn't care less about. And government shouldn't be able to make any laws regarding protecting certain kinds of marriage (gay), while not protecting other kinds (plural).

      The reason why I bring up Gay Marriage, in the context of this discussion, is to point out the hypocrisy of those on the left regarding views of majority rule. On the one hand, they support judges overturning bad laws like Gay Marriage, and then in the next breath, call it judicial activism when ObamaCare Is overturned. Can't have it both way.

      The concept of LIBERTY has been lost in all these discussions, because Liberty and Rights go together, because Liberty defines what Right is. Healthcare is no a "right" in the classical Libertarian view, because it requires the taking from one, to give to another by the threat of force (government), by majority rule. Leftwing people don't care about liberty, the use of force, and tyranny of the majority in such a case.

      If you don't see the treat of force by government against the people it serves as a threat, you should. Because that is how tyrannies start.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    72. Re:Democracy is... by euroq · · Score: 1

      Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination

      So does losing a vote 49% to 51% in a democracy. If I'm in the 49% crowd, I didn't determine, someone else did. For example, 52% of people in California decided that gays can't marry, get inheritance rights and property rights, while 48% decided otherwise. So a gay couple in California had their ways determined by a simple majority vote, and now as a consequence is of a lesser class in the law's eyes than a heterosexual couple.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    73. Re:Democracy is... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      We live in a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy, so rule by the majority is tempered by some overarching rules which limit the control of the majority; but still, a large enough and sufficiently motivated majority can do, pretty much, whatever they want, by amending the Constitution. Yes, politically motivated people can complain when judges rule against them; it's part of of politics. Yes, in some instances it can be hypocritical. For the most part, however, Americans accept court rulings. When I say "accept", I mean they don't overthrow the government, rather they work within the system to get a different ruling. That's what conservatives have been doing for 40 years with abortion, and they're about five or ten years away from success.

      It's a trite and trivial platitude to say that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Would you also agree that your right to go without health insurance ends when the public pays for your emergency care? This is the essential question in the topic you allude to: if we want to live in a society where people with gushing head wounds receive immediate medical care by emergency responders and emergency-room doctors, then we either have to require everyone to plan for such a contingency, or we have to have a system where everyone else is obligated to pay for the uncovered care. In the past we chose the second option: people with health insurance paid higher costs, to cover the care given to people who don't pay. Well, fuck those deadbeats, the rest of us don't like their swinging fists hitting our noses anymore, so a majority (supermajority, actually) of American got together and demanded that the deadbeats be required to provide for their own care. Quite the opposite of what conservatives say, the law was to assure that people took responsibility for themselves, instead of the rest of us continuing to take care of them. Me? I would have preferred a different solution: socialized medicine; but hey, that's not how it shook out.

      If libertarians were carrying signs saying "TURN SICK PEOPLE AWAY FROM EMERGENCY ROOMS!" then they might (might!) have some small toehold of moral claim when they ask why the government is "requiring" people to have health insurance. And, by the way, the government is not requiring anyone to buy insurance: if they choose not to do so, then they don't get a tax break, and the extra taxes are used to pay for their medical care. Thus, we good upstanding citizens with noses are no longer suffering the swinging fists of deadbeats, in theory anyway.

      I agree that health care is not a right, no more than trash pick up is a right, any more than public parks are a right. I disagree when the left says things like that. But ObamaCare, or a similar system, will make the country a better place, and that's why I support it, like trash pick-up, and like public parks.

      I don't see how requiring people to take personal responsibility for their medical care is tantamount to a threat of force by the government against the people it serves, and neither should you, because that is totally delusional. We don't live under tyranny, and anyone who would imply such a thing has zero perspective. Do you realize that there are actual, real tyrannies in the world, and in the past? I mean, like, real tyranny? Not the kind that helps people enjoy better, more healthy lives? To equate that with tyranny is preposterous and laughable.

    74. Re:Democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, a dictatorship prevents one from choosing one's leaders. I believe that's included in the "right to self-determination".

  14. Wrong, and wrong. by masterz · · Score: 1

    1) They're right, we are a republic.
    2) At no point does the article say anything about not liking the word "Democrat."

    1. Re:Wrong, and wrong. by bstender · · Score: 1

      2) At no point does the article say anything about not liking the word "Democrat."

      but it does quote the sponsor of the bill saying "in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum."

      which reveals a clear effort to establish a stronger firewall against the ideas that stem from the democratic POV. The meme that democrats=socialists is already well on its way to being considered a factual statement in the minds of the uneducated masses in the middle of the USA, and this is simply a further move to marginalize the entire concept of 'power derives from the people'.

      Just more authoritarian/elitist/rascist rhetoric oozing out of the folds of Jabba the US's great underbelly.

      --
      look sig is kool
  15. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many stupid Americans running around talking about American Democracy, even these so called college educated professionals in the news media. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you either A) Are so stupid you don't know your country is actually a Republic or B) Are so evil that you will sit on TV in front of millions of people and outright LIE. Learn it people, and the next time you want to connect America with Democracy remember this is a REPUBLIC!

    1. Re:Finally by khallow · · Score: 1

      The US is an ambidextrous, paper-based, analablutionitarian government. Any attempt to label it otherwise is a LIE.

    2. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just said what billions are thinking right now.

  16. How did this greenlight? by T5 · · Score: 1

    Has /. become so political as to stoop to this level? This isn't Digg. This isn't $POLITICALBLOGSITE.

  17. Right answer--wrong reason by Remloc · · Score: 1

    We are not a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. The vote of someone in Montana (less populous state) counts more than mine in Texas, since Electoral College votes are allotted per x citizens, plus 2 more per state, no matter it's population

    1. Re:Right answer--wrong reason by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      Representative speaking only of national elections of course. Most state and local elections are more purely democratic.

      We are a social democratic republic with a representative component on a national level. (One could call it redistributive in a sense)

    2. Re:Right answer--wrong reason by zill · · Score: 1

      Democracy doesn't imply proportional representation.

    3. Re:Right answer--wrong reason by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Democracy does not require that votes of all citizens carry equal weight. Nor is being a republic defined by votes carrying unequal weight.

  18. This was not about accuracy. by rbanzai · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    "But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.

    “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said."

    1. Re:This was not about accuracy. by currently_awake · · Score: 0

      By socialism I assume you mean things like (affordable) national medicare (for everyone), or was there something else that threatens your business you'd like to ban? I think the biggest issue is that most americans don't know what socialism is.

    2. Re:This was not about accuracy. by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Actually it was about accuracy. That was a selective quote taken from a lot of things the state Senator said about the bill. The SL Tribune is an okay paper, it's just biased against Utah Republicans (I'm not saying that's bad - there are other papers that are generally supportive of Utah Republicans - but you can't take what's reported at face value {regardless of the source}).

    3. Re:This was not about accuracy. by rbanzai · · Score: 1

      Any politician who believes that somewhere in America schoolchildren are being "indoctrinated in socialism" must have his motives questioned. This was not about accuracy, this was about a politician chasing the socialism bugbear. It was a strange political agenda couched in the name of accuracy. The validity of the change is undermined by the agenda and acting on one part without addressing the other is disingenuous.

      The law was prompted by a bad motive and the citizens should not be held to a higher, more objective standard when assessing the law than the people who sponsored it and put it into place.

    4. Re:This was not about accuracy. by 517714 · · Score: 1

      I want to be able to exercise my Constitutional rights far more than I want any social entitlements. Entitlements are bought with money, freedom is bought with blood and is far dearer. Teaching that healthcare is something that the government should provide is indoctrination, not education.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  19. We are NOT a democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are a Representitive Republic. See Articles I and II of the Constitution. Didn't anyone take a civics or government course in high school?

    1. Re:We are NOT a democracy by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      We vote on the representatives. Hence, democratic republic, as the US is frequently called.

    2. Re:We are NOT a democracy by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Having some aspects of a Democracy does not make you one. I stated this above, but it's equivalent to "Having some aspects of a male does not make you male."

      The problem I have is that some people outright call the US a democracy because we have certain aspects of Democracy in our Republic.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  20. Representative Republic by queen+of+everything · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We are a representative republic which means that we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. A true democracy would have the populous vote on every decision the government makes which is far beyond manageable. I don't think Utah is doing this because of the word "democrat" or the word "republican" but instead to teach our children a better understanding of how our government is truly configured. Take the partisanship out of it and it's an accurate and important detail.

    --
    "Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no... if you read the comments by the primary sponsor in the article, you'll see that he's "protecting" the children from "socialism".... it's 100% about politics, not about truly educating children.

    2. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Representative republic is redundant.

      You could call the US a republic of democratically elected representatives, but many shorten it to "democratic republic." Republic indicates a representative government, but is not indicative of how those representatives are chosen, which in the case of the United States is extremely relevant.

      If they ignore democratically elected representatives when describing our government, next will be ignoring it in practice.

    3. Re:Representative Republic by Magada · · Score: 1

      Direct democracy does indeed make for very slow government and infrequent law-making. Many people would call that a feature, not a bug.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    4. Re:Representative Republic by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      The correct term for the United States Government is neither Democracy or Republic. The United States is a federation. i.e. "Federal government of the United States". Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    5. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up please

    6. Re:Representative Republic by Kjella · · Score: 1

      A true democracy would have the populous vote on every decision the government makes which is far beyond manageable.

      A fully direct democracy yes, but I don't think any country has that. What some countries have is a means to raise issues directly forcing a referendum to abort the passing of laws or introducing/striking laws without going through their representatives or the parliament. Like for example in Switzerland if 50,000 people object, laws must be put to a referendum. If more than 100,000 support a constitutional change, it must be put to a referendum.

      This is important if the real will of the people isn't getting through because of the block division or lobbying. It's more of an emergency brake for the people to take over and manage certain important decisions rather than a desire to micromanage everything that happens there. It's after all for the people it's supposed to exist, right?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Representative Republic by shark72 · · Score: 2

      You're correct out of context, but it's essential to understand that this *is* about partisanship.

      Utah is simply taking a tactic from the Texas School Board; they were taken over by the religious right a few years back and have been dramatically reworking the curriculum to fit the right wing political and social agenda. The list of horrifies is long, but includes de-emphasizing Thomas Jefferson (because he strongly pushed for separation of church and state), as well as several non-white contributors to American history. Texas schoolchildren are now specifically required to be told that the term "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, to evaluate whether the United Nations undermines US sovereignty, and -- yes -- that the US is most definitely a "republic" and not a "democracy."

      While this disgusted educators nationwide, many in Utah are applauding the new Texas curriculum:

      http://www.utahsrepublic.org/standards/texas-vs-utah-elementary-history-standards/

      The byline for that site is a quote from the Constutition that reads "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government..."

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    8. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are a representative republic which means that we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf.

      So what makes a it different from a representative democracy then? And that a "true" democracy demands that the "populous vote on every decision the government makes" is only true if you define democracy as meaning "direct democracy". And even then, it's probably not correct.

    9. Re:Representative Republic by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      A true democracy would have the populous vote on every decision the government makes which is far beyond manageable.

      Set up a facebook page for each bill. If 51% of the constituency "likes" it, it becomes law.

    10. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are a representative republic which means that we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. A true democracy would have the populous vote on every decision the government makes which is far beyond manageable.

      You're thinking of "direct democracy", where the populous vote would occur, whereas we are a "representative democracy".

      After my quick referral to Wikipedia, and it turns out that we are both democracy and republic.

    11. Re:Representative Republic by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Nothing about "representative republic" implies that we elect anything. Our benevolent dictator could force the oldest member of each clan to attend court, and state the needs of the people of the clan. That in no way implies that the oldest member was elected or the representative asked for input from his or her constituents.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    12. Re:Representative Republic by zill · · Score: 2

      true democracy

      Definition of DEMOCRACY
      a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
      b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

      We are a representative democracy which is true democracy.

    13. Re:Representative Republic by zill · · Score: 1

      Unsurprisingly, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg won the presidential election by a landslide yet again, making this his 12th consecutive term in office.

    14. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are a representative republic which means that we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. A true democracy would have the populous vote on every decision the government makes which is far beyond manageable.

      I don't think Utah is doing this because of the word "democrat" or the word "republican" but instead to teach our children a better understanding of how our government is truly configured. Take the partisanship out of it and it's an accurate and important detail.

      With that definition neither UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Japan or any other constitutional monarchy with a representative democratic system is a democracy (silently ignoring Thailand that is only democratic by constitution and not in reality, and Bhutan that isn't all there yet) and they sure aren't republics. The only country left that isn't a republic and could claim to be a democracy is Libya (they are constitutionally a direct democracy, yeah really, the best way to keep supreme power is to divide the opposition and keep them fighting with each other).

      All those constitutional monarchies (except Thailand), could remove their monarchs by democratic voting. As it demand constitutional changes, it would require two strong majority votes in the parliament with an government election in between in some of those countries, or a strong majority vote in the parliament and a strong referendum in favour some other. It is just that there isn't a majority of the population that want a republic, or that they think other things are more important at the moment then fighting over whether to be called monarchies or republics.

      As a democratic, republican Swede, I would love to see the Swedish monarch replaced by a democratically elected president (or something similar, perhaps several consuls), but I still think Sweden is far more democratic then USA. We have free press and freedom of expression, while you haven't (no, you have not free press nor free speech! you are just told that you have), we have an almost fully transparent government, you have not (as proved by wikileaks, things like those leaks are not kept secret in Sweden), and we have several means to circumvent the representative democratic system with referendum if waiting up to four years until the next general election seem to long for a change in some issue, or to demand a new general election if enough of us are displeased with the current government at a whole, while it would be near impossible to do any of that in USA.

    15. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      voting for officials is still a democratic process, it happens only in democratic states.

      you can have a republics where officials are not voted into office by the general population and still be a republic, it would no longer be democratic thou.

      so if you are going to change it, change it to something better like democratic republic would be better, or even a constitutional democratic republic.
      this is nothing but a GOP self promotion law.

    16. Re:Representative Republic by Kismet · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid this isn't anything, if not partisan.

      The word "Republic" comes from the Latin, res publica. It means that government is a public affair. The word "democracy" comes from Greek, demos and kratia. It means that government is a public affair. The two words are synonyms that come from different linguistic roots.

      The argument arises from the desire to control the meaning of words. He who controls the vocabulary also controls the argument. Inevitably, those who argue against "democracy" eventually qualify their claim with "pure" democracy or "true" democracy. It hardly matters, though. What is effectively attacked is democracy itself.

      Of course it is. The same Utah legislature that insists on indoctrinating children against democracy has just passed H.B. 477, a law that removes government transparency and allows these politicians to work in secret. Res publica, indeed.
      .

    17. Re:Representative Republic by kidcharles · · Score: 1

      I don't think Utah is doing this because of the word "democrat" or the word "republican" but instead to teach our children a better understanding of how our government is truly configured.

      I think Utah is doing this because they are a bunch of paranoid right-wingers who think children in the U.S. are being indoctrinated into the ways of socialism in their schools. And if you think I am being ridiculous go RTFA where a State Senator explains his motivation by saying exactly that. There is not some sudden blossoming of desire among Utah politicians to enhance the quality of civic education in their public schools.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    18. Re:Representative Republic by boxless · · Score: 1

      I was always taught we are a republic because the Constitution serves as a check on the elected representatives. That is, let's say they wanted to vote to allow racial discrimination, they couldn't do it (anymore), because the constitution says so. It is true that they have the power to change the Constitution, but that's really a different matter. That's not about passing a law, but about changing our entire form of government, or making modifications to the form (via amendment).

    19. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said

    20. Re:Representative Republic by BryanL · · Score: 2

      The US is factually a Republic. So, how many other "facts" does the state legislature need to make into law? To me this type of legislation is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, political posturing. The legislature does not need to make a law to teach every particular fact they see fit.

      II would not be suprised if the bill was introduced because of what many here in this forum suspect: legislators feel democracy = Democrat, and republic = Republican. I live in Utah and in certain circles "Democrat" is a dirty word.

      Incidentally this is not the worst piece of legislation being debated by the state legislation this session (I don't think the "republic" bill has passed yet.) The Governor just sign into law a bill that crippled GRAMA, which allows access to government records.

    21. Re:Representative Republic by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      The argument arises from the desire to control the meaning of words. He who controls the vocabulary also controls the argument. Inevitably, those who argue against "democracy" eventually qualify their claim with "pure" democracy or "true" democracy. It hardly matters, though. What is effectively attacked is democracy itself.

      [my emphasis added.]

      You hit it out of the park. This is George Orwell's 1984: the Republicans want to remove double-plus-ungood words from the school curriculum, and emphasize the ones that increase their zeitgeist. And, they want to re-educate schoolchildren on the meaning of the word "democracy." Just like they want to re-train the American public to refer to the "Democrat" Party instead of by its correct name.

      To quote the article:

      Opponents of the bill argued that the concepts within it are already being taught and that the Legislature shouldn’t get involved in curriculum matters.

      But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.

      “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.

      Paranoia combined with the Lovejoy Gambit.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    22. Re:Representative Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A "federation" is itself state (which is why EU is not a federation, for example), with partially self-governing subdivisions. Since it is a state by itself, it has a political system, and that can be described (as "republic" or something else). For example, Canada is a federation, and it is also monarchy. Switzerland is a federation, and is also a republic. Ditto for US.

    23. Re:Representative Republic by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that that interpretation lost out in 1865...

    24. Re:Representative Republic by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      ... and parliamentary republics like India & Germany.

      In all cases, labeling them with only one part be it federation, republic, parliamentary, monarchy, etc. gives a inaccurate description and is a disservice to the children to be educated. As much so as calling the United States a democracy.

      But if it had to be reduced to a single term, then the term I would use would be the governing body of the nation that holds sovereignty. For the U.S., that's the Federal Government. So the single term for me would be "federation" and not "republic". Now, if the states were sovereign, then I would use the term "republic".

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    25. Re:Representative Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In all cases, labeling them with only one part be it federation, republic, parliamentary, monarchy, etc. gives a inaccurate description and is a disservice to the children to be educated. As much so as calling the United States a democracy.

      It's perfectly reasonable to use a single word to describe what the country is in the context where you're looking at some particular state. For example, when comparing modern Western states to various dictatorships around the world, the most important characteristic is "democracy", so there's nothing wrong in saying things like "in contrast to China, democracies such as USA ...".

    26. Re:Representative Republic by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      the most important characteristic is "democracy", so there's nothing wrong in saying things like "in contrast to China, democracies such as USA ...".

      China ( i.e. The People's Republic of China ) is a socialist republic. The standards you are establishing means China can be labeled as a "republic" just as the U.S. can be labeled as a "republic".

      China = Republic & U.S. = Republic

      Clearly there is a distinction that needs to be made.

      China = Socialist & U.S. = Federation

      I think my labels, because they are the labels of the sovereign government entity, give a better overall view even though they give less detail. Of course, the following is better.

      China = Socialist Republic & U.S. = Federal Republic

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    27. Re:Representative Republic by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      I don't think Utah is doing this because of the word "democrat" or the word "republican" but instead to teach our children a better understanding of how our government is truly configured.

      That little gem was actually the submitter trolling. FTFA:

      HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism.

    28. Re:Representative Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      China ( i.e. The People's Republic of China ) is a socialist republic. The standards you are establishing means China can be labeled as a "republic" just as the U.S. can be labeled as a "republic".

      Yes, of course.

      (By the way, I'm not "establishing" any standards. These are the established standards.)

      Clearly there is a distinction that needs to be made.

      Of course.

      China = Socialist & U.S. = Federation

      Oh my fucking God. You can't be serious.

      "Socialist" is a characterization of economy. "Federation" is a characterization of autonomy of constituent parts. Those are completely orthogonal.

      Heck, USSR was a socialist federation!

      A meaningful distinction is that USA is a democratic republic, whereas China is not.

    29. Re:Representative Republic by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      Oh my fucking God. You can't be serious.

      Christ, that was dumb. I admit it. To many threads to follow.

      A meaningful distinction is that USA is a democratic republic, whereas China is not.

      So, given that, would you choose "democracy" or "republic" as the one word summation of the U.S. Government?

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    30. Re:Representative Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So, given that, would you choose "democracy" or "republic" as the one word summation of the U.S. Government?

      Out of any context whatsoever, I'd say "republic", because this generally has a connotation of democratic governance in modern language (when referring to republics which are not democratic, the fact is usually highlighted), and so it would be a more precise label.

      Usually, of course, there is some implied context, so either of "republic", "democracy" or "federation" may be the best on different occasions.

    31. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we are a representative democracy, so referring to the USA as a democracy is correct. However the USA is not a direct democracy. I would bet money this is politically motivated.

    32. Re:Representative Republic by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      I think more along the lines of numeric precision and structure. One word simply cannot cover everything regardless of context. So given one word, describe the most significant unit. In the case of the U.S. government, that would be the Federal Government. i.e. "federation". Given two, Federal & State Governments. i.e. "federal republic". etc..

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    33. Re:Representative Republic by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The list of horrifies is long, but includes de-emphasizing Thomas Jefferson (because he strongly pushed for separation of church and state)

      Did you read about the changes that were actually made, or just the "horrifies" that were proposed?

      People were flipping out over just the list of proposed changes.

      >>You're correct out of context, but it's essential to understand that this *is* about partisanship.

      Technically, republic is a better descriptor than democracy for our system of government. We elect people to make decisions at the federal level, and have no federal referendum or initiative system. While it may be about partisanship, I don't see how anyone can argue against teaching kids more accurate information about our government - they're ignorant enough as it is.

    34. Re:Representative Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Utahan, I can assure your this is 100% about cementing the Republican Party as the one True American Party and 0% about education.

    35. Re:Representative Republic by bstender · · Score: 1

      to teach our children a better understanding of how our government is truly configured. Take the partisanship out of it and it's an accurate and important detail.

      not that _our_ system isn't already covered in detail in the classroom, but why is _this_ such an important detail? it's been a while since I sat in the classroom, but I vividly remember discovering how thoroughly ignorant of politics I was when I hit college. This just sounds like more of the same partisan effort to keep kids ignorant of other political arrangements.

      --
      look sig is kool
  21. Communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next we can ban gated communities because they are filled with communism.

  22. So, this is news because it's true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy. The people of the USA have democratic rights, but the people of the USA do not directly vote for who is in power. Rather, they vote for someone who they hope will vote the way they want him to (The Electorate). I'm not even American (but I do live in America's hat) and I knew this.

    What's next, schools not bothering to teach that Canada is (just barely) a Monarchy?

    I have to agree, though, if the reason that Utah is doing this is due to some sort of democrat hate, the reason is stupid. Fortunately, the consequences of the faulty reasoning are actually good, this time.

  23. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by easyTree · · Score: 0

    You could at least mention the Muslims - they'll feel left out.

    I can't wait to see the changes that come from this new level of awareness of the nature of the political system in the US. Oh wait...

    Perhaps next we'll have officially-sanctioned teachings that points-out that the US has been at war every year since its inception (apart from thirteen years scattered around non-contiguously) ?

  24. Someone has to say it... by TheRedDuke · · Score: 1

    This is neither news for nerds nor anything that matters.

    1. Re:Someone has to say it... by surzirra · · Score: 1

      Also has to be said:

      DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
      ARTHUR: Yes.
      DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
      ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
      DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
      ARTHUR: Be quiet!
      DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
      ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
      WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
      ARTHUR: I am your king!
      WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
      ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings!

    2. Re:Someone has to say it... by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Look above your post — 400 grammar nazis can't be wrong.

      Waitasec, did I just Godwin?

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  25. At 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teaching facts in America, it's news.

  26. Excuse my ignorance... by Manip · · Score: 1

    Please excuse my ignorance, I'm from the EU, but I thought the US was a republic? At least that is what Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook claim.

    Also, what does this have to do with "unemployment, finance and social service?" Are state government unable to pass any law when those things are outside a certain threshold?

    1. Re:Excuse my ignorance... by memnock · · Score: 1

      I might be missing a sarcastic point here, but I'm assuming your inquiry was sincere. The OP was trying to make the point that state government has screwed up priorities by worrying about the political ramifications of curriculum instead of more worthwhile issues.

    2. Re:Excuse my ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point was that rather than futzing with school curriculum (which is only marginally within their authority), their time might be better spent dealing with issues that are more directly their job (say, unemployment, budget, services).

      Out of all the things in their power, it's hard to argue that this is the most effective way to make today's youth more competitive in the marketplace.

      Side note: I think the "we don't like Democratic because it has Democrat" comes from this quote:

      But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.

      “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.

      Doesn't take much "reading in" to see how in this political climate, there'd be a percieved benefit to changing from Democratic to Republican.

    3. Re:Excuse my ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please excuse my ignorance, I'm from the EU, but I thought the US was a republic? At least that is what Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook claim.

      A: The US is a republic but I suspect most of us over here don’t know that.

      Also, what does this have to do with "unemployment, finance and social service?" Are state government unable to pass any law when those things are outside a certain threshold?

      A:There are no restrictions, the subtle point that the OP was trying to make was sarcastic. In other words, there are some huge issues facing government at all levels (unemployment, finance and social service are just a few) yet Utah is spending time with this issue instead of assumedly addressing more pressing issues.

    4. Re:Excuse my ignorance... by jbezorg · · Score: 2

      I loath to repeat myself but Slashdot tends to bury conversations you don't follow directly.

      More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is neither democracy or republic. It is a federation. Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    5. Re:Excuse my ignorance... by cosm · · Score: 1

      Also, what does this have to do with "unemployment, finance and social service?" Are state government unable to pass any law when those things are outside a certain threshold?

      It was intended to be sarcastically humorous; the state legislators current dance with wordplay has nothing to do with any of those issues, the joke is the fact that the state government is even spending time mentally masturbating this issue when issues like unemployment, budget-cuts, abortion, gay-marriage, infrastructure spending, etc all remain largely unsolved, but yet these folks take the time to vote on word usage.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    6. Re:Excuse my ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These things are not mutually exclusive. The US is a federation, a democracy, a republic, and a constitution state. Power is divided between the national government and the governments of each individual state that comprise the federation. Representatives are elected and in some states laws and constitutional amendments are voted upon by the citizenry, thus a democracy. We have representatives so it is by definition a republic. And finally it is all bound by a constitution.

    7. Re:Excuse my ignorance... by euroq · · Score: 1

      The US is both a republic and a democracy. The US is not a direct democracy (no state is), but it is a representative democracy. This is why everyone is up in arms, because this law is at best silly, definitely unnecessary, and at worse has the possibly to teach the children the wrong information.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  27. fake 'weather', sky spirals causing tunnel vision? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yet another topic for the hearings? sounds insane? mostly mental eye gas?

  28. And here I thought we were.. by TechJones · · Score: 1

    Hmm and all this time I thought we actually were a Republic.. The pledge of allegiance even says so (note the to the republic part): "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

  29. Seems like a Valid Argument by Nailer235 · · Score: 1

    The words 'democracy' and 'democrat' and nearly identical. On the other hand, only 1/2 of the words in "Constitutional Republic" are nearly-identical to a political party. 1/2 1. Argument settled.

  30. Mod story "-1: Missed oportunity for pun-age" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a Utahpia!

  31. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by fifedrum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hate much?

    there's no evidence he was illiterate, and there's no evidence from the story that the recommendations are because the word democrat is offensive. The article makes no mention of the reason behind it, other than perhaps ACCURACY.

  32. The issue at hand by dogknat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any time somone in the world feels slighted even when its made up. That person in is by human nature determined to lash out and do whatever is necessary to destroy the validity of the argument at hand. The fact of the matter is the United States is a republic all of our founding documents say so. God sakes can you imagine what a pain being a true democracy would be imagine if everyone had to vote on every law.... we would have the shortest set of law books on the planet because no one would agree on anything except no taxes and free government services.

    1. Re:The issue at hand by mikeken · · Score: 2

      Idk, I think their would be a lot of laws passed; However, they would be constantly changing. Mob rule would be fun to watch, as long as it wasn't my country.

    2. Re:The issue at hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...we would have the shortest set of law books on the planet..."

      And this would be bad how?

    3. Re:The issue at hand by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Are you suggesting that would be a bad thing? There are quite a number of silly laws you could do without, like the massive export subsidies on agriculture or the massive bailout of the banking sector. It's so very much harder to extend copyright forever if you need a majority vote of the whole country, it'd be almost impossible to bribe that many people. It would also force americans to actually -care- about the country, and keep up to date on things.

    4. Re:The issue at hand by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is the United States is a republic all of our founding documents say so. God sakes can you imagine what a pain being a true democracy would be imagine if everyone had to vote on every law.... we would have the shortest set of law books on the planet because no one would agree on anything except no taxes and free government services.

      You ignorant moron, a direct democracy is different from a representative democracy, and a republic is only tangentially related to a democracy. I find it fascinating that the US is legislating itself into a third world status because its legislators make up shit like this and the population believes it, because it makes them feel good.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:The issue at hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good. How can we get it?

    6. Re:The issue at hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is coming to that without the direct vote. Too many people want smaller government and no taxes but they have no earthly idea was that means. Small government mean tiny police forces, an underfunded defense, almost no military, almost no safety or environmental regulation, no space program, no funded research including medical, no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, crumbling roads both federal and interstate, and very high unemployment due to the vast number of federal workers layoffs, and contractor layoffs, and closing of businesses that dependent on Federal spending (meaning entire towns and small cities).

    7. Re:The issue at hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republic is latin for democracy, which is greek for republic.

      A state where the people elect representatives to represent them is called representative democracy.
      A state where the people elect a president to preside over them is called democratic republic.

      The two terms are often interchangable.

    8. Re:The issue at hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "imagine if everyone had to vote on every law.... we would have the shortest set of law books on the planet"

      That sounds perfect.

  33. Excuse me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was looking for Slashdot, but seem to have wandered into the Huffington Post.

  34. Utah is correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should read some recent SCOTUS ruling on mixing up definitions, e.g. 'person', and 'personal' before conflating 'democrat' and 'democracy' in a misguided attempt to conjure conservative bogeymen.

    Utah is right. The United States of America is a republic ("the republic for which it stands" - remember your pledge?). Our founders were well aware of the distinct and important differences between a republic and direct democracy, and they chose republic. Nice to see an educational institution concerned with, you know, accuracy.

  35. Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFA:

    HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism.

    Is it just me, or does that sound a just a little bit more defensible than the spin in the summary?

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    1. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      So what happens if the teacher calls the US a democracy? Do they go to jail? :P

    2. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that a state legislature is politicallh micro-managing individual curriculum decisions because they are worried that teachers are too "red." The different forms of government are already taught. In the real world outside of Utah, state boards of education get together a group of experts, teachers and sometimes even parents to come up with a comprehensive curriculum that is then revised every few years as needed. If this trend continues, I suppose we can look forward to the next few bills: HB221 - Mandates the teaching of teaching of 2 + 2 = "Ronald Reagan" HB222 - Dinosaurs to be referred to as "Jesus Horses" HB223 - Students must chant,"USA, USA, USA" at the beginning of all U.S. Government classes. HB224 - Kindergarteners taught that sharing is Socialist.

    3. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Some people are getting upset without realizing that all the bill is doing is trying to make sure Utah students are taught properly about the U.S. government as well as about all other major forms of political and economic ideologies.

    4. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism.

      What were they teaching before? This law seems to be mandating some important civics lessons, and I have no problem with that.

    5. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Because it misses the point that there are more forms of democracy than just direct. There is no comparison to be made between a republic and a democracy, because the words do not apply to the same topic.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sharing isn't socialist, mandatory sharing is socialist.

    7. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the thought of our children being taught a curriculum with which you disagree is offensive to you? Hmmmm

    8. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by lamber45 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that the summary is a bad representation of what the article claims; but after reading the entire bill, I'd say that the article is biased. From the article, "The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday."; there was some obviously conservative rhetoric in support of the bill, but the basic purpose of updating the state educational standards to give students the chance to think about different government-structures is sound.

    9. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we can't have nice things.

    10. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slippery slope much, bro?

    11. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      Wow... Hyperbole much?

      Is there anything factually incorrect about teaching that "the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic"?

    12. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      state boards of education get together a group of experts, teachers and sometimes even parents to come up with a comprehensive curriculum

      - well, that's a huge problem in itself, isn't it? Some totally unelected people, without any accountability, are deciding on such things?

      I don't want anybody to decide what the curriculum should be at any level except the school itself, this way I can choose the school that I prefer and vote with my money.

    13. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by goldspider · · Score: 1

      "The different forms of government are already taught."

      The fact that students can't properly identify our system of government suggests otherwise.

      "If this trend continues, I suppose we can look forward to the next few bills: HB221 - Mandates the teaching of teaching of 2 + 2 = "Ronald Reagan" HB222 - Dinosaurs to be referred to as "Jesus Horses" HB223 - Students must chant,"USA, USA, USA" at the beginning of all U.S. Government classes. HB224 - Kindergarteners taught that sharing is Socialist."

      Strawmen are a poor substitute for facts.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    14. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      They get fired, and their union rep goes to jail.

    15. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      What happens when a teacher calls it a republic right now? I'd assume the same thing will happen if the words are switched in preference.

    16. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, many teachers *are* way too red, but that tends to come out more in university than in primary or secondary education.

      My main gripe with teachers is that so many of them are so bad at it. I've gotten to the point where I'm going to bite the bullet and send my kids to private school next year.

      This wasn't an issue where I used to live, and my kids attended a stellar public school (only one school its size in the entire state of California had a higher API score, and it was just a few points: both were over 900, and this was even though about 1/3 of the students in the school were on some kind of assistance). The school where we live now doesn't even come close to that standard, nor IMO does the entire small district (previous district was small, too; even smaller than this one).

      It's possible that I'm just kind of spoiled from having attended stellar public schools myself and having had my kids in one up until this year as well, but my answer to that is if I'm spoiled and what we have this year is the norm (on paper, it's even above the norm with an API in the low-mid 800s), then we're screwed.

      Just one example of what's wrong with this school and its teachers: both of my kids' teachers not only won't accept homework completed before its due date, they actually forbid working ahead. However, it's typical for both of my kids to burn through the entire homework packet for the week on Monday afternoon after school. If they don't finish it on Monday, they do on Tuesday. After they said their teachers told them not to do that anymore, I told them it's OK, just ignore your teachers and go ahead and do it anyway.

    17. Re:Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      displayed here(above): reactionism, a fine example

  36. Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The comment 'because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.' is not supported by the article.

    Also, the legislators are correct: The U.S. is a representative democracy at best, only touching on true democracy during the rare referendum. The issue, as reported by the article, is that educators think that as they're already teaching the differences between different forms of government, that the law would merely make it harder to do their jobs. ...I don't suppose the entire article here can be down-modded?

    1. Re:Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comment 'because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.' is not supported by the article.

      It is a lame type of argumentation anyway. If it would be valid, then US should neither be called a republic because it has "republican" in it.

  37. in a galaxy far, far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it just me? Just put "random" country names instead of galactic republic, trade federation, naboo, etc. ;)

                                  Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of
                                  trade routes to outlaying star systems is in dispute. Hoping
                                  to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships,
                                  the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the
                                  small planet of Naboo.

                                  While the congress of the Republic endlessly debates this
                                  alarming chain of events, the Supreme Chancellor has secretly
                                  dispatched two Jedi Knights, the guardians of peace and
                                  justice in the galaxy, to settle the conflict.....

  38. May I correct your English? by MaX_3nTrOpY · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    As English is not my native language, may I correct you English? :-)
    It must be an utopia!

    --
    My signature is in the cloud.
    1. Re:May I correct your English? by Lookin4Trouble · · Score: 1

      As English is not my native language, may I correct you English? :-) It must be an utopia!

      How about I correct both? Since Utopia is an ideal of a place, and a proper noun as such: It must be Utopia! Alternatively: It must be Utahpia!

    2. Re:May I correct your English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, utopia is pronounced YOUtopia, not OOtopia, so "an" is not correct.

    3. Re:May I correct your English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, English is never that simple. The rules for a/an are based on phonetics -- how a word sounds -- not how it's spelled. So you have a utopia, an apple, a eulogy, an SAT score, etc. Usually the guide of "an before a vowel" works out correctly, but not always. Anonymous to preserve moderation.

    4. Re:May I correct your English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually the guide of "an before a vowel" works out correctly, but not always.

      No, it really always works. You just have to keep in mind pronunciation rather than spelling.
      Utopia starts with a consonant, and SAT score starts with a vowel.

    5. Re:May I correct your English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to start by saying English is a fucked up language.

      While you normally would use "an" with a word that starts with a vowel there are exceptions. Utopia because it starts with a Y sound means it is one of those exceptions.

      http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/a.html

      It looks like there are a few other exceptions based mostly by the way the word is pronounced. Seems if the word starts with a vowel sound you use an. I had always been taught it had to have the vowel, not sound like it.

      Sorry, English sucks.
      Anon Native English speaker.

    6. Re:May I correct your English? by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

      Sorry - "a utopia" is correct.

      I know it's confusing as the general rule is to use an before a word starting with a vowel, but English being English [and occasionally American :-)] there are exceptions.

      If the word sounds like it starts with an implied "Y" sound (e.g. utopia sounds like yoo-topia, uniform sounds like yoo-niform) then use 'a' instead of 'an'.

      There are also a few cases where a word starts with a [nearly] silent h when you use an instead of a (e.g. an honourable man, an hotel **).

      If in doubt - say it out loud. If it sounds awkward with two successive vowel sounds, use 'an'.

      ** this is rapidly disappearing from common use in modern English - not sure it was ever used in American

    7. Re:May I correct your English? by LMacG · · Score: 1

      The choice of "a" or "an" is dictated by the sound of the following syllable, not based on the letter. Since "utopia" starts with the sound equivalent to "you", then "a" is the proper choice. Similarly, we would say an honor.

      (Insert argument about "an historic ..." here).

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    8. Re:May I correct your English? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      As your correction is incorrect, you may not correct us. The decision to use "A" versus "AN" is based on the following sound not the following letter. Utopia begins the consonant "Y" or "yuh" sound, not the vowel sound which would be "uh" Thus Utah is indeed "A Utopia" rather than "An Utopia."

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    9. Re:May I correct your English? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      As long as they have some Tapioca.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    10. Re:May I correct your English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you were taught strangely doesn't mean that this is a problem with English (although it does have many).

      Speech flows best when alternating between vowel- and consonant- sounds. Doubling up on vowel or consonant sounds causes a break as the mouth has no clean way to reshape in between. We say 'an hourglass' and 'a unicorn' because 'a hourglass' and 'an unicorn' are awkward to say.

  39. The rule of the people is a public matter by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    The rule of the people is a public matter

  40. You read their minds? by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

    Because nowhere in the article does it say anything about "Democrat". "HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday. " So 7 democratic senators from the state agreed. This says a lot more about 0ryan than Utah!

  41. a little education.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a Republic is different than a Democracy. In a Republic, The People elect a few people to vote on bills. In a Democracy, The People vote directly.

  42. Or perhaps because, I don't know, IT'S TRUE! by Daimaou · · Score: 1

    It couldn't be that Utah chose to teach that the U.S. is a republic because it IS. No, it has to be because the word "democracy" looks like the word "democrat." Those wacky conservatives! Always teaching truth for the wrong reasons!

    1. Re:Or perhaps because, I don't know, IT'S TRUE! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I've had a look at the original text of the bill. That one was bad, because it contrasted "democracy" and "republic" as two distinct forms of government, with a strong implication that US is not a democracy:

      (c) Instruction in American history and government shall include a study of:
      (i) forms of government, such as a democracy, monarchy, and oligarchy; and
      (ii) the United States' form of government, a republic.

      the amended text is better because it separates different things, and doesn't pretend that there is a distinct form of government called "democracy" that is separate from "republic":

      (i) forms of government, such as a republic, a pure democracy, a monarchy, and an oligarchy;
      (ii) political philosophies and economic systems, such as socialism, individualism, and free market capitalism; and
      (iii) .S the United States' form of government, a compound constitutional republic.

      If they really wanted to be precise, it'd be best to say "federal democratic constitutional republic", but arguably "democratic" is implied.

    2. Re:Or perhaps because, I don't know, IT'S TRUE! by Daimaou · · Score: 1

      There is a distinct form of government called a democracy. It is basically "mob rules". We certainly are not that, though we have gotten closer as the years between the 18th and 21st century have marched on.

    3. Re:Or perhaps because, I don't know, IT'S TRUE! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There is a distinct form of government called a democracy.

      Distinct from "republic"? Can you provide a source for that?

      I'm aware of a distinct form called "direct democracy", but you're claiming that the unqualified word "democracy" is basically equivalent to that. My English dictionary, at least, disagrees.

    4. Re:Or perhaps because, I don't know, IT'S TRUE! by Daimaou · · Score: 1

      The main difference between a republic and a democracy is this:

      A democracy is a form of government where unlimited and absolute power belongs to The Majority (or in other words, as I described it earlier, democracy is mob rule). In a democracy, minorities have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. This is true of both direct democracies and representative democracies. The inevitable outcome of a democracy is tyranny at the hand of The Majority.

      On the contrary, a republic is a system of government that seeks to control The Majority strictly in order to protect the rights of the individual. It prescribes a constitutionally limited and representational government, whereas a democracy does not.

      I know to some, the terms "republic" and "democracy" seem synonymous, but they are not. I believe that particular muddying of the waters has been intentional over the years.

      The real core and defining difference between these two forms of government is the formation of a ratified constitution through a constitutional convention, which limits the power of both the government AND The Majority.

      You cannot limit your understanding of varying forms of government to a blurb in a dictionary. There are a lot of books about the history surrounding the formation of the Constitution of The United States of America that will give you a lot of insight into various forms of government, and why the framers of the Constitution did NOT want a democracy. "The Federalist" is probably a good one to start with.

    5. Re:Or perhaps because, I don't know, IT'S TRUE! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So, if you're opposed to dictionaries that much, care to provide some references for your definitions of forms of government? I'd be particularly interested in one that would define "republic" as narrow as "prescribes a constitutionally limited ... government". Though something that'd clearly spell out democracy as simple (50%+1) majority rule would also be great.

      Oh, while we're at it - preferably a reference that doesn't date back to Ancient Greece or Founding Fathers. It's 2011, and language evolves as centuries pass.

      Note, by the way, that at no point in time I was claiming that "republic" and "democracy" are synonymous. Of course they aren't. My point is that they're completely orthogonal - you can have a democratic republic, a non-democratic republic, or a democratic non-republic. They describe different things!

  43. But the United states is a Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The founding fathers together with every major political philosopher at the time (18th century) were all very careful to distinguish between a democracy and the preferred form of a government which was a republic. A democracy is a form of government wherein laws and policy are wholly legitimized by popular consent; however the problem with this is that, when no limits are placed on the majority, a tyranny of the majority would result. A republic is like a democracy, but were the power of the people is limited by a Constitution, bill of rights and a system of representative government. You can take a look at the federalist papers which was a treaties written in part by James Madison in an attempt to argue for the current American system of government. In sort, you do not actually live in a democracy in the proper sense of the word

  44. In related news that matters, very much... by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Informative

    .. and just as important, and relevant to Slashdot readers, if not more so..

    The governor signed a bill to limit access to government records...

    Now, I really don't give a shit what happens in Utah, but we should demand that all their representatives are removed from all national committees in Congress. His name is unmentionable..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:In related news that matters, very much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government of Utah has no representation in Congress. Remember we abolished the original concept of the Senate in favor of popular election of senators. (All part of our devolution from a federal republic towards a monolithic democracy -- interestingly related to the topic.)

      You suggest penalizing representatives of the people of Utah for actions of the government of Utah. Does that make sense to you?

    2. Re:In related news that matters, very much... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      You suggest penalizing representatives of the people of Utah for actions of the government of Utah. Does that make sense to you?

      Yes, of course. The people voted for and reelected them. Absolutely they are responsible.. for not voting them out. This can only mean that the government operates with the full consent of the people. And those people put the same kind of politicians into congress in Washington. Those people have far to much influence in domestic and foreign policy and other matters outside of Utah.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  45. And to the republic for which it stands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been calling the USA a republic since I was about 5 years old. It *is* a line in the Pledge of Allegiance, you know...

  46. Completely off topic by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 2

    The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!

    I searched for the 'like' button when I read that. I haven't had enough coffee yet.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  47. No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are a Representative Democracy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

    Democracy = People vote on what to do
    Representative = We vote to put people in Congress to vote for us

    1. Re:No... by nharmon · · Score: 2

      Since you cite Wikipedia, then you share my confidence in its reliability for things like Slashdot debates. Therefore you should concede the point by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States and seeing that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Representative Democracy".

    2. Re:No... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      People don't seem to realize that people have absolutely no vote on what the United States of America does. Only state legislatures have such a thing. The USA Federal Government speaks with the states; the legislature is elected by the people, but does whatever the hell it really wants. They have no obligation to listen to the voice of the people, thus not a democracy.

    3. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

      "[T]he 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."[2]

      People should read their own links.

    4. Re:No... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      The constitution grants democratic rights to the people. It's not really a stretch to call it a democracy.

      Put it this way: If the USA isn't a democracy, then there is no democracy in the world.

    5. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you cite Wikipedia, then you share my confidence in its reliability for things like Slashdot debates. Therefore you should concede the point by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States and seeing that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Representative Democracy".

      And taking it a step further, that article actually says that the US is a Federal Constitutional Republic. One might even go out on a limb and say that it's a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. None of this namby-pamby representative democracy crap for us...

    6. Re:No... by nharmon · · Score: 1

      In the taxonomy of governments, ours is a republic by virtue of our constitution as a moderator for any government action. There is democracy in the world, but the USA is not, technically, a democracy because our elected leaders remain bound by our constitution.

    7. Re:No... by khallow · · Score: 2

      A number of states allow for laws passed by ballot. As for "obligation", legislators and government officials are subject to most of the laws of the land, including laws against treason and ethics/anti-bribery laws that apply to government officials. So they have as much obligation as democratic government officials typically have. The democracy part comes from elections where the highest ranking government officials can be shuffled in and out.

    8. Re:No... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Uh, citizens vote directly for congressmen and senators -- they have as much say or legislation as they do on the state level. Citizens of the United States of subject to both sovereignties of their state and the federal government,

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    9. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair enough. I concede.

    10. Re:No... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      A number of states allow for laws passed by ballot

      Which is all well and good, but not really relevant to the United States. Which doesn't refer to the States' governments, but to the Federal government.

      Note, of course, that referring to the USA as a Democratic Republic would be perfectly reasonable.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:No... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      This thread is like the blind men and the elephant, but this line sorta rankles me:

      The constitution grants democratic rights to the people. It's not really a stretch to call it a democracy.

      The constitution of the United States does not grant rights, it formally recognizes and protects them. The Bill of Rights takes the Enlightenment Liberal attitude that rights are "endowed by our creator" and are innate to the human condition and are irrepressible in a non-tyrannical system. (I kind of disagree with the Enlightenment Liberal position, but it's where we are.)

      The United States is Republic, this is true, but it's very broad. A Republic is any form of state where sovereignty is assigned to the people, and not to a king or dictator. The key factors in the Republic that Plato described was a system wherein the people themselves took on the responsibility for maintaining the state, without necessarily demanding a say in the policies or actions of the state. There is no King to embody the state and hold ultimate responsibility for preserving it, either from outside aggression or internal strife. Saying a state is a Republic is to make no claims about how it operates, how fair or just it is, how liberated its people are, or how equitably it divides its wealth.

      A Democracy is a form of government where the actions of the state reflect the will of the people. You can have the direct democracy thing, where everyone votes on every action, or representative systems where people vote for people who take the actions for them. Saying a state is a Democracy makes no claims about how sovereign the organization is -- your book club can be a Democracy. It could never be a Republic.

      I think the strongest claim that can be made for the idea that the US is a democracy is based on the direct popular election of all of the national legislators, and (for the most part) the President. All of these people are held to strict account for all of their votes and actions, there is (purportedly) a critical press and political estate that is always examining the actions of the politicians, and people here tend to vote based on what kind of laws they expect their man will pass. On the other hand, in our system, unlike most real democracies on Earth, we vote for the person, not the policy -- in most proportional-representation parliamentary democracies, people vote for a list of candidates under one platform or party, or for individuals that are pledged and bound through party institutions to do what they're told, and the only controlling factor is who holds enough votes in the parliament to elect the Prime Minister. Also in our system, votes are distributed very disproportionately, such that someone in Wyoming has something like 100 times the say in electing a president as a Californian, and his two Senators can effectively hold any action of the federal government, wether that action is a war or cutting grain subsidies. Democracies can hold constitutional safeguards for minorities or not, the protections Americans enjoy aren't really a defining characteristic. And even if countries do have constitutional safeguards, what really counts is the practice -- the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union holds voluminous liberal safeguards, but they were unenforceable given the institutional power of the Communist Party.

      Our system was originally formulated as a firm Republic, where only white male landowners could vote for congressmen (a House of Commons), only state congressmen (our Peerage) could vote for Senators (a House of Lords), and only Electors (modeled on the Holy Roman Empire) could vote for our President. Provisions were made to allocate representation in the federal government based on population, not voting population, thus rich landowners (and slaveholders) wielded the voting authority of not just themselves but their entire community. Most Americans in the generations after the f

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    12. Re:No... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Put it this way: If the USA isn't a democracy, then there is no democracy in the world.

      Exactly. Democracies are a stupid form of government that hasn't been tried again since Athens. The US Founders understood that, which is why if you were to have called one of them a Democrat they would have probably called you out to dual over the grave insult. Of course by 1828 we had the Democratic Party so that obviously didn't last long.

      Democracy is the idea that if you have 100 people on an island who decide Democracy is the way to go, 51 one can vote to piss in the corn flakes of the remaining 49 and if everyone actually believes in Democracy the losers can challenge the balloting but after the recount they have to chug the piss. If they believe in Democracy they have to accept that as fair and just. We don't have anything like that in the US, we have a Constitution that enshrines inalienable Rights and a Rule of Law that even the majority can't easily infringe. A large enough supermajority can, after the intentional delays and roadblocks built into the system, can of course change the Constitution but the idea is that no momentary madness will last long enough for that to happen.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    13. Re:No... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't refer to the States' governments, but to the Federal government.

      Guess why they call it the United "States"? What states do is indeed relevant.

  48. YRO by The+O+Rly+Factor · · Score: 1

    Firstly, the US is a republic, so what's the issue? Secondly, why the fuck is this in YRO, as this decision affects us online in absolutely no way whatsoever? Doesn't Slashdot have a politics tag?

  49. Hmm... by SethThresher · · Score: 1

    Let's see, how does it go again?

    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American, and to the... ah yes, Republic for which it stands...

  50. Oh, I've long argued that... by epp_b · · Score: 2

    ...the US is not a democracy.

  51. As a Utah resident. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was suprised to find that you are right about TFA.

    Then. . .

    But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.

    “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.

    Ah, yes. That's the stuff.

    1. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was looking for the "protect our children" angle. Every dumbass political move these days has some "save the children" angle to it. Whether it's pr0n or politics (wait, maybe that's the same thing.) it always boils down to "protecting the children".

      Thanks god this is all to "Protect the children."

    2. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      In my experience, I never heard socialism being criticized in any undergraduate or graduate class, and I remember damn few instances in K-12 where it was even mentioned to be "bad". However it seemed that every month there was a problem with our democracy/republic/constitution/country.

      Does that qualify as indoctrination in your mind too?

    3. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is, specifically, about public school curriculum. To whom else, other than "the children", would it pertain? Yep, somebody's a dumbass here.

    4. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by BrianRoach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was suprised to find that you are right about TFA.

      Then. . .

      But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.

      “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.

      Ah, yes. That's the stuff.

      And in some states children are indoctrinated in some crazy shit involving magic underwear and Jesus hanging out with Native Americans. ::shrug::

      (I have Karma to burn. Which is rather apropos given the topic)

    5. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this noise from Republicans about "indoctrination" is hypocritical and repugnant. All they're really saying is "We need to indoctrinate them with GOP rhetoric and close out the Democrats."

      What do you call 100 senators at the bottom of the ocean...?

    6. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Not really. Socialism is separate from democracy/republic/constitution/country. You can have a democratic constitutional republic that uses socialism.

      There is a strong inference being made by some on the far right that socialism is undemocratic. I think this derives from the past when communism was a big enemy to unite everyone into lockstep thinking; and at that time socialism was seen as the gateway drug to communism and thus equally evil. So "socialism" gets used as a code word to mean "undemocratic" and "un-American".

    7. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You mean Calvin Klein's and peyote?

    8. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So-- are you admitting that Democrats are Socialists?

    9. Re:As a Utah resident. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's what is being taught in the public schools.... right. There is no earthly reason your post should be marked insightful.

  52. This would cut into standardized test time... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But maybe we could consider going out on a limb here and teaching the kiddies about systems of government rather than telling them to memorize the correct label(Which, unless you are cynical enough to say "Plutocratic empire with democratic republican ceremonial elements", is "Republic).

    Hey Kids! Athens was a "Democracy". Rome, pre empire, was a "Republic"; both looked absolutely fuck-all like our government. How can this be? Let's talk about the differences between a "Republic" and a "Democracy" and what sorts of variations are possible within the broad heading of each... We may have to skip cramming names and dates for a week; but I think you'll learn something...

    And hey, while we are at it, let's remember to mention that(depending on which historians you talk to), there have been at least five reasonably distinct periods during which different political parties, with different names(in some cases quite confusing, since they are the same as today's; but mean different things) vied for control... Raise your hands everyone who knows that the Democrats used to be the southern conservative party, and the Republicans the northern liberals? And that there was a "Democractic-Republican" party, (arguably the one whose name actually corresponded most closely with our governmental form), that hasn't existed in almost 200 years?

    1. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you would like to "require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism."

      Which is the exact text of what the proposed bill would do. Of course, you're so offended by the slashdot editor making up some BS about the motivations of the bill that is entirely unsupported by the article, that you have to attack the straw man instead of thinking about the actual proposal at hand.

    2. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, teach kids to think, that is some scary shit. Its much safer to just teach them which words are good and which words are bad and they can then use them throughout their life to make rapid decisions without the pain of thinking.

    3. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still waiting for the Federalist party to come back into vogue.

    4. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the text of the law sounds very reasonable, as quoted in the article.

      But to be fair, even if the article doesn't support the claims made in the Slashdot summary, the reality of the state of Utah does support it. Those folks are crazy, on average.

    5. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 0

      But...who will then buy Jonahs Goldbergs books?

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    6. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Raise your hands everyone who knows that the Democrats used to be the southern conservative party, and the Republicans the northern liberals?

      Stephen A. Douglas was a Northern Democrat. In 1860, he received 1.4 million votes (mostly in the north), while John C. Breckinridge, the southern Democratic candidate, received a mere 800 thousand (almost entirely from southern voters). Abraham Lincoln received 1.9 million votes (almost entirely in the north).

    7. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson is institutionally continuous with the Democratic Party of today. Go ahead, look it up. The party came to call itself "the Democratic Party" as a short name; then when the liberal wing of the party broke off, they called themselves the "Republicans" and took the nickname "Grand Old Party" for the same reason that the "Real IRA" called themselves that when they broke from the Provos.

    8. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "rather than telling them to memorize the correct label"

      Granted, TFA doesn't support the summary, HOWEVER!
      You are also talking about a group of people to whom the 'correct label' is more important than reality.
      for example, they absolutely refuse to allow homosexuals to get 'married' because they don't want them using a label that they claim was invented just for them (ie: the term 'marriage').
      [yes, it's a smokescreen to the fact that they are attempting to force their religious views on others, but it is still childish behavior]

    9. Re:This would cut into standardized test time... by transami · · Score: 1

      +1

      --
      :T:R:A:N:S:
  53. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by RailGunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, the WHARGARBL is strong in this thread....

    Never mind the actual fact that the form of Government here in the United States is a Representative Republic.

    Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...

    I mean, what next? Are we going to force teachers to teach that 2+2=4? What of little Johnny's self esteem? Shouldn't we validate his feelings that 2 + 2 = Cookie?

    This is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.

  54. A Republic, For Whom Does It Stand? by vajrabum · · Score: 2

    The definition of republic from Wikipedia is: A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government.[1][2] The term is generally also understood to describe a government where most decisions are made with reference to established laws, rather than the discretion of a head of state, and therefore monarchy is today generally considered to be incompatible with being a republic. I think that people who say this are interested in changing from universal suffrage to "some significant portion of them". The same sort of people who spout this sort of stuff will often be heard to say that things were better when only those who owned land could vote. That is the presupposition hidden in this meme--disenfranchisement. Since we're quickly moving to a society where the minorities are a majority and where only the bankers and a few rich (white) people own land, this is simply advocating a new form of apartheid through the back door. For those of you who find liberal or Democrat a dirty word, be aware that college students can guess party affiliation from a head shot 80% of the time. That means that liberal and conservative reflect basic personality traits, and it takes all kinds.

    1. Re:A Republic, For Whom Does It Stand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same sort of people who spout this sort of stuff will often be heard to say that things were better when only those who owned land could vote. That is the presupposition hidden in this meme--disenfranchisement. Since we're quickly moving to a society where the minorities are a majority and where only the bankers and a few rich (white) people own land, this is simply advocating a new form of apartheid through the back door.

      That is exactly what I saw behind this bill and a lot of the rhetoric on the right these days. I am amazed at the number of posts on here where people actually believe that the United States republic government is not a form of democracy. They are all prepared to give their democratic voting power away so that a few billionaires can decide what is best for them. We are screwed.

    2. Re:A Republic, For Whom Does It Stand? by r00t · · Score: 1

      I think that people who say this are interested in changing from universal suffrage to "some significant portion of them". The same sort of people who spout this sort of stuff will often be heard to say that things were better when only those who owned land could vote. That is the presupposition hidden in this meme--disenfranchisement. Since we're quickly moving to a society where the minorities are a majority and where only the bankers and a few rich (white) people own land, this is simply advocating a new form of apartheid through the back door.

      How is it good that our government is chosen by people who are unable to comprehend things like economics? We'd be way better off if votes were multiplied by IQ squared. Right now, the pretty face with nice ads (funded by special interest group bribes called campaign contributions) wins.

      For those of you who find liberal or Democrat a dirty word, be aware that college students can guess party affiliation from a head shot 80% of the time.

      There is no party affiliation after a head shot, but I suppose splattered brains is evidence that the person probably thought republicans were the lesser evil. If the head shot doesn't expose any brain matter, then you can assume the person did actually like one of the parties.

      That means that liberal and conservative reflect basic personality traits, and it takes all kinds.

      No, it doesn't take all kinds. Both sides are horrified to be stuck sharing the same planet.

    3. Re:A Republic, For Whom Does It Stand? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I prefer this one, also from Wikipedia.

      In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.

      We don't need a Bill of Rights. What we need is a bill of responsibilities!

  55. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus READ FROM THE SCROLLS as recorded in several New Testament passages. Where you find evidence that he was illiterate?

  56. Gotta hand it to the neo-cons by Rooked_One · · Score: 0

    they sure did a number on both the words "democrat" and "liberal" when dubya 'won' his elections. Most effective demonetization of any idea or word since... ummm... scare tactics... scare tactics... lets see... I'm thinking Anslinger and his war on marijuana, is the first thing that comes to mind. Does anyone have anything more recent? I mean, that's the 1930's we're talking about... give or take a few years I believe.

  57. The US is a republic & a representative democr by HikingStick · · Score: 1

    The US is a republic. It is not a full democracy, though it does espouse many democratic principles. At best, it is a representative democracy, which history tells us was the intention of the framers.

    Most of the founding fathers did not trust pure democracy (i.e., rule by the direct vote of the people), because they knew that public opinion could be fickle. While elected officials were instituted to represent their constituents, they were also considered a check/balance on the ebb and flow of public opinion: elected officials are duty bound to protect the Constitution and the Republic ahead of their duty to enact the will of the people. Where those two duties are in conflict, elected officials should act in a manner that aligns with their first duty.

    The electoral college system is another example of how the founders intended a reasoned people to be able to intervene apart from the direct vote. Sadly, the electoral college is now a bastardization of its original intent, with separate groups of partisan electors selected to serve depending on which candidate wins, rather than an independent body that was intended to ratify--or void--the popular vote. There have been times in history when electors have voted for candidates other than those that won the popular vote, and I believe the founders intended that to be part of the game.

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  58. Read some of the comments in TFA by NiteShaed · · Score: 2

    I'd say that maybe clarifying the difference between a pure democracy and a republic for students isn't such a bad idea, although I do suspect that there's more to this behind the scenes than TFA states outright.

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  59. As a geek by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am pleased they are going to actually educate children using correct language. Words HAVE MEANINGS or at least they should.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:As a geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pleased they are going to actually educate children using correct language. Words HAVE MEANINGS or at least they should.

      The meaning of words also sometimes changes over time. Pro-tip. What you mean now by 'Republic' is signifigantly different from the orginal latin 'res publica'.

  60. Wasn't long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it wasn't long before they lost it. That is, unless you actually believe that the exponential growth of the US government -- both in terms of revenue and power over the people -- was something the common man campaigned for rather than career politicians who make their fortunes in the business of government.

    1. Re:Wasn't long by mikeken · · Score: 1

      I don't exactly understand what you're saying but, the exponential growth of the U.S. Government IS because of spending ourselves into debt. Now, it is beginning to bite us in the ass.

  61. Seriously? Could the summary be any more biased? by BitZtream · · Score: 0

    No where, NO WHERE in the article does it say anything about the law being passed because of the word 'Democrat'.

    When the fuck did CmdrTaco and Slashdot turn into a FUD spreading cess pool? And WHY did it? Why not just allow any random post to go straight to the front page since no one is bothering to verify anything about whats submitted?

    Time to spend my browsing time elsewhere, I suspect I'm not the first and I'm certain I won't be the last to ditch slashdot and leave it to the angsty teenagers to warp statements into sensationalizing lies.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  62. Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, if they could only figure out how magnets work.

  63. history of religious land/mine taking regimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hopefully, the hearings will shed some light on that doing the same thing, expecting different results loop some people get trapped in? there's been a lot of them (greed/fear/ego based regimes), they don't last very long, by historical measures. seems like forever to us?. they typically end rather badly too. & this whole god vs. allah thing, really?

  64. No, it can't be... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

    It's not April 1 yet, is it? This has to be a joke.

  65. I'm officially voting the... by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    Eric Wright party. Its not the right or the left, because you have that W in there... Not to be confused or associated with Dubya in any way, sort, or form.

    1. Re:I'm officially voting the... by EricWright · · Score: 2

      1 down, 308 million to go. My plan is coming together ...

      s...
      l...
      o...
      w...
      l...
      y...

  66. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    The quotation from the Bill's sponsor sure does its best to make the case that the(technically correct) assertion that the US is a republic is being (re)emphasized in the school curriculum by special intervention of the state legislature for reasons other than a learned concern for the dissemination of accurate information...

    "But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum. “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said."

    Yo, Mark, I love that supporting evidence there. I can definitely see how having the legislature intervene to insure that politically sensitive issues are handled in a doctrinally correct manner will save the kiddies from socialism. Perhaps we can appoint a Political Commissar for each classroom, to make sure that our freedom remains ideologically pure?

  67. Constitution Party by tepples · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, only 1/2 of the words in "Constitutional Republic" are nearly-identical to a political party.

    Which half? I see both a Constitution Party and a Republican Party.

  68. Re:"Utopia" comment reminds me of "Raising Arizona by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that the place where all the kids are above average?

  69. Three cheers to UTAH by mevets · · Score: 1

    For formally recognizing that democracy has no place in the USA.

    1. Re:Three cheers to UTAH by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

      Now that that silly idea of every individual's vote counts is out of the way, remember children, we are all at the mercy of those who have more money than most of us will ever make because it is the only way to be elected.

      Most of those people aren't interested in policies that will take away their money and most interested in those that will give them more.

  70. From the Utah Senate floor: by AntEater · · Score: 1

    "In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society..." - Sen. Palpatine (R) Utah

    --
    Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
  71. This is the correct answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For a bit more precision, I've heard it as a Constitutional Republic.

    The USA is (supposed to be) a Constitutional Republic. But there are political forces at work right now which are trying very hard to undermine that.
    Australia and Canada are examples of Representative Democracies.
    The differences are subtle, and may not be readily apparent to a typical USA layperson, especially given the low quality of public education in the USA anymore the past 4 decades.

    An example a a pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

    1. Re:This is the correct answer by DCstewieG · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile the modern Constitutional Republic consists of 1 wolf and about 20 sheep voting to have lamb for dinner.

    2. Re:This is the correct answer by norminator · · Score: 1

      Textbook Glenn Beck.

      The wolves/sheep is a terrible analogy, by the way, as DCstewieG already pointed out. If the wolves are in the minority, it just means even more sheep for the wolves.

  72. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    You guys live in a strange place.... You have to sue the state for accurate education?!

  73. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2

    Make that a "Freedom overlord", and let's go for it.

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  74. It's neither... by telekon · · Score: 1

    it's an errand boy sent by grocery clerks* to collect a bill.

    *multinational corporations

    --

    To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

  75. its not a democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from Wikipedia
    Government: Federal presidential constitutional republic

    What an ignorant post. How did you personally vote on the safe ports act? What about decisions about Guantanamo?

    Thats right you elect someone to vote on them on your behalf.

  76. The two are not mutually exclusive by jfruhlinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I always find this argument hilarious because people act as if "democracy" and "republic" are terms that have one extremely precise meaning each, and are mutually exclusive.

    Etymologically, "republic" comes from the Latin phrase "res publica", which means "common thing" or "common substance". It was meant to contrast the Roman state, which was the possession of the entire Roman citizen body, with foreign kingdoms that were (in the view of the Romans) "owned" by a single despot. The English phrase "commonwealth" is a more or less literal translation. (The Romans continued to use this name for their state well after the oligarchic system we call the "Roman republic" was replaced by the one-man rule we call the "Roman empire," by the way.)

    Etymologically, "democracy" comes from a Greek phrase that means "people power", or, perhaps more accurately, "citizen body power" ("demos" referring to the body of people with citizen rights, not the population as a whole). It was used as a term of abuse even back in the days of ancient Athens, when the state went back and forth between various systems of government, some of which involves large-scale participation of the citizen body in day-to-day decisions, others not so much.

    The two words have been used to describe an incredible variety of political systems over the past 2000 years or so. The modern use of the word "republic" probably emerged in the late 18th/early 19th century, when it came to specifically denote states that weren't monarchies (as this was a live question in that era). The modern use of the word "democracy" is similarly broad, denoting a system of government where the citizens have a significant say in how the country is run. Since there are virtually no instances of states run by direct democracy, the term is understood as being wholly compatible with representative government, in which citizens elect officials to run the state on their behalf.

    You can have states that are democracies but not republics (e.g., the UK and Sweden), that are republics and not democracies (e.g., Syria, Belarus), that are both (e.g., the U.S., France), or that are neither (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Brunei).

    1. Re:The two are not mutually exclusive by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was about to type an almost identical post. Instead, I applaud from the sideline.

    2. Re:The two are not mutually exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terms "republic" and "democracy", as used in modern definition of a system of government, are different. But they were the same in origin. "Republic" is the English modification on "res public". Direct translation from Latin of "res public" would be "through people", which is essentially identical to "democracy" which directly translates to "rule of people".

      In modern usage, however, "republic" is a system of government in which the supreme power is with the law rather than with the voters. This is clearly the intent of The Constitution in its original writing (as plain-English reading of it will tell).

      As for this article itself, it's clearly politically charged. Why would a techie site care that some state's government is passing some wonky political statements about government? All the "but it effects all of us" arguments are moot here since Slashdot, as a site, purports to dedicate itself to science and technology centered topics. Food choices, for example, effect all of us as much as politics do. But if Slashdot started talking about cooking, I think most of us would agree that it's off topic.

      Meanwhile, the Congress has either already passed or is considering a patent reform (an issue that is quite a bit more relevant to the tech crowd). And yet it's not being covered.

    3. Re:The two are not mutually exclusive by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      That's a wishy-washy post, if I ever read one.

      Take a stand, man. Grab one side of the argument and defend it with all your might. Facts don't matter. It's your enthusiasm that matters.
      What, are ya new here?

    4. Re:The two are not mutually exclusive by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      In modern usage, however, "republic" is a system of government in which the supreme power is with the law rather than with the voters.

      That's also the modern use of the term "democracy", which in the 20th/21st centuries is basically synonymous with liberal democracy / constitutional democracy.

  77. Just ask Ben Franklin what we have... by Dannon · · Score: 1

    After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

    Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

    There's a good article here that goes into the real difference. It's not about which party is in charge.

    The word "republic" comes from the Latin res publica — which means simply "the public thing(s)," or more simply "the law(s)." "Democracy," on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to "the people to rule." Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.

    So, what do you want to put your trust in? A law, or a crowd?

    --
    Good judgment comes from experience.
    Experience comes from bad judgment.
    1. Re:Just ask Ben Franklin what we have... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.

      It may have been at the time USA was founded, but it is not so today. Consult your English dictionary for updates.

    2. Re:Just ask Ben Franklin what we have... by 517714 · · Score: 1
      Dear Ben,

      We have lost it. It looks like we would be better off with George III ( the king, not a Bush) at this point. Somewhere along the line we let a two party system become entrenched. We now have all kinds of things you never envisioned.

      + House and Senate Whips who enforce party discipline so that voters and states respectively are not represented in Congress.

      + Procedural rules in Congress that assure that the majority party is able to wield a disproportionate influence on legislation, and those who are not members of the two parties are effectively disenfranchised.

      + A Supreme Court that has decided that a company may have rights.

      + A President who can wage war without the approval of Congress.

      + Habeas corpus has been suspended on several occasions and is currently suspended.

      + The people are no longer secure from unreasonable search and seizure.

      + New Hampshire and Iowa now have disproportionate influence on presidential elections,and they seem to do a particularly inept job of it.

      + Copyright and patent laws which are increasingly incompatible with the rights of the people and progress.

      The really sad part is that people who otherwise seem to be smart enough to push for correcting these issues would rather argue whether the U.S. is a democracy,a republic, a federation, etc.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  78. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Perhaps a "Chief Freedom Officer"? We really should run this classroom like a business...

  79. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I mean, what next? Are we going to force teachers to teach that 2+2=4? What of little Johnny's self esteem? Shouldn't we validate his feelings that 2 + 2 = Cookie?

    "Pepsi?"

    "Partial credit"

  80. Oh for Kibo's sake ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... every democracy is a republic. In fact, every political system that is not an absolute hereditary monarchy is a republic. It is not a particularly precise term. We are both a democracy (in that ultimate power resides with the entirety of the citizenry) and a republic (in that we do not have a king).

    This is like contemplating a banana and insisting "That's not a banana, that's a fruit!".

    1. Re:Oh for Kibo's sake ... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      That is actually not true. The UK, Sweden and the Netherlands are all democracies, but are not republics (they're monarchies.) North Korea is a republic, but not a democracy.

      Utah is claiming that we're more like North Korea than like Sweden.

  81. Odd that they felt the need. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is never a bad thing to learn the differences between the multitude of systems, if anything the students might grow up to be more socially/politically conscious and not automatically vote for whomever screams the loudest. Saddest thing is that it apparently needs to be legislated, should be a fairly obvious part of curriculum in this information-age of ours.

  82. Oh wey, goyische post by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Informative
    I'm glad you know so much about 1st century CE Palestine, because there's an awful lot of people who need putting straight.

    Sarcasm aside, Jesus's father was a carpenter who could afford to travel. He was a solid middle-class citizen, therefore. And this being in Israel, not the majority of the Middle East, being a solid middle class citizen meant that your son learnt to read. We are talking here about a culture that elevated the printed word to a very high level, not one like Rome that tried to reserve literacy to the Patrician class.

    In addition, the NT does not describe Jesus as a god, nor did he claim to be (or the Gospels wouldn't have got written.)

    Personally, I'm a complete agnostic theologically, but lazy religion-bashing (with the smallest scent of anti-semitism) still annoys me.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Actually, Jesus' father was required to travel for census. As was everyone.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      Your modern conception of "middle class" is laughably ill-suited for first century Israel (especially Galilee), as are modern Jewish ideas of the importance of literacy and education. But believe what you like.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Except there was no census at the time of Jesus' birth. Roman records indicate that did not happen.

    4. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by operagost · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Are you seriously asking for a citation of the ABSENCE of a citation? That's amazingly fucking stupid even by bible-thumper standards.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by HeckRuler · · Score: 0

      Are you so sure that Joseph existed? He's only ever mentioned in the Nativity scene in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, and they don't seem to agree on who the guy was. And elsewhere Jesus is refered to as "Jesus son of Mary", where it'd really be traditional to refer to him as the son of his father. Divine lineage aside, it's likely that Mary was a runaway/fleeing single teen mother and Jesus was a bastard.

      The Rome-occupied middle-east had a middle-class? Huh. Go figure. And Joesph could afford to travel around? All I remember is him fleeing from Herod, once.
      And it's "the written word" not "the printed word" for obvious reasons.
      Laziness is rather annoying, isn't it?

    7. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by digitig · · Score: 1

      Well, the Bible-thumpers can provide a citation for the claim that there was a census, albeit not to a primary source.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

      "Roman records indicate that did not happen."

      That's not an 'absence' of a citation. Just reference WHICH roman records indicate that.

      --
      --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    9. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as 1st century Palestine. The Romans renamed Judea to Palestine in 135.

    10. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Luke 2. They traveled to Jerusalem every year for passover.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    11. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      It's quite clear on the 23rd line of the chronicle of Sillius Soddus: "There was no census this year."

      This just in n00bs, proving a negative is a logical fallacy. It stands to reason that if the Romans had records of other census takings, there would have been a record of the one referenced in the New Testament. No such record exists, therefore the 3rd party account of said census is suspect at best, doubly so because it describes the census as being conducted in a way completely different from all the others. Romans and their tributaries were not required to 'travel to the cities of their birth' or any such nonsense for any other census (and if they were for only one really different census, you could be sure that it would be a census recorded in many sources for its peculiarity and inconvenience). It was just a deus ex machina fictional use of the Roman state as an excuse to place Joseph and Mary in the right place to fulfill a prophecy. All of these things taken together should demonstrate to most people that the Biblical census was pure fiction.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    12. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > "Jesus" he himself would have never heard that name in his life (unless the Romans called him that briefly at his trial, right before nailing him to a cross).

      Can you show me where in Latin or Greek there is a "J" sound please?

      The name "Jesus" is a bastard transliteration. Hell, the "J" glyph wasn't even invented until the 17th century, AFTER the first 1611 KJV was printed.

    13. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Much as with Josephus "Iosepos", a Hellenization of "Yoseph", yes we give it the modern "J" sound. "Jesus" is actually Isoûs in Greek (/. doesn't recognize Greek letters, unfortunately, but you can go look it up if you like). Not that it would have mattered to him either way. To him his name was always Yoshua Ben Yoseph.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by operagost · · Score: 1

      See, I have a source-- one that's present in many thousands of MS-- that says there was one. The fact that there is no EXTANT clear record of a Roman census at the right time (there is circumstantial evidence that there was one at CLOSE to the right time) does not mean that it never existed. So, tough-- because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean you can claim "no fair!" and summarily dismiss the evidence from the opponent.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      So tell me, did you close your eyes halfway through reading? The evidence is against, not for, any census like that described in the New Testament, not just in terms of time, but procedure. (What the hell is "MS" supposed to stand for in this context? Being that this is Slashdot I read that as "thousands of Microsofts".)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    16. Re:Oh wey, goyische post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'io'

      E-o is the 'jo-' sound.

  83. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bzzt. Sorry, no. Debates about such a person ever existing anyway aside, JC was at least able to read from the Torah (something every grown-up Jew was and still is expected to be able to do).

  84. Re:Seriously? Could the summary be any more biased by sribe · · Score: 0

    Dude, biased is not even the right word--it's just flat-out moronically wrong.

  85. So the fuck what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, Congress continues to fund BS like the NEA (A = Arts), etc. while the economy goes into the shitter. This just in: Politicians, conservative and liberal alike, will always focus on BS nonsense while ignoring the big issues.

    1. Re:So the fuck what? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Um, do you know how absolutely little money goes to the NEA? We could shave off one day of our occupations of Iraq or Afghanistan, and cover the "expense" of the NEA for years. And the money for the NEA goes into local US economies (giving money to artists who then buy materials in their neighborhoods, producing shows for people in US cities, etc.)

      That you would single out the NEA of all things as an example of "waste" indicates you have a huge and irrational axe to grind.

  86. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Define "Accurate" when it comes to anything related to government.

  87. Off base summary by ZipprHead · · Score: 1

    This summary is a bit off base. From the article:

    "HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. "

    Where does it say "force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic". Sounds like they just want to be sure the students are aware of all forms of government.

  88. Re:What a troll by frinkster · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and Obama wants to put $50B into high speed trains when:

    1) He not only didn't get Bush's spending under control, but increased it.
    2) He knows damn well that the American public has no broad interest in high speed trains (thus it would be Amtrak 2.0, at best).

    This diversion at least doesn't add insult to injury by costing a ton of money Utah doesn't have and should take a committee in the legislature all of about half an hour to push out the appropriate language for a general vote.

    High Speed trains are a necessary transportation feature in the future of the US. Plain and simple. The United States growth rate is quite high for a developed nation. We have a lot of suburban sprawl. Combine those two facts and think about the outcome: When our current airports reach their capacity, where will new airports be built? In Chicago, the selected site for the next airport is 50 miles from downtown! Go look at a map and see if you can find any space near Los Angeles or New York City for another airport.

    The high speed rail plans are using mostly already existing railroad right-of-ways. They can be built where people already live.

  89. woosh! by raymansean · · Score: 1

    To all those who have commented about because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it did you not notice that Republican has republic in it. Unfortunately, CmdrTaco quoted someone's editorial comment and most people seem to be reading the quote as fact.

    --
    insert inflammatory comment here!
  90. They are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically, they are wrong. "Democracy" does not have "Democrat" in it. There is a "t" missing.

  91. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right on. Because it's absolutely impossible to form a government that has aspects of both!

  92. Oh, that's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are a lot of "message" bills this year. None can top being the first state with an official gun emblem. Picking a handgun was really a missed opportunity to go big. If you want a gun, then pick a real gun!

    More Irony...
    The governor's state of the state address opened the discussion of whether Utah should consider building its first nuclear power plant along the Green River. This form of power generation is water intensive in this arid desert. It is estimated that the plant would vaporize 60000 acre-ft annually. Going nuclear is especially ironic, considering the abundant solar energy available that could be captured on the dry lake bed of ancient Lake Bonneville. To say that they "don't get it" here, is an understatement.

  93. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by w_dragon · · Score: 1

    Given that he's noted as reading the Torah in the temple I doubt he was illiterate. Jews have always had a pretty large emphasis on being able to read. Also he was the son of a carpenter, which would have probably been a fairly well-paid profession in those days. Odds are he would have had a fairly comfortable life growing up.

  94. More trolling in the summary by operagost · · Score: 1

    Honestly, this must be the worst submission and summary ever. I read the article, and nowhere does it claim that this legislation has been created because "Democracy" has "Democrat" in it. Besides, it doesn't unless you spell it "Democratcy". Then we have the last line of the summary, that argues a false dilemma: Utah must solve all of its other problems before it sets educational curricula. Setting the educational curricula needs to be done all the time regardless of whatever else is going on, and it seems that this legislation is setting a standard for how forms of government are to be taught. From my experience, most students aren't even being taught about the different forms of government discussed by Aristotle, and this legislation sets that minimal standard.
    Please everyone, use your brains, and stop witch hunting.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:More trolling in the summary by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That is okay you missed the bigoted commentary added by Taco.
      "Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday March 09, @09:36AM from the only-two-of-three-wives-agree dept."

      That is just as offensive as a comment about cheap Jews, or African Americans liking water melon.
      BTW for those that do not know the history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44#The_Mormon_War
      It was an extermination order in the state of Missouri that all members of the church where to be killed or driven from the state. It was officially rescinded in 1976.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  95. Goodbye Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The editorializing and lack of basic fact checking (CmdrTaco apparently didn't even RTFA) has become unbearable. After many years of reading this site, I'm done.

  96. CEDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree the Legislature shouldn't be worried about what type of nation the US is it should be working on ceding from it because you guys are going down and we shouldn't let you drag us with you.

  97. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1, Informative

    It just depends on what level you're referring to. At the state level it is largely majority-rule thus democratic. At the national level, it is not purely democratic style majority rule; it is a Republic form of representation for each state. It is true that all states are Federally organized as equals among each other. But that's more a question of how they are organized not how much voting influence each has.

    All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.

  98. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

    Uh - where's the suit?

  99. Charlie Sheen for President! by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    Why not, he's not any nuttier than a large percentage of our elected officials.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  100. Re:What a troll by jonescb · · Score: 1

    I don't know if the high speed trains are designed to be used for passengers, or for cargo. I can agree that interest in a high speed passenger train is pretty low, but it's a hell of a lot more environmentally friendly to ship goods by rail than by semi truck. If we can make transportation by rail faster, it would be more attractive for companies to ship by rail.

  101. Truth by airos4 · · Score: 1

    Well.. it is.
    Republic : we elect people to go make decisions for us.
    Democracy: everyone votes on everything.

    Democracy is kinda like communism, it sounds good on paper but it's unworkable on any large scale.

    --
    I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
    1. Re:Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so is that why spreading democracy in the Middle East isn't working out for you guys?

      Shame about those countries in Europe too. I'm sure if you asked any European citizen they would deny any of their political systems being democratic.

      This seems to be working well, wonder if there's anything else that can be redefined to make another insubstantial social distinction.

  102. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by HeckRuler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And based on estimated illiteracy rates among bastard carpenters in the region at the time, yeah, he was probably illiterate.
    Similarly, he also probably wasn't white like the bulk of his icons make him appear to be. You know, those "graven images" that lead people astray that was mentioned in some book somewhere...

  103. Like Rome? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2
    Rome was a Republic for the period between the kings and the emperors. Unelected representatives made the decisions. The representatives were, basically, the heads of the families classed as Patricians, so the Government consisted of a load of Mafia Godfathers getting together to parcel up the City. This seems to have been the kind of Government envisaged by the US Founding Fathers, who were very definitely patrician in outlook. So long as only the right sort of people got to make the decisions - white, powerful men - everything would be OK.

    So you may be right. If in reality the Senate and the House are not elected by the ordinary people but emerge by agreement of powerful pressure groups, such as rich individuals and large corporations, the US is (just) a Republic. But if, every few years, the ordinary people vote and can remove and replace those senators and representatives - well, that means that the people (demos, in Greek) have political power (kratein, in Greek.) And our word democracy therefore simply means "people power"; it does not define exactly how that power is exercised.

    I imagine most Americans at least think their country is a democratic republic.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Like Rome? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I imagine most Americans at least think their country is a democratic republic.

      I was under the impression that most Americans think their country is a reality TV show and electing politicians was no different than voting on American Idol.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:Like Rome? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      It's not?

      Damn, now I feel bad about voting for Palin.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    3. Re:Like Rome? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      /. removed the joke tags.

      Why do we have Plain Old Text if it strips the tags out?

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:Like Rome? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      But there's a distinction between 'democratic' and 'democracy' like there's a distinction between 'feminine' and 'female'. Just because we act democratic does not make us a democracy.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  104. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Jews have always had a pretty large emphasis on being able to read.

    No, they haven't. That's a relatively modern thing, which evolved long after AD 70 (when modern Talmudic Judiasim was effectively born). Country Jews in Jesus's time were nothing like modern Jews.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  105. I think they are right, this is not a democracy by Marrow · · Score: 1

    Its seems like a democracy is someplace where I could vote for/against the people who make the important decisions regarding my country. But I cannot do that. The important people are on committees in the House and Senate that are occupied by reps from other states. The important people are hired by people appointed by the president. I didnt vote for them, and during his second term, I cannot vote against the president having a third term. The important people are in the judiciary which are immune to any form of voting. And when it comes time for my actual representatives to vote, they are voting on a document that addresses so many different areas of law that the document is patently indecipherable. And then after the House and Senate vote on a bill, the bill can be changed by some schmuck before it goes to the President, and from then on its the law.
    So they are right: Its not a democracy if most of the decisions are made by people that I cannot vote for or against.

  106. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

    It only became a Federation after we discovered the warp drive... :)

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  107. Paradise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Utah is a paradise! Two wives for every man! Wait...that's not right anymore...

  108. Re:What a troll by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    We don't need to cut spending, we need to increase it. Austerity only hurts the people, it never helps.

    We need to increase taxes to somewhere around Reagan era tax levels and close tax loopholes for mega corps.

    Of course, I'm dreaming, but, hey, never let a little reality get in the way of dreaming.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  109. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by operagost · · Score: 2
    I'm sorry, but in our universe in a logical discussion the burden of proof lies with the person making the argument. The poster said that Jesus could probably read based on information in the New Testament, for which we have good documentary evidence. You claim that 1st century Galilean carpenters were "almost exclusively illiterate" with no evidence. Besides not having evidence, "almost exclusively illiterate" leaves open the possibility of ONE literate carpenter (or carpenter's son, as we have no evidence Jesus took the trade). Your second argument ridicules the straw-man claims of flying and having x-ray vision, and is thus invalidated.

    Please provide your evidence that 1st century Galilean carpenters were illiterate before continuing to participate in this discussion.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  110. Get A History Lesson, Taco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um ... Cmdr Douchebag,

    Get off your soap box and stop editorializing. We are a Republic, dumbass.

  111. Read Article 4, Section 4 of the US constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-4/28-republication-form-of-government.html
    Yes, the US is a constitutional republic, and all states must also have republican (small r) governments by constitutional mandate. The submitter is a retard

  112. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    You're confusing modern Judaism with what can be more accurately called "the Hebrew religion" of Jesus's time. He was a country carpenter in the first century, decades before before the Temple was destroyed.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  113. While the topic... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just start telling that the USA is not a society and that it contains no communities? Because those would imply socialism and communism! *waves evil Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin handpuppets*

  114. Bloody Romans! by JudeanPeople'sFront · · Score: 1

    Nitpicking. The word "democracy" comes from Greek, while "republic" comes from Latin. They mean the same thing: rule of the people.

    1. Re:Bloody Romans! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Republic" doesn't mean "rule of the people". It doesn't mean "rule" at all. It's literally translated as "public matter", and originally simply referred to state governance.

  115. In fact... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    ...they passed the law because it's true. The Federal Government *is* a Republic, and not a democracy (although some the states are partially democracies because they vote on binding referendums). "Republicans" and "Democrats" don't have anything to do with that fact.

  116. You are missing the point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democratic Republic, Republican Democracy, blah, blah, blah.

    Folks, somehow, somewhen, Utah became a state. That terrifies me.

  117. Re:May I correct your English, too? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    "utopia" is from the Greek ou, not, topos, place. It means "nowhere". And so it should read "It must be utopia",

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  118. Republic, Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In modern usage, a republic or commonwealth is dichotomous with monarchy. During the French Revolution, those who wanted to depose the king were called republicans. In Great Britain, Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth was a brief interlude of republican rule before the monarchy was restored; that would mean today the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy but not a republic; since Parliament is supreme, the UK nevertheless functions as a representative democracy. The People's Republic of China would be a republic, but most in the West would not qualify it as democracy. The original Soviet model was a bottom-up workers' democracy with communities being organized into syndicates of workers/peasants (i.e., the soviets) and the soviets themselves being organized into larger collections. In practice, Vladymir Lenin quickly moved to a top-down model of a centralized control to quash what he called counter-revolutionaries (i.e., any threat to his political power and the power of his favored party members), which was greatly expanded under Joseph Stalin.

    Moreover, in the United States and most Western nations, we have a liberal democracy. Democracy ensures popular participation in government while liberalism ensures a constitutional guarantee of individual rights/liberties.

    Really the names used for different forms of government/economy depend on the theory being deployed and what characteristics are considered most salient for discussion. I would say, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy," is an argument more about partisan politics than anything else. Republicans would like to make that association in people's minds because then people would be more likely to think of the Republican Party as the "real" American party. Democrats would like to make the inverse association for similar electoral gain.

  119. Opponents by misfit815 · · Score: 1

    FTA: "Opponents of the bill argued that the concepts within it are already being taught and that the Legislature shouldn’t get involved in curriculum matters."

    Every time I wish I would've become a teacher, an article like this comes along to remind me just what a messed up profession it is. Add me to the list of opponents.

    --
    Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
  120. we are a republic by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    this is a retarded non-story.

    A republic is a democracy based on a founding document. The founding fathers considered us a republic.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  121. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

    And Chewbacca was a wookiee on Endor! That just doesn't make sense!

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  122. Damn right! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    at all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah

    The solution is quite simple - so simple, I don't know why all the other states haven't figured it out already. Apparently only Utah has smart people living in it these days:

    • Unemployed? Go get a job!
    • Financial problems? Go get a job!
    • Need social services? Go get a job, you lazy bastard and you won't need them anymore!

    With those problems addressed, what else can we fix for you?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  123. Democratic republic by a+Flatbed+Darkly · · Score: 1

    More correctly, the US is a democratic republic, but due to influence from the names of the German Democratic Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and so on, the phrase has become irrevocably associated with Communism and so is very rarely heard in reference to any capitalist democracy.

  124. I Pledge Allegience... by Thakandar2 · · Score: 1

    ...to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands...

  125. Slowly being taken over by nexttech · · Score: 1

    And so continues the take over of the US by the corrupt political parties. Soon the ruling party will outlaw the other party. They've already made it practically illegal to be an independent.

    I want more choices

  126. Utah = Mormons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mormonism has some very strange behavior and teachings.

    They're a scary bunch. Ask anyone who has had extensive dealings with them.
    And no, I don't care if you don't believe me. Experience is the best teacher,
    and unless you have some actual experience with these people, you have no
    idea what the real deal is.

    1. Re:Utah = Mormons by samjam · · Score: 1

      Non-mormons are also a scary bunch, ask anyone who has had extensive dealings with them.

      I've had some real serious run-ins with non-momons and some of them have really strange beliefs and practises.

      And no, I don't care if you don't believe me. Experience is the best teacher, and unless you have some actual experience with these people, you have no idea what the real deal is.

      Yup -it's even too scary for me to talk about, so that will have to do...

      I've met weird mormons too, but I usually figured it was because they were american and so it was the americans that were weird. But then I met some weird english mormons too... so then I realised that it was the weird people that were weird, and that the religious and national factors were not very relevant.

  127. Oh, but, we are a republic. by Gonzodoggy · · Score: 2

    The funny thing is, they're right, we are a republic and not a democracy. In a republic, you elect representatives to cast votes on your behalf. In a democracy, you vote for everything.

  128. How timely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/02/23/democracy_versus_liberty
    Walter E. Williams
    Democracy Versus Liberty

  129. Technology makes a democracy practical by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    but I doubt many would want to live under one. We have a good example of one which hits the news a lot, California. Their system for sponsoring referendums to state wide voting is a great example of why purely democratic processes can have outcomes that are not well received or in some cases down right spiteful.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Technology makes a democracy practical by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 1

      Having been a resident of California for 22 years now, I heartily agree.

      The whole point of a representative democracy / republic (ideally, anyway) is that the average citizen doesn't have the time, experience, education, or inclination to do the research, discussion, and negotiation necessary to come up with the legislation needed by the complex world we live in, legislation that is meant to serve everyone's interests. So, we elect representatives to take that job on for us.

      Here in California, we have people coming up with all sorts of Initiatives that get put before the voters directly, where it then becomes a matter of how well the Initiative is marketed, vs. how well the Initiative serves our interests. It can make California a frustrating State to live in.

      --
      wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
  130. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by PointyShinyBurning · · Score: 1

    Source for this claim? You're assigning a rabbinic Judaism to Jesus that post-dates him by several centuries. At his time congregation had to gather in the temple to have the Torah read to them, even in the Soferim (probably 8th century) there's suggestion that some villages contained only a single literate individual.

  131. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jbezorg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Never said it couldn't be but the keyword "Accuracy".

    More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is "Federation". Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.

    Honestly, if you are going to teach our system of Government to our children don't do a half-ass job and get the wrong on the fundamental level of the Nation's actual political structure and gloss it over with the political structure on the state level.

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  132. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by adriccom · · Score: 1

    I grant you 2 future mod points for this, though I haven't any in stock today.

    --
    <script>alert("I never liked JavaScript, really; it just seemed a bad idea.");</script>
  133. Where do you think poor people stayed? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Read around the text. Joseph and heavily pregnant wife apparently turns up in Hicksville, Galilee, rather late in the day. The inn is full, he gets the stables. Now, where do you think the poor people stayed? Hint: not in the inn. The bit about the census is probably untrue, but it's little details like this that make you think. "The inn was full, and she ended up giving birth in the stable", says Joseph. If there had been rooms at the inn, he would have stayed there. So: he could afford to travel and stay at inns, unlike most of his compatriots who could afford neither.

    This kind of thing was grist to the mill of advanced 19th century Biblical criticism, which itself derived from the kind of tests historians use to decide if texts are based on actual eye-witness accounts.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  134. Not a democracy? Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was self-evident...

  135. Really?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course the socialist minister who wrote the pledge would call us a republic. The "pledge" wasn't even official until 1942, so why would you ever consider it as a worthy source of what kind of government our founders created?

    I have to wonder why people are so eager to remove remove references of democracy from our government. Oh that's right, these are republicans, whose goal has long been for money to decide our representatives in the republic and they have largely succeeded. Yet we still have elections, in which we democratically elect our representatives in the republic. If we remove the democracy, we will still be a republic, and yet all will be lost.

  136. It is a republic by katorga · · Score: 1

    Maybe if they still allowed the Pledge of Allegiance, people would remember that the US is a republic. I don't think there are any actual "democracies" in the world. Almost most all are representative or parliamentary. No politician would willingly surrender power to a true democracy.

  137. What's with all the "Democracy" and "Republic"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...talk

    I thought The USA was a "Corporate Dictatorship"...

  138. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by e9th · · Score: 2

    It's a government mandate. I think "Freedom Czar" would be more appropriate, in a surreal kind of way.

  139. Proper introductions first. by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

    Slashdot, meet non-story. Non-story, meet Slashdot.

  140. I live in Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a waste of time, passing such a useless and ridiculous law. I live in Utah, and actually, it's a great place to live, and one of the most financially sound states.

    As a registered Republican (who is quite conservative with some libertarian leanings), I wonder when I see laws pass like this. What were they thinking? What a waste of effort.

    This representative democracy, democratic republic isn't a pure republic, nor a direct democracy.

    But why should they be legislating micromanagement of teachers? Please, let my local school district and school board do their jobs. Let the local parents keep their ears as to what their children are learning, and give local, direct feedback to the teachers, administrators, and school board. Stay out of the way, Legislature.

    1. Re:I live in Utah by srobert · · Score: 1

      I'm a registered Democrat, and liberal on most issues, but i agree with everything you just said.

  141. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by hduff · · Score: 1

    All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.

    That's what these pedants should be required to teach.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  142. Again by hduff · · Score: 1

    Yet again another worthless Slashdot article. I can read FARk for this stuff.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  143. Par for the course for the Utah Righteouslature by adjustable_pliers · · Score: 2

    A Utahn here. Ah, the right-wing "republic not democracy" canard rides again. Quibbling over semantics, proponents fallaciously cast the concepts as mutually exclusive, ignoring fundamental participatory organs such as commissions, boards, and citizen committees. Besides, the Greek roots for 'republic' (res publica) means 'public thing' or 'common good.' But to Utah Sens. Buttars and Dayton and Reps. Sandstrom and Wimmer, isn't that socialism?

  144. Really? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 0
    So, you're saying that the Scribes and the Pharisees didn't exist? And that the Dead Sea Scrolls are fake?

    Why is the concept of a "middle class" laughable? Are you saying that Israel didn't have shopkeepers, artisans and the like who maybe employed a few people, engaged in business, and the richer sort of which aspired to buy Roman citizenship? Saul was reported to be a Roman citizen of the artisanal class - he was trained as a tent-maker.

    I think you need to cite some serious research here. On the other side, I'm afraid it's down to citing whole sections of libraries.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Really? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      3-5% in rural areas and 10-12% in urban areas are the going estimates for 1st century BCE literacy rates last time I looked.

      If everyone was illiterate why are there discussions in the New Testament implying literacy being the norm? By 60 CE the establishment of organized schools had been decreed and started in Palestine.

      Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:6-7) implied literacy in the normal course of business in 1st century CE Jewish society.
      http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Luke+16

    2. Re:Really? by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      Again, you cite your holy text as evidence for the accuracy of your holy text. I'm giving you today's "No Shit, Sherlock" award for highlighting the obvious fact that a religious text traditionally makes the founder of the religion sound like an awesome guy.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  145. Both by c00rdb · · Score: 0

    If you've never taken a basic political science class, please don't comment with your personal opinion. The simple fact the U.S is both.

    Republic = not a monarchy (look it up if you don't believe me)
    Democracy = ruled by the people in any sense, representative, direct, whatever

  146. Most of the responses here... by Glock27 · · Score: 2

    Most of the responses here show exactly why teaching that the United States is a Republic is a very good idea!

    The US educational system is in drastic need of an overhaul! I find it entirely unsurprising that home schooled kids do better on standardized tests than the products of the public education system.

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  147. +America is a Social Democracy .... aka socialist! by Wild_dog! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the purist definition we are now a social democracy. Both republicans and democrats are socialists being that they support and vote to to continue social security and medicare and we have a redistributive tax policy and have had for as long as most people currently alive have been voting. So the hypocrisy of the socialism label is astounding.

    Most Americans are socialist too. I don't see any mad rush to give back social security checks or turn down medicare for a free market solution.

  148. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1st century carpenters from Galilee

    The really frustrating thing is that even Christians make this same mistake. You see, the Bible does not, anywhere, claim that Jesus was a carpenter. Jesus was the son of a carpenter. His profession is not clearly stated, however the fact that he preached in the Temple (which requires the ability to read Scripture) suggests he was at least an academic, and at most a full-blown rabbi. Of course, most Christians don't like to accept that possibility, either, because the reality of that time is that no unmarried man ever became a rabbi, and no modern Christian wants to accept the possibility that Jesus ever had sex.

  149. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by DrgnDancer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assuming that there's any accuracy at all to the stories in the Bible (a big assumption I'll grant you) he was likely literate. He's often called "Rabbi" in the text and has a much greater understanding of the Torah and supporting literature than an illiterate man would be likely to have. Joseph is typically portrayed as a very prosperous carpenter, and a leader in his community. The whole bit with the manger wasn't becasue they couldn't afford a better room, there just weren't any available. Part of the reason it's considered so odd that he makes friends with fisherman, thieves, and laborers is becasue he wasn't one himself.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  150. Re:"Utopia" comment reminds me of "Raising Arizona by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1
  151. Actually by Danathar · · Score: 1

    We are a federal democratic republic....even if the "federal" part is almost entirely faux

  152. who should be setting cirricula? by bityz · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised by the amount of discussion over the nature of the American government (I'm Canadian), and the lack of discussion over who should be setting curricula. Is it the place of the government to set curricula centrally or should teachers and parents have more local control?

  153. Wow, really? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 0

    For some reason, I wasn't at all surprised to see R- in front of every legislator's name in the article. It would take a redneck know-nothing conservative to try and push some stupid shit like this when there are important things to tackle, like budget and transportation.

    When will hard-right republicans and other douchebag conservatives realize that they're wrong, unlikeable except by other righty douchebags, and living at LEAST 15 years in the past?

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  154. Replacing one mistake with another. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA is not a Democracy nor a Republic. It's a tyranny.

  155. It's a floor polish AND a dessert topping. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    In what strange universe is it impossible to be a democracy and a republic?

    What feature of the US constitution makes it not a democracy?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
    1. Re:It's a floor polish AND a dessert topping. by perpenso · · Score: 1

      In what strange universe is it impossible to be a democracy and a republic? What feature of the US constitution makes it not a democracy?

      No monarchy makes republic a slightly better fit.

      The definitions for both republic and democracy tend to include:
      - Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
      - Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
      However the definitions for republic tend to add:
      - A head of state that is not a monarch.

      FWIW, the governments description of itself:
      Government type:
      Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

  156. USA is a Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are a republic. It comes from the Latin phrase "res publica" (thing of the people). A Republic, by definition, is when you elect representatives to govern on your behalf. A democracy, in contrast, is the direct governance by the people (Greek "demos kratos" -- power of the people). In a democracy, the people govern directly. All decisions are made by popular vote, with the decision of the majority controlling.

    In modern parlance, however, the terms have become synonymous and interchangeable, even though they shouldn't be. To add to the confusion, you have terms such as "representative democracy" and "indirect democracy" and "direct democracy" that are essentially rebrandings of Republic and Democracy.

    In my opinion, people are making mountains out of molehills. The name doesn't matter -- language changes after all. What matters more is that people know how our system works than fighting over what to call it. A rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet.

  157. Utah: love living here by lcall · · Score: 1

    Speaking as a longtime resident who has lived long periods in 2 other states and one other country (all of which I liked, by the way), Utah does seem like utopia sometimes. I understand our unemployment to be lower than most (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/utah/), our state government is very well-managed (recent award: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695258427/Utahs-No-1-for-governing.html), the mountains are *beautiful*, the people are friendly (I think so, Carlos Boozer thinks so: http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700108270/Utah-Jazz-Carlos-Boozer-returns-as-member-of-Bulls.html, people are always thanking the bus drivers, I'm sure you can find someone who doesn't think so), and my personal opinion is that so many things are done ... sensibly. Yes, there is good & bad everywhere, but I for one really like where I live.

    --
    A Free, fast personal organizer for touch typists: onemodel
  158. More like an idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See above.

  159. USA is Social Democratic Republic by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    In the purist definition we are now a social democracy. Both republicans and democrats are socialists being that they support and vote to to continue social security and medicare and we have a redistributive tax policy and have had for as long as most people currently alive have been voting. So the hypocrisy of the socialism label is astounding.

    I wish both sides would just own up to their socialist tendencies and quit demonizing what most people here actually are in favor of if they rubbed 2 brain cells together now and again.

  160. The two questions are orthogonal by Theatetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is nothing about being a Republic that prevents a country from also being a Democracy. I'm sick of that false distinction. A Republic is a state whose head of state is not a monarch. A Democracy is a state whose government's authority derives from the people. A state can be one, both, or neither.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  161. what democracy ? seen one lately on this rock ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL when an alected official can make a decision like this for those reason , you know that you really are NOT in a democracy , ah ah and then hilary is complaining about free speech in china , look in your own dictatorship , got plenty of work to do there

  162. Democracy by GottMitUns · · Score: 2

    DEMOCRACY - A government of the masses. Authority - derived through mass meeting or any form of 'direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. -1928 United States Army Training Manual

  163. srsly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone wondering which one the US is should recite the pledge of allegiance to themselves...

  164. Why are red states crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost every red state has done the following:

    - Opposed public education
    - Replaced educational materials with outright fabricated lies
    - Replaced educational materials with religious misinformation
    - Pursued inequality between the races and sexes.
    - Punished teachers for doing their job

    Seriously, it's shit like this that makes Democrats feel like the Republicans are trying to destroy this country. We can't make it anywhere in the world if kids grow up thinking the South won the Civil war, that magnets came from God, and that women belong in the kitchen.

    Republicans wrap themselves in the Bible and the Flag because they live the most un-Christian, un-American lives you can imagine. Thanks to the extreme partisanship introduced by Bush, we're now seeing the extreme fringe hardcore Republicans floating to the surface (hello Tea Party) and making ignorance their creed.

    I'm not scared of communism, terrorism, or immigrants. I'm scared by stupid people who want everyone else to be stupid.

  165. this is not news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not interested in this.

  166. All of the above by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is the US a republic? Yes.
    Does the US use democracy? Yes.
    Does the US have a constitution? Yes.

    So we're a democratic constitutional republic. Kind of like the thing about passwords, something we are, something we do, and something we have. So of course saying we're a democratic republic or a constitutional republic is also correct, though not as fully informative.

    Saying that we're a republic and not a democracy is false, unless by democracy you actually mean "direct democracy," and twisting words like that as part of an argument to use correct terminology as the Utah lawmakers seem to be trying to do is rather asinine.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:All of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many states that use actual direct democracy, for example Missouri (uses ballot measures to pass tax increases, among other things). There are many smaller entities that might use direct democracy.

      The United States is not a democracy, representative or otherwise. The simple fact that we have a President that can veto laws passed by a majority of the representatives in both houses of the legislature takes the idea of democracy off the table.

      This doesn't even take into account that the Founders originally intended (and wrote into the Constitution) that the Senate represented the States and not the People. Another factor that makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

      Maybe you should read the links you posted a little more carefully.

    2. Re:All of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We live in a republic because the illusion of control we have as voters does not exist. Elections are decided by oligarchs and large corporations, not by the electorate. It's the truth. It's a bitter pill to swallow but the sooner we do acknowledge what we live in, and that everything we see in politics is a sham and a show, the sooner we can fix it.

    3. Re:All of the above by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      No, you're doing it wrong. We should not attempt to define the nature of our polity by observing it. Rather, we should go back to the original Holy books of Aristotle and Plato, distill the concept of a republic into a pure form, and then change the nature of the states to better reflect the wisdom of the ancients.

    4. Re:All of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could of sworn we're a plutocracy? Or do you mean what we're "supposed" to be other than what we really are?

    5. Re:All of the above by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      I think you are wrong, I don't see the US system covered by the wikipedia definition for democracy, or any other "sane" definition I have heard.
      Some people will claim the US is indeed a "representative democracy", however that cannot be correct, since the US citizens do not elect their representatives. Instead, the elect the people who will elect their representatives.
      In fact, the very definition of the word democracy, "rule of the people", would imply that a democracy requires the majority vote of the people to govern. Well, this is simply not true in the US system, where on at least three occasions so far (1878, 1888, 2000) the party that one the elections was the party that was 2nd in total votes.
      I remember my wife telling me a very amusing story about a lecture on one of her Political Science courses at a NY university, where the professor defined the "Democracy" as a sum of some basic features (5 or 10 I don't remember). Then went on to "rate" each country on a "democratic scale" of 1-10, and ranked the US on top with a score of 10. When the students started asking how could we give it a 10 when half the features you mentioned just 10 minutes ago as part of the definition of democracy are not compatible with the US system, she just answered something along the lines of "the US is the measure for Democracy"...
      It was much more amusing when I remembered the details, but the main problems with the definition of democracy were the above two I mentioned (you don't elect your representatives, the plurality vote party can lose) and how lobbying is implemented.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    6. Re:All of the above by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      Is the US a republic [wikipedia.org]? Yes.
      Does the US use democracy [wikipedia.org]? Yes.
      Does the US have a constitution [wikipedia.org]? Yes.

      So we're a democratic constitutional republic.

      Faulty logic there, or you're missing a step.

      The statement that the US uses democracy does not prove that the US is a democratic constitutional republic.

      There are a number of governments throughout history that used democracy (everyone votes, and every vote is used to line a trash can), but they are not democratic.

      Thanks for trying though.

    7. Re:All of the above by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      When most people say "Democracy" they typically have in their minds direct democracy- and that's the concept behind the word that's being taught of late instead of the broader picture one. Which IS wrong to be teaching. I question whether or not Utah should be worrying about that distinction or more about doing or not doing effective amnesty for all the illegal aliens in their state- which is something else they're on about in their legislature.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    8. Re:All of the above by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      I'm confused about the part where we don't elect our representatives. State representatives, senators and mayors generally run on a straight plurality or majority system. Likewise US representatives and senators. The only significant representative we don't elect directly that i can think of is the President, and in that case we (effectively) vote on representatives on a straight plurality system who then vote on the President.

      Many people think that majority rule is a fundamental part of democracy, but it doesn't _have_ to be. "An essential process in 'ideal' representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally." Cynical comments aside, the presidential election in the US is a procedural system that is theoretically fair and competitive. It is not a perfect system, it may very well not be the best system, but you'd have to really nitpick to declare that it's not a democratic system.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    9. Re:All of the above by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      "There are a number of governments throughout history that used democracy (everyone votes, and every vote is used to line a trash can), but they are not democratic."

      Faulty logic there, or you're using weird definitions. Personally i wouldn't describe that situation as "using democracy," only as "pretending to use democracy," and would thus describe the government as one that pretends to be democratic.

      Thanks for trying though.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    10. Re:All of the above by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Some people will claim the US is indeed a "representative democracy", however that cannot be correct, since the US citizens do not elect their representatives. Instead, the elect the people who will elect their representatives.

      I'm not American, but I think you're wrong. As I understand it, Americans directly elect most of their representatives with a few exceptions such as the president who is now "indirectly" elected by the people, and various positions that the government is empowered to appoint people to. At the basics a republic means a government of the people and democracy means government by the people. If that sounds familiar, it's no coincidence. The U.S. is quote clearly a representative democracy and a republic.

      I think that's even the source of the names of your political parties. The Democratic Party wanted the country to be more democratic and the Republicans wanted it to be more republican. What's the difference? A republic doesn't require universal suffrage*, while a democracy does.

      The fact that a popular party could lose to a different party is really more of a problem with how the American system works (no that it's an a problem exclusive to the U.S.) and should be resolvable by reforming the system. However, that reform seems unlikely to occur unless one of your two parties disintegrates.

      * Universal suffrage requires that all people be allowed to participate in voting (this may explain some of the weird things in your history like why women and slaves weren't considered to be "people").

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re:All of the above by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      I'm confused about the part where we don't elect our representatives. State representatives, senators and mayors generally run on a straight plurality or majority system. Likewise US representatives and senators. The only significant representative we don't elect directly that i can think of is the President, and in that case we (effectively) vote on representatives on a straight plurality system who then vote on the President.

      So, the "only" thing you don't elect is the president. Given the fact that it is a presidential system, you are basically "just" not electing the government. Yeah, no biggie (it would be a VERY long discussion about the historical reasons for this and whether it is good or bad), but the simple fact is it does not fit the description "democracy".

      Many people think that majority rule is a fundamental part of democracy, but it doesn't _have_ to be.

      Again, you are re-defining the word just because you want to include something that does not belong. It is a Greek word, whose meaning for me, Greek being my native tongue, is very clear.
      Giving you an analogy, many people think US of A refers to the 50 states that make up a federal republic. But it doesn't HAVE to be those 50 states. I would like to include Mexico in the term.

      Why is it so important for you to call it a democracy, going as far as to stretch a 2500 year old term? A lot of people even prefer it over a democracy, they like their electoral college...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    12. Re:All of the above by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, Americans directly elect most of their representatives with a few exceptions such as the president who is now "indirectly" elected by the people, and various positions that the government is empowered to appoint people to.

      democracy means government by the people.

      Do I really have to explain things here, you don't see the contradiction? We are not talking about a token President like in a parliamentary system, simply put Americans don't elect their government, thus they don't have a "government by the people".
      If you haven't done so, it is worth reading how the electoral college works. The "winner takes all" states, the electoral allocations, the cases of "faithless" electors, all make up for a very... hmm... "interesting" system.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    13. Re:All of the above by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      The president is not the government. The president is certainly a very symbolic and relatively powerful position, but it is far from the whole thing. That's why it's a republic and not an autocracy. And he is elected by us, just not directly by a simple majority.

      And i'm not redefining the word, according to my dictionary at least the first definition for democracy is "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." (Re: above, the president is an elected agent of our elected agents.) What does speaking Greek have to do with it anyways? Yes it was originally a Greek word, but all the term literally means in Greek is "government by the people" right? So what if English speaking people hundreds of years ago adopted a Greek word from thousands of years ago to refer to systems of government that fit the exact denotation of the word, if not the exact connotation in Greece? And it would certainly be far from the only word in English, Greek, or any other language that had drifted in meaning from when the word was first coined to its current use. I'm a modern English speaker debating a law proposed by modern English speaking lawmakers that would apply to modern English speaking teachers and students. I would think going by the modern English definition would be acceptable? Whether or not we should have come up with our own name for what we call democracy instead of evolving the use of the Greek word is an entirely different etymological argument.

      And the reason i say it doesn't _have_ to be by majority is because it doesn't actually have to be and isn't actually in many democratic systems. It could be by majority, or it could be by plurality, or it could be by super-majority, or it could be something else that i haven't thought of but which still clearly reflects the will of the people. And it could be by a plurality/majority/super-majority/whatever of the elected representatives, which won't necessarily reflect a plurality/majority/super-majority/whatever of the original electors.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    14. Re:All of the above by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I know far too much about the electoral college already.

      You, on the other hand, might need to read up on how other Democracies work. In a parliamentary system, the government is created by the elected representatives of the people, they select a prime minister who has powers very similar to your president's. The electoral college is merely a clunky way of selecting the president, the net effect is that your president is still democratically elected, just with a system that is vulnerable to certain problems. Now back in the day, as I understand it, there was a time when states did not allow the people to vote for the president's electors. Back then you could say the United States was not a democracy and be correct, however, those days are over.

      Like it or not, the United States is currently a democracy. It's officially a republic, but republics can be democracies.

      Obligatory car analogy: Just because a car is officially a "small truck" that doesn't mean it isn't also an SUV.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    15. Re:All of the above by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      but which still clearly reflects the will of the people.

      It reflects the will of SOME people, who could be FEWER than those who have the opposite opinion. When you can have situations where the FEW can rule the MANY you cannot have a democracy. You can argue all you want that in 2000 Bush winning having "just" half a million votes LESS than Gore is not a big deal, and that Bush was "not the government", but you insult my intelligence when you are trying to claim this fits the definition of "Democracy".

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    16. Re:All of the above by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, you need to have it explained to you.

      A "representative democracy" and a direct or "pure" democracy are not the same things. Pure democracies have been tried, and they have never lasted long.

      We elect representatives to our respective states, to make decisions for us. That is representative democracy. If we don't like their decisions, we vote for someone else next time. That is the democratic process in action... just indirectly.

      Our representatives to the states then choose electors. We instruct those electors who to elect for President, via a vote. Again, it is a democratic process, just an indirect one. (The electors are not bound to follow our votes... but it is still an indirect democratic process: we elect our state officers, our states choose the President.)

      Further, we DO directly elect what is by far the most important part of our government: Congress. Congress controls all the money, and Congress makes the laws.

      So yes, we ARE a representative democracy. The only reason you don't think so is that you don't fully understand how it works.

    17. Re:All of the above by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Even if we directly elected the president we could still have 51% of the House of Representatives, each of whom were elected by 51% of their population, create or veto a law. Even if the views of those Representatives were perfectly reflective of the views of those who voted for them that could mean a law was passed/not passed that only 26% of the population agreed with/disagreed with. As soon as you elect agents rather than exercising direct democracy the results will no longer directly reflect the will of the people, but it still falls under the modern English definition of democracy. That is why there is a distinction between democracy and direct democracy, at least in the language which is relevant to this discussion.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    18. Re:All of the above by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      We elected Clinton with 43% of the vote - 57% of the population voted against him. How is that not "the few ruling the many"?

    19. Re:All of the above by metacell · · Score: 1

      hink you are wrong, I don't see the US system covered by the wikipedia definition for democracy, or any other "sane" definition I have heard.
      Some people will claim the US is indeed a "representative democracy", however that cannot be correct, since the US citizens do not elect their representatives. Instead, the elect the people who will elect their representatives.

      I don't think that's enough to disqualify the USA as a democracy. It only means there are two levels of indirection between the people and the actual decisions, instead of just one. Technically speaking, you don't vote for your political representatives in parliamentary systems either - you vote for a party which has pre-appointed a list of representatives, who are then assigned to parliamentary seats according to how many votes the party gets.

    20. Re:All of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on, don't tell me you don't understand the difference between plurality and simple majority! In elections everywhere, either plurality wins, or there is a system of rounds with eliminations so that the majority can win. I don't know any other country with free elections where the plurality vote can lose!

  167. Slashdot Summary False by stewbacca · · Score: 2

    Come on slashdot editors--

    not a democracy, because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it."

    does not appear in the linked article.

    Save your editorial commentary for, I don't know, the comment section?

  168. de facto, oligarchy by srobert · · Score: 1

    I'm seeing implied definitions in the comments for the words "democracy" and "republic" that contradict what I learned in school.
    What I learned was that in a democracy the people vote directly on legislation.
    In a republic the people elect representatives to legislative bodies, which in turn vote on legislation.
    My understanding is that in theory, the U.S., and each of its states, are supposed to be republics, (though the national government under our current constitution was originally intended as a compromise of a federation of the states and a republic).
    Yogi Berra said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
    In practice, the U.S. is an oligarchy, bordering on fascism, in which power is tightly distributed among the world's wealthiest families and corporate interests.
    The appearance of constitutional republicanism is maintained (at least for the naive), because the oligarchs have successfully learned to manipulate public perception through control of the media.

    1. Re:de facto, oligarchy by Kitsune+Inari · · Score: 1

      The USA is clearly a republic (which means that leadership is not hereditary); it's also a federation (because that's the way it's organized), and it's also a democracy (which means that people has the power; in a representative democracy, said people hires politicians to manage the country for them).
      In other words, if they are saying that the USA is not a democracy because it's a republic, they're objectively wrong on at least two levels.

  169. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Die+The+Villian · · Score: 1

    Look i hate to be "That Guy" but if you look up the term "Representative Republic" you'll see a picture of america... we are not and have not been a democracy since we have been electing officials to make laws for us... A Democracy is where We the People Vote on every law... thats not what happen (for the most part) in this country.

  170. The article says no such thing by Purpleslog · · Score: 1

    ==>> "because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it." == The article says no such thing. Note: I consider the whole "its a republic not a democracy" debate to equivalent to "its an automobile, not a car". It's idiotic.

  171. Newsflash by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    People in Utah are smarter than you. Maybe if you'd paid more attention to 6th grade social studies and less attention to Fox News, you'd know that too.

    Or maybe it's because I did the 6th grade in a Southern school system. They take a break from the civil war every so often and tell you stuff like that. Or it could have been the couple of Air Force run schools I attended, where they were big on the flag pledge. This was the early 80s mind you, and people still didn't get their vaginas all hurt when you said "God" in school.

    I still don't know if the military upbringing was beneficial or detrimental to my education as a whole. I'd have liked to have spent my entire early educational career in the school system in upstate New York where I did my high school years, but on average I wouldn't have been exposed to that system at all.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  172. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Dishevel · · Score: 0

    Given that the information you stated is in fact accurate.
    What dose the phrase "almost exclusively illiterate" mean to you.
    To me that means Some had the ability to read.

    Of course if you are not illiterate but just developmentally disabled in a small way I guess it could mean ...
    "None of them bastards could read."

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  173. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Lifyre · · Score: 1

    So many ratings so few points, you sir are:

    -1 Troll
    -1 Flamebait
    +1 Funny
    +1 Insightful
    +1 Informative

    --
    I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
  174. Spelling by PPH · · Score: 1

    because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it.

    I don't see the "Democrat" in democracy. Both are based on the same Greek word. But I'm sure the folks in Utah will back down once someone points out that there is in fact a "rat" in "Democrat".

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  175. Isn't this true though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that this was true though. Wikipedia calls the United States a federal constitutional republic. Just because our voting system is democratic doesn't mean that the country is a "democracy." Just because the majority of the federal budget goes to entitlements doesn't mean that the country is "socialist."

  176. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    But that's more a question of how they are organized not how much voting influence each has.

    How they are organized, not their voting influence determines the proper term though. To call the United States Government anything other than what it is, a federation, is wrong and a disservice to the people you are trying to educate.

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  177. Good Video showing we are a Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well... we are, actually.

    Their motivations are humorous, but the end result is correct.

    Let's not forget the small things:
    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

    Good video showing the differences:
    http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/36590912

  178. The U.S. is a Republic heading to Democracy by trevelyon · · Score: 1

    The fact that this is even being argued shows the level of ignorance many Americans have about their government. Good thing we got rid of Civics class for Social Studies.
    There is little doubt the U.S. started as a Republic (See Article 4, Section 4 of the constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ) to anyone who has read the constitution or studied constitutional history. Wikipedia contains a lot of information on the difference between Democracy and Republic specifically sighting the U.S. as a republic:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
    Basically, the Republic has Law as the foundation of decisions whereas Democracy has popular vote (either direct or representative) the basis for decisions. Laws such as the 17 amendment, gun control, patriot act, presidential executive orders, complete abuse of the "promote the general welfare clause" and the like clearly go above any power given by the Law. IMO, this moves us much more toward Democracy with a good measure of oligarchy thrown in (due to the corruption that has resulted from it). I should also point out this is not limited to Republican or Democrat but a result of joint effort.

  179. Plato by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

    Plato, in Athens, Greece [Where] in about 340 b.c. was the one who came up with the idea. And had some original thoughts on the issue. One may argue that "Democracy" means something different now [becaue words do change] but you should realize that the distinction is very old.

    1. Re:Plato by KarrdeSW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plato, in Athens, Greece [Where] in about 340 b.c. was the one who came up with the idea. And had some original thoughts on the issue. One may argue that "Democracy" means something different now [becaue words do change] but you should realize that the distinction is very old.

      Well, Plato did write what we commonly call in English The Republic, but that is considered an inaccurate translation of the original title Politeia. The republic/democracy distinction being established by Plato is also silly, because his distinction is democracy (by people)/monarchy (by one)/oligarchy (by the elite)/timocracy (by property owners).

      And even Plato doesn't lump constrict democracy into "direct referendum on practically everything". It's a looser term in his work as well. No part of ancient athens even fits that definition, except possibly their secondary political body, which only included men over 20 anyway (this amounted to about 1/8th the population). The primary bodies of government were the public officials who were chosen by lottery.

    2. Re:Plato by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Your reading of Chapter 8 of The Republic is not very good.

      Plato's argument follows by analogy from his tripartite division of the psyche (mind/soul) into eros (desire), thymos (will), and logos (reason). Keeping these parts of the soul in balance would allow one of live with arete (skill).

      There are five forms of government put forward by Plato: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Each is related to an imbalance of the republic, just as an individual's psyche might be imbalanced.

      Timocracy is rule by those with honor (typically military), a trait linked to thymos. Oligarchy isn't rule by the elite per se, but rule by those with wealth (because wealth and honor are conflated in this society). Democracy is a kind of libertine state in which the excesses of eros are indulged. These forms of government emerge out of each other, as timocracy degenerates into oligarchy, which in turn degenerates into democracy, out of which a demagogic tyrant finally emerges to establish tyranny.

      Aristocracy, the ideal form of government according to Plato, was one in which the wisest ruled. The wisest, of course, were philosopher-kings—people who had successfully balanced their psyches with logos directing their thymos and eros toward their long-term interests.

      It's best not to read The Republic as a direct report on what Athenian democracy was really like. It was a philosophical analogy between the health of the individual's psyche and the health of the body politic.

      But it's safe to say that Plato was not pro-democracy. I think one of the more devastating accounts of Plato's political theory is in Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies.

    3. Re:Plato by cynyr · · Score: 1

      right, now if only all political offices were elected by the people in the US you may have a point. The supreme court justices come to mind of power positions without a vote for their placement. I wonder who you talk to that thinks "democracy" == "direct referendum on practically everything". It seems to mean to me, that "all political offices that have the ability to make or set laws/precedents/war should be elected by a direct general vote of all legal residents of age who are in good standing" but then again what do i know.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  180. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...

    Even better would be if they would actually teach some of the fundamentals of our form of government. Teach what a Republic is and what a Democracy is and the important differences between them. Teach the difference between the Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution entails and what the Rule of Men we now have is and why that is important to them.

    Hell, these days if the kids graduate knowing we have three branches of government and can actually name them correctly they are ahead of the average voter.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  181. Re:Seriously? Could the summary be any more biased by Winchestershire · · Score: 1

    I have to agree, nowhere in the article did it say, "because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it." I'm actually disappointed that nobody pointed out the bad summary earlier, more-so that CmdrTaco, left it in the summary.

  182. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Kagura · · Score: 0

    This ruling is hypocrisy at its finest. "Republic" sounds more like "Republican" than "Democrat" does "Democracy"...

  183. I pledge allegiance ... by daveywest · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... and to the republic for which it stands ...

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    1. Re:I pledge allegiance ... by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      ... and to the republic for which it stands ...

      Written about 120 years too late to be in the minds of the authors of the Constitution.

    2. Re:I pledge allegiance ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think the pledge means what you think it means...

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo54.html

  184. well, they're already saying it everyday in school by robogobo · · Score: 1

    "and to the Republic, for which it stands" and then there's the "under God part" but we can talk about that later.

  185. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By all means, prove a man named Jesus existed in 1st Century Galilee and that he was the son of a carpenter with enough money to teach him to read. Please use academic sources written by contemporary authorities as opposed to sensationalist accounts from friends recorded years later (AKA the bible)

  186. We are not a Democracy, but we are a democracy. by davev2.0 · · Score: 0

    The United States of American is federal constitutional republic, which uses democratically elected representatives and whose power is defined and limited by the laws embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

    We are not a Democracy, which is a form of direct government by the people. It is essentially majority rule.

    We are, however a democracy. The people of the United States elect representatives under a free electoral system.

    You may not like it, but the Utah legislature is essentially correct.

  187. I've played Civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Sid Meiers Civilization one of the significant factors of a Democracy is that there's no corruption in a Democracy.

    Clearly by that standard we are a Republic!

  188. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by darthdavid · · Score: 0

    Why do you feel that saying Democratic is so bad? What do you find wrong with it?"

  189. Pledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to say - isn't this clear in the pledge of allegiance? ... And to the Republic, for which it stands ...

  190. Agree by PhinMak · · Score: 1

    This says a lot more about 0ryan...

    I couldn't agree more. Note that he hasn't commented at all on this thread. Probably because he'd get attacked. Go to his account page to click on the ball next to his name and you can change your "relationship" status to foe.

  191. A Constitutional Federal Republic by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Important thing to note. Constitutional governments are one where there is a high binding law, above even the governing bodies, that isn't subject to change in the same manner as other laws. The reason to note it with regards to various governments is when you say a government is "Constitutional," it generally means "Has a functioning constitution that actually places some restrictions on the government." Also republics aren't the only kind of governments that can be as such, there are Constitutional Monarchies and so on.

    But you are correct, the US is a republic, and always has been. There's a very strong democratic tradition in the US, more than many nations and at the state and lower level you see a lot more of that (like people directly voting on propositions) but it is a republic in structure and function.

    One really good example of it that is more concrete to many people is presidential elections. You do NOT elect the president, you elect a person to go vote for the president. When you cast your vote, what you are doing is determining what electors you'd like to go and vote for the president. Who the electors are, the specifics of their choosing and so on varies state to state a bit, but that is how it works and how a president can win the popular vote but lose the election (And Bush v Gore isn't the first time it has happened).

    Now I'm not saying that this bill is a useful thing, frankly the legislature shouldn't be concerned on this. However I don't think it is a bad idea to teach kids about different kinds of government and get them a good understanding of clear labeling.

    1. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

      US is a republic, yes. US is also a democracy. These two words are not antonyms today.

      US is not unique, either. E.g. Germany is also a federal constitutional democratic republic. In fact, all Western states which are not constitutional monarchies are republics (though not all are constitutional, and not all are federal).

      The whole idea that the word "democracy" is somehow bad is purely an American phenomenon. Everywhere else in the world - including other English-speaking countries - it means solely that government reflects the will of the people, and nothing more; from there it is detailed further (e.g. "direct democracy", "representative democracy" etc) as needed. I've never seen a European say that their country is "a republic, not a democracy".

      In US, though, it seems to be some weird kind of shibboleth - especially interesting that I mostly notice it being used by less moderate conservatives and libertarians. Non-political people are perfectly happy with using "democracy" in its everyday, sane meaning.

    2. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I think you should read Carl Schmitt Don't get dizzy.

    3. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Batmunk2000 · · Score: 2

      I think it is an important distinction to teach this. I hope Utah isn't the only one. (The I'm not clear on their reasoning). In a pure Democracy there are no individual rights. Our Constitution creates barriers to the power of the Republic (which is driven largely by Democratic processes). Americans would reject a pure democracy like the plague. (Hopefully!). I remember Mr. Bush touting "Democracy" without really realizing the meaning (and now Mr. Obama). They probably should have went to school in Utah. A true freedom-loving individual would speak the praises of individual rights - not forms of government. Rights can be protected in a variety of forms of government but pure democracy is NOT one of them.

    4. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by norminator · · Score: 1

      When you cast your vote, what you are doing is determining what electors you'd like to go and vote for the president. Who the electors are, the specifics of their choosing and so on varies state to state a bit, but that is how it works and how a president can win the popular vote but lose the election

      That's not how those situations happen. Electors voting against their state's popular vote has never changed the outcome of the election. The difference in those situations is based on the fact that in addition to electors based on population, each state gets 2 electors just for being a state. It's the weight of a state (rhyme intended) that makes the difference.

      Electors rarely vote contrary to the popular vote, because as you noted, when you vote, you're not telling the electors who to vote for, you're choosing a set of electors. Those electors are either the Democrat Party's electors or the Republican Party's electors. Very rarely will a person from a specific party, chosen specifically by that party to vote for the party's candidate vote against that candidate if given the chance. The times it has happened have been to make a statement, where the electors knew they wouldn't affect the election in general.

    5. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by cojsl · · Score: 1

      a president can win the popular vote but lose the election

      Though I agree with your other points, the US does not have a national "popular vote". It has separate popular votes in each state. Think of it this way- the winner of the World Series is not the team that scores the most total runs over the course of World Series, but the team that wins the greatest number of games. A "national popular vote" would result in less populous states becoming irrelevant.

    6. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      To clarify, this is NOT 'an American issue', this is a 'Utah is full of morons' issues.

    7. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The law is a Utah issue, yes. "Republic not a democracy" I've heard from Americans coming from many different states - the only common trait is that all lean right politically.

    8. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      "US is a republic, yes. US is also a democracy. These two words are not antonyms today."

      Incorrect. That is to say, the words are not really antonyms. But we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic: a "representative" democracy. There is a difference between that and a democracy.

      In a democracy, "the people" vote on everything. All pure democracies have very quickly failed, without exception. There are a number of reasons for that.

      Among them: there is a grain of truth to the theory that "the common man" may not be educated enough to make proper decisions about the governance of society. On the other hand, there is scant evidence that most politicians do any better.

      But perhaps more to the point, it has been observed that democracies only last until people realize that they can vote themselves "free" money out of the public coffers, and the government goes broke.

      Obviously that is a disease that has taken hold to some degree in America, but it would have happened in 20 years, rather than 200, had America been a "democracy".

    9. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I am curious. Why do you think people should read political philosophy written by a Nazi? (I mean that literally... he was involved with the National Socialist Party of Germany: the Nazis.)

      Unless you mean just for educational purposes by way of comparison/contrast. I certainly endorse that.

    10. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      In a democracy, "the people" vote on everything.

      That's plainly false (which is the crux of the problem), and my reference is any English dictionary closest to you. E.g. from OED:

      Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them.

        A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole.

      In Modern English, what you describe is called "direct democracy". Plain unqualified "democracy" is an umbrella term for all kind of democracies, including "representative democracy". A subset of the latter is a "democratic republic".

    11. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The more a person studies politics and philosophy, the more likely he is to be careful with the terms he uses, and the more likely he is to take extreme views (because he sees the contradictions inherent in moderate positions). Many of these people understand that for all practical purposes democracy is synonymous with ochlocracy, one of the most vicious forms of government possible.

      The United States of America, by its constitution, is a "constitutional democratic republic with checks and balances and a bill of rights." All terms are essential. With the popular election of Senators, the US may have ceased to be federal, certainly federalism was weakened. Contrary to a post above, the socialist aspects of the government are unconstitutional and hence illegal: so "socialist" is a de facto, not a de jure, description.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The United States of America, by its constitution, is a "constitutional democratic republic with checks and balances and a bill of rights."

      True. However, it not incorrect to simplify this to "USA is a democracy", because it is a democracy. It's just being less specific about what kind of democracy it is. Or I could say that it it a "representative democracy", which is more specific but still doesn't necessarily imply "republic". There's nothing wrong with clarifying when you feel the distinction is important, but it's wrong to say that US "is not a democracy", and it's very annoying when people jump it at every opportunity to do so (i.e. when someone casually mentions that US is "a democratic state" or some such, where this is used to distance it from dictatorships like China, and where the precise form of democracy doesn't matter).

    13. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . You do NOT elect the president, you elect a person to go vote for the president. When you cast your vote, what you are doing is determining what electors you'd like to go and vote for the president.

      Even that is not guaranteed. It so happens that all states hold elections to choose the electoral college, but that is NOT required by the constitution. If a state decided to choose them by rolling dice, that would be constitutional (US not state). IF they choose to hold elections there are rules that must be followed, but nowhere does the constitution say that the states must hold presidential elections....

    14. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by bware · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the current situation, in which the populous states like California and New York are irrelevant.

    15. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Just because he's a Nazi doesn't mean that his intellectual output is completely worthless. It's a critique of liberalism, and some have found it engaging.

    16. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, all western states are NOT republics. Canada is consitutional monarchy. The Queen is our head of state.

      The USA is a Republic because you have no monarch, your head of state is your president.

      You are a democractic repulic because you hold elections in which most aults may vote.

      Saying you are a repblic, not a democracy is like saying I'm not wearing shoes, I'm wearing sneakers.

    17. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a European say that their country is "a republic, not a democracy".

      I assume you haven't been spending time in Italy, lately? :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    18. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it doesn't help that the two major parties is called the "democratic" party while the other one is the "republican" party.

      If, say, the names were "freedom" party and "rights" party, I would expect similar definitional debates on what we mean by freedom and rights mean.

    19. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by metacell · · Score: 1

      But perhaps more to the point, it has been observed that democracies only last until people realize that they can vote themselves "free" money out of the public coffers, and the government goes broke.

      Obviously that is a disease that has taken hold to some degree in America, but it would have happened in 20 years, rather than 200, had America been a "democracy".

      You could also put a constitutional cap on the budget which prevents adding expenses without removing others.

    20. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by metacell · · Score: 1

      I assume this is a reference to Berlusconi's shenanigans which seem to have lead Italy a good way to despotism?

    21. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You are wrong, all western states are NOT republics. Canada is consitutional monarchy. The Queen is our head of state.

      Please re-read the post to which you replied. I will even highlight the important bit:

      In fact, all Western states which are not constitutional monarchies are republics

    22. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, it doesn't help that the two major parties is called the "democratic" party while the other one is the "republican" party.

      Indeed. I always thought that one should be named the Plutocratic Party, and the other should be the Oligarchic Party. Which shall become which is left as an exercise for the reader.

    23. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Nonsense! Democracy simply means power from the people. The first three words of the Constitution indicate that the US is a democracy. It doesn't say I the King, or We the Blessed, or We the Armed, or I the Richest. It says We the People.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    24. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by metacell · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's a generally accepted meaning of the word "democracy" - a "democracy" can be with or without individual rights, without or without a constitution, with or without elected representatives, etc.

      Calling the USA a "republic" doesn't make it clear that it guarantees individual rights, either - a better way would be to include the word "constitutional", since it's the constitution which limits the power of the majority.

    25. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Dictionaries do not accurately define words, they merely list popular usage. If you want technical accuracy, consult an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

      The word democracy has a specific technical meaning. It is a noun, and it means majority rule. Plain and simple. A representative democracy is a modification of democracy, as denoted by the modifier "representative".

      This is not a discussion of popular usage, this is a discussion about forms of government. Therefore the technical meaning is proper, the popular usage is not.

    26. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Batmunk2000 · · Score: 1

      That is simplistic. We are all born free by birth. It is government that makes people less free... all government can be is a tool of other people. A form of Government delivers no principles nor should be used to derive those principles. Government is the process in which the principles of a society are executed.
      In a pure Democracy, "We the People" only works if you are lucky enough to be on the side with the most votes. Ask an African-American circa 1850 what "We the People" meant for them. A just and civilized government sets people free from one another and protects their rights from the "mob of the day" based on principles.

    27. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Democracies do not have binding constitutions. The majority rules. That's what democracy means.

      "demo": popular + "kratia": government

    28. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Well, that's true enough. A lot of people like to read Marx, but that doesn't mean they have to swallow his assertions. Granted.

      But I think his being a Nazi in the first place does indicate a certain bias.

    29. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The word democracy has a specific technical meaning. It is a noun, and it means majority rule. Plain and simple.

      The word democracy does indeed have a specific meaning, which is obvious in its translation - it literally means "rule of the citizenry". There's nothing in there about majorities or directness.

      You are, of course, welcome to provide a reference for the "technical" definition of the term which agree with your viewpoint. And by "references" I don't mean politicized blogs, but a reliable and neutral source. After all, if the term has a precise definition, it ought to be written down somewhere, doesn't it?

      A representative democracy is a modification of democracy, as denoted by the modifier "representative".

      Care to explain why there's also such a term in politology as "direct democracy" (which is opposed to "representative democracy")?

    30. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by hitmark · · Score: 1

      When it comes to Marx, i would say his predictions about capitalism seems to have played out with startling accuracy.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    31. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "There's nothing in there about majorities or directness."

      Wrong.

      "demo" = popular + "kratia" = government

      Government by popular vote. Majority rule. That is what it did, and does, mean.

    32. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "demos" is not "popular" - it means "people", and it specifically has connotations of people participating in political process (i.e. not slaves and not dependents like women).

    33. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      My dictionary and encyclopedia disagree with you. As does dictionary.com

    34. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by tmosley · · Score: 1

      A democracy is where two wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for dinner. A republic is where a thousand sheep vote on which wolves get to vote on what to eat for dinner.

    35. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      To find out what "demos" means, you need a Greek dictionary, not an English one.

      As for dictionary.com, it says:

      government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

      and even:

      a state having such a form of government: the United States and canada are democracies.

      so if you're going to cite that, then you'd have to agree that US is a democracy. ~

    36. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. I would agree if our current economic woes were due to capitalism, but they are not.

      Our current economic woes are due to improper and inadequate regulation, corruption in government and corporate charlatinism, and just plain fraud.

      It large part, it has been due government interference in the economy (via borrowing and the Fed) based on flawed Keynesian theories of economics, which have never worked to any real degree.

      If we actually had capitalist free markets, with a stable money supply, this B.S. could not happen. But the government, and its lawmakers and economic advisors, have kept leading us over a cliff. Again and again they have done that.

      Case in point: not only did "scientific" Keynesian economics not predict the kind of "stagflation" we experienced during the Carter years, they had to change fundamental elements of their "theory" just to account for the fact that it happened. Until then Keynesian economics literally said it was impossible.

      Case in point: government and corporate Keynesians failed -- every time -- to predict any major major occurrence in our economy. Whether it be boom or bust. Not one.

      Any scientist will tell you that a theory is only as good as its ability to predict. Keynesian economics scores pretty close to zero.

      Marx predicted economic problems for capitalism, true. But he wrongly predicted that they would be due to the fundamental nature of capitalism, which was dead wrong. We haven't had real capitalism since the early 20th century, when the Fed was created. Between that and the later dumping of a solid monetary standard, we haven't had anything resembling real capitalism for many decades now. What we have had is artificial government and banking control of the economy. And they have done a piss poor job of it. For several hundred years before that, when we actually did have capitalism, our economy was fine.

      --
      "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson
      --
      "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

    37. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I guess I need to REPEAT: I am not referring to the dictionary's citing of popular usage. Look instead at the etymology, which is what I was specifically pointing you to.

    38. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Here's what dictionary.com says on "demo-":

      a combining form occurring in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “people” ( democratic )

      To know the more intricate connotation of the word (as in "citizenry"), you'll have to find a source that goes deeper. Check out Wiktionary for a start.

      Also, I hope I don't have to explain why "rule of the people" is not the same nor implies "strict majority rule" (i.e. 50%+1 vote).

    39. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by metacell · · Score: 1

      Well, I was referring to the USA, not democracies. I meant that the USA could put a constitutional cap on the budget to prevent overspending. Sorry for being unclear.

      That being said, you're using a very strict definition of "democracy". In modern usage, the word doesn't refer to specific form of government. It refers to any form of government which fulfills a number of minimum requirements, like free elections and freedom of speech.

      The bill the article refers to uses the term "pure democracy", and if you rephrase your statement using that term, I would agree.

    40. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      The whole idea that the word "democracy" is somehow bad is purely an American phenomenon.

      It's not really an American phenomenon either. While there was some skepticism during the Cold War of groups labeling themselves as "democratic" or "for democracy," this was because it was the regular tactic of socialists. For example, Students for a Democratic Society was a well-known socialist front. And we still have countries like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claiming the label 'democracy' in the name of socialism.

      In Europe, democracy has not always been viewed as a good thing. It wasn't until quite recently that democracy was viewed as a good thing. Ever since classical writers like Thucydides and Plato, democracy has been viewed with suspicion, as a degenerate form of government. Their view remained dominant in Europe up until the Enlightenment started changing people's ideas.

      But even Enlightenment philosophers were not really interested in democracy. Most were republican theorists, desiring limits on the arbitrary power of sovereigns, and, at most, mixed constitutions. Many, like Voltaire, were quite comfortable with "enlightened absolutism." In the Perpetual Peace Kant distinguished between the republic (the optimal form of government) and democracy (which he viewed as majoritarian tyranny). Jefferson and the Federalists, when designing and debating the U.S. Constitution, argued for a mixed republican government, including elements of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy.

      In the United States I think it may be more common to reassert the notion of republicanism as a way of arguing against the notion that every and any aspect of life can be put to a vote. For Kant (and the American 'Founding Fathers'), a republic is distinguished by representation, constitutionalism, and checked and divided powers. Having large spheres of private life, civil rights, and civil society protected from interference from the government are fundamental tenets of republicanism, and you probably will find them asserted more vociferously in the United States, which has a longer republican tradition than nearly every other European state with the possible exceptions of Switzerland and some of the Northern Italian states before the risorgimento.

    41. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by swalve · · Score: 1

      The word democracy isn't bad. It is just that in the newspeak the GOP uses to twist their followers, Democrats are worse than democracy is good. So they are killing the village to save the village.

      Libertarians are just fine with democracy- AS LONG as the majority is prevented (through the law or the constitution) from mob-ruling away the rights of the minority. That's where libertarians get hinky about democracy- they are (almost annoyingly) about preserving the rights of everyone. They just have a non-traditional pecking order of rights- personal liberty and property are paramount, and anything that takes from that is bad. They are very concerned with the slippery slope: once a government can take property arbitrarily (evil taxes!), there is less to stop them from taking other rights.

    42. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      "Democracy" is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. "Democracy" isn't inherently good because it implies 'mob rule' - the 'will of the people' may be to violate the liberties or raid the private property of some members of society, for example, or whatever. It isn't automatically morally correct, in fact the 'will of the people' is often specifically morally incorrect. The purpose (i.e. intent) of Constitutionalism is to prevent this happening; the people may elect leaders but the leaders may not violate the Constitution. In theory this is what the US was supposed to be but it didn't turn out that way.

    43. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

      No offense, but you should probably take a government class. (again, if you've already taken one). We do not live in a democracy, it's a Republic. A democratic Republic, but still a Republic. Look it up in the dictionary.

      Furthermore, even the presidential elections are not one-man-one vote, they're simply used as a guide for the Electoral College.

      --
      There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
    44. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Democracy" does not imply the lack of representatives. That's why we have a distinct term, "direct democracy".

      USA (and other countries with a constitution) is still a "mob rule", insofar as said constitution can be amended - it just takes a bigger mob. But, say, if American conservatives would manage to push through the Marriage Amendment - that would be a considerable violation of rights of the minority of the citizens, but it would be entirely legal and constitutional.

    45. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No offense, but you should probably take a government class. (again, if you've already taken one). We do not live in a democracy, it's a Republic. A democratic Republic, but still a Republic. Look it up in the dictionary.

      Did you look up "democracy" in the dictionary?

      government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

      Now you're saying that "we do not live in a democracy". So, which part of the above definition of "democracy" is not applicable to the United States?

      On a side note. Yes, you live in a republic. It is also a democracy. A state can be a republic and a democracy at the same time - there's no contradiction there, except for (God knows why) some Americans. Go find a European, and ask him if e.g. France (which is very definitely a republic) is not a democracy. Or Germany. Or Finland.

    46. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      In technical usage, which is entirely appropriate in this context, it still means what I said it means.

    47. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That's what it says on that page, not what it said on the page I pointed you to.

      Regardless, even if I concede the point that the root "demo" simply means "people" (which I will do for the sake of argument), the fact is that the word "democracy" -- by itself without modifiers -- means majority rule.

      Since you want to cite references, have a look HERE.

      They, too, say the root means "people". Fine. But in its explanation of what "democracy" is, they mention "consensus democracy", "direct democracy", and "representative democracy".

      If you look at those entries, the only one without modifiers ("direct" democracy, which means simply democracy and nothing else) is defined as majority rule. They do mention that some forms might require a supermajority, but it's still majority rule.

      It still all comes back to majority rule. If you want to have modified democracy, like representative democracy or some such, fine. But it is still a modification of plain "democracy". Play semantic games all you want, but democracy still means majority rule.

    48. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      in its explanation of what "democracy" is, they mention "consensus democracy", "direct democracy", and "representative democracy". If you look at those entries, the only one without modifiers ("direct" democracy, which means simply democracy and nothing else) is defined as majority rule. They do mention that some forms might require a supermajority, but it's still majority rule.

      Um, why do you say that "direct democracy" is the one without modifiers? Surely "direct" is just as much a modifier as "representative". Your claim that it's "simply democracy and nothing else" is not founded by anything in the linked article.

      The way WP article reads, "democracy" is a broad class of systems of political organization, where "direct democracy" and "representative democracy" are subclasses. In OOP terms, "democracy" would be abstract. This is consistent with my claim.

    49. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by DataJim · · Score: 1

      The US is a republic. There are no functioning democracies in the world to-day. The last true democracy was ancient Greece. There are several representative democracies such as Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Z eland. I'm not sure about South Africa. This type of democratic form is distinguished by an upper limit to the term of the elected representative body (Canada is five years). There is no lower limit (I'll illuminate later). The party which gains the majority of seats forms the government. If no party does , a coalition with some similarity of interests may combine to form a working majority. This majority then forms the cabinet (Defence, State etc). The government thus formed proposes legislation. If it carries, it becomes law. If not there must be a vote of confidence in the government. If that fails, a general election is called and all members of the commons must stand for re-election. The most notable instance of this occurred in Canada when the Diefenbaker government failed and an election was required. The ruling majority can also call an election if it feels that it is in a favorable electoral position. If this occurs and the ploy works the term limit is renewed. The House of Lords is a lifetime post. It can sdefeat a law by the commons, but if it is re-submitted (I believe 3 times), it becomes law. Thus it serves as a tempering influence. The distinguishing difference between this system and the US is that is precludes divided government which can occur when there are fixed term lengths. The founding fathers tied to fix this by setting limits on the commons (Representatives-2 yrs) and the lords (Senate-6 yrs) and the king (President-4 yrs). By the way, in Canada the king is replaced by the Governor General (appointed by the Queen of England from a list submitted by the Canadian government. This function in England is performed by the Queen. The purpose is to provide for institutional memory. The GovGen has no real power and is usually a distinguished person, usually from govt but not necessarilly.

    50. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Surely 'direct' is just as much a modifier as "representative".

      Huh? Not if we're speaking the same language. "Direct" in this context (and in the context of the article it links to) could be defined as "straight", "pure", or "unadulterated". I don't think it's valid to say "unmodified" means "modified".

    51. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "This is consistent with my claim."

      The article linked to by "direct democracy" refers only to majority rule, so no, it is not consistent with your claim. In effect, you are saying that highly modified forms of democracy are no different from direct or pure "just plain democracy". That they mean the same thing. And that is false.

      A representative democracy, if we use the United States as an example, has about as much relationship to plain "democracy" as a bridal train does to Amtrak.

    52. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Direct" in this context (and in the context of the article it links to) could be defined as "straight", "pure", or "unadulterated"

      "Direct" means "without any intermediaries". Why would it suddenly mean "straight" or "pure"? I don't see anywhere in the linked article where it is said that "direct" (even just in this particular context) could be defined as "straight" - it's your assumption only.

    53. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Please consult your dictionary regarding the meaning of the word "democracy" - as defined in modern English, it is a superset of "representative democracy".

    54. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In effect, you are saying that highly modified forms of democracy are no different from direct or pure "just plain democracy".That they mean the same thing.

      At no point did I say that. You read my posts with the implicit assumption that unqualified "democracy" is the same as "direct democracy". My point is that this is not true. Any direct democracy is-a democracy. Any representative democracy (such as US) is-a democracy. They are two separate, non-intersecting subsets of a broader, all-inclusive set. From WP article on "direct democracy":

      Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election.

    55. Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      You are being ridiculous. I have nothing further to say to you.

  192. Terrible summary by fahlesr1 · · Score: 2

    The full article doesn't even have the word "Democrat" in it.

    HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday.

    This is something that should be a part of every child's education anyway. The submitter has taken a completely non-controversial bill and managed to troll slashdot with it.

  193. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    Gotta' also work on that "Prime Directive" thing...

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  194. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

    So many ratings so few points, you sir are:

    -1 Troll -1 Flamebait +1 Funny +1 Insightful +1 Informative

    Would that come out to +1 Not All Bad?

  195. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Tomun · · Score: 2

    Actually it's a constitution-based federal republic. The CIA World Factbook says so.

    It's perfectly acceptable to use more than one word to describe something.

  196. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by operagost · · Score: 2

    Josephus and Tacitus. By the way, under your standard the existence of Julius Caesar is not much stronger.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  197. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the moderators mark this down to Score 0 - Troll. Religion bashing has nothing to do with this topic

  198. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

    Well, so much for using <em> tags properly.

  199. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you expect a real education in a state where almost everyone believes the state was founded by fucking angels visiting con men pedophiles in caves?

    And before all you Christians have a good laugh at these backwards Mormons, keep in mind that *you* dipshits believe that a first-century illiterate peasant was the "Son of God" (as evidenced somehow by the fact that a backwoods Roman prefect was able to crucify this "god"). So don't laugh too hard.

    Fine, we won't. We're too busy laughing over how you atheists believe that being a smug self-centered asshole who takes any desperate opportunity you can to make broad, generalizing statements about people and cultures you only know third- or fourth-hand, mostly via propaganda, is the better idea.

  200. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

    I thought it was a Democratic Republic. Either way, yes, the government is still a Republic, not a democracy.

    Representative Republic seems moderately redundant.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  201. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by sorak · · Score: 2, Informative

    All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.

    No. It's "democratic party" See here

    "Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2]

  202. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll. Hatemonger.

  203. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    And if you look up Federalism, you also see the United States.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  204. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by nomadic · · Score: 2

    You're completely wrong; a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. The U.S. is both.

  205. And this is Slashdot material...why? by ITBurnout · · Score: 1

    Nowhere in the article does it say that they are doing it "because Democracy would have 'Democrat' in it." That was just an editorial comment by the obviously juvenile and biased article-poster. We are a constitutional republic. We are not a pure democracy.

    1. Re:And this is Slashdot material...why? by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      Nowhere in the article does it say that they are doing it "because Democracy would have 'Democrat' in it." That was just an editorial comment by the obviously juvenile and biased article-poster. We are a constitutional republic. We are not a pure democracy.

      jesus christ...how did this end up a point of slashdot discussion? The OP, literally made up the reasoning "because it would have democrat in it" out of thin air, then 3/4 of the commentators here ran with it without bothering to RTFA. The fact that the US is NOT a democracy is obviously very poorly taught in schools, illustrated by the number of people here who are surprised by the fact.

      The "it must be utopia" jab is further illustration of the political naivete of the OP. Does he really, really think governments should self-paralyze into inaction until 2 or 3 core issues are 100% resolved?

  206. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Federation - A collection of semi-independent substates
    Republic - A government run by a group constrained by the laws of the government, where the governed have some method within the laws of the government, to affect the ruling group.
    Democracy -A government run by the vote of the people.

    We are a Federation - each state has a relatively high level of independence.
    We are also a Democratic Republic - We have a Republic form of government, enabled by a democratic process (the ruling individuals are selected directly or indirectly by the people, but the majority of decisions are NOT made by the general population).

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  207. How does it go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the representative democracy for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

    or

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

  208. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  209. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps we can appoint a Political Commissar for each classroom, to make sure that our freedom remains ideologically pure?

    Call them..politruks and give them side arms to shoot everyone retreating from the Battlefield Primary School Politics.

  210. finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about time someone did.

  211. These Sheep are Made, Not Born by JackSpratts · · Score: 1

    In a one-man one-vote democracy where people increasingly believe their ignorance matches your knowledge, religion and politics rule our new language masters.

    Someone is angry over something, like taxes and how unfair they are. After losing the car house and spouse he finds himself in a shrinking world of local libraries, back issues of Reader's Digest and obscure self published screeds. He is becoming in other words a crackpot.

    A concept is born: taxes are illegal! Eureka. Our man spreads the world and watches as it seduces the powerless.

    A movement is born....

    So it is with this new conservative "Republic" movement. Based on politics and radical Christianity, it has led to redefining not only who we are but most importantly where we're going. But that's not enough. What we're seeing is the indoctrination by fiat of youth, in new laws like this one in Utah.

    This is the new political correctness. Ugly, strident and gaining in power. Your children will major in ignorance, get worthless degrees and good luck to them (and you) if they resist.

    - js.

  212. Difference between a republic and a democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A republic has a constitution which limits the powers of the government. A democracy only uses the will of the majority. A democracy can put an innocent man to death by a majority vote. A republic cannot.

  213. WE are a Republic! but don't take MY word for it.. by JRHelgeson · · Score: 1

    AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
    QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

    http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

    Throughout history, no democracy has ever lasted.
    Democracy = mob rule.

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  214. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Bucc5062 · · Score: 2

    I believe the correct term is Freedom Czar.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  215. From one of the Guys who created it. by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Outside Independence Hall when
    the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
    Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
    "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
    With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
    "A republic, if you can keep it."

    ---
    Take your arguments to Mr. Franklin.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  216. You say utopia, I say Utahpia... by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 2

    The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utahpia!

    There, fixed that.

  217. Since the US is a Republic ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... the state of Utah can do whatever they please in this regard.

    Cheers, and welcome to the USA.

  218. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just depends on what level you're referring to. At the state level it is largely majority-rule thus democratic.

    No. At the state level its a republic. That's why all states elect representatives at both the state and federal level. The masses of people are not voting on every issue brought to the state. That would be a democracy and not what happens at either the state or federal level. We elect representatives to run (er, vote) government on our behalf. That makes it a republic. Its the whole concept behind electoral votes; which is by definition a republic. That's why the president is elected by electoral votes and not popular vote. In many states, the popular presidential vote is literally a massive waste of tax dollars to placate the ignorant masses.

    The US is a federation of republic states. It has some democracy and socialism thrown in but by in large, the US functions are a federation of republics. Thusly, its mostly accurate to say the US is a republic. The US actually has little to do with democracy; save only but its most generalized meaning.

  219. Republic = Democracy by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    there is no difference in between them. these morons, and i say morons, not to mormons but to the right wing ignorant circles in usa, utter this word as if it is contrary to centralization. "but this country is a republic !!"

    iiiis iiit ? so, france is also a republic. and there are no state rights or states there.

    switzerland is also a republic, and the decentralization there is MUCH bigger than the one in usa.

    these ignorants seem to think that 'republic'/'democracy' etc have anything to do with centralization/federalization/decentralization.

    they do not. you can have fascism, yet it can be decentralized (like in feudal times), you can have a democracy/republic, yet it can be more centralized than anything else.

    its all about who does the decision making. elected representatives of people, or else.

    its appalling that even here there are fools that have the same misconception - hey, doing a google search and reading a wikipedia article with endless references to political science documents is not that hard ? why not take action now, and dont make out yourself come out as an ignorant bimbo.

    1. Re:Republic = Democracy by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      You left out the former Soviet Union. It was a republic, too.

    2. Re:Republic = Democracy by unity100 · · Score: 1

      quite. it was still decentralized tho, it was a federal republic in which different states had their own assembly and decision making power to varying degrees.

    3. Re:Republic = Democracy by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Rome was a republic, but it was not a democracy.

    4. Re:Republic = Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > why not take action now, and dont make out yourself come out as an ignorant bimbo

      Why no learn what the shift key is for (hint: it is not JUST for emphasizing certain words like "MUCH)" and make your posts look like they were typed by someone with at least a high school education? Not saying that you aren't, but postling like that makes you look at least 30IQ points dumber, severely impacting the message you are trying to convey.

    5. Re:Republic = Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So maybe it would be better if they were required to ...

      HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism.

      Oh, never mind.

    6. Re:Republic = Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State's rights vs. the federal government has been a huge issue in US politics from the start. Get your head out of the dictionary and think about the actual meaning of these words - the modern, commonly understood meanings. The idea of a republic, as understood by most Americans (MA public school education talking here), DOES contrast with the idea of a strong central government.

      This is what you sound like:
      "You ignorant right wing asses; 'gay' simply means 'happy'! In some foreign lands it also means 'gleeful' - It has nothing to do with sexual preference!"

      Words contain more information than what you find in the dictionary. It is called "connotation".

      Also, you are wrong to make innacurate, insulting, sweeping statements about people with opposing political opinions. Smearing your political rivals achieves nothing. I wish we could move past that kind of immature, useless rhetoric.

    7. Re:Republic = Democracy by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      We mostly use the terms interchangably these days, but there actually is a difference between a democracy and a republic: who makes the decisions.

      In a democracy, the people make the decisions. Literally. They vote on each issue that comes up like how referendums work in the US. Very few true democracies exist in the world today since this is a rather cumbersome way of doing things.

      In a republic, the people make the decisions but only indirectly through some other party. These days we typically mean a democratic republic, where the representatives are elected by the people to make the decisions, but I don't think that is actually a requirement.

      Utah should be teaching that the US is a republic and not a democracy -- because it's true, and because I think talking about various types of government is an important exercise. That said, this bill is still retarded. It shouldn't have to be legislated, for starters, much less should legislators actually waste time on it. And if their reasoning really is because of the word "democrat," well, then they are some truly stupid twats who should be thrown out on their faces and replaced with somebody who actually cares about the people of Utah instead of trying to cement their own party's political power.

    8. Re:Republic = Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no difference in between them. these morons, and i say morons, not to mormons but to the right wing ignorant circles in usa, utter this word as if it is contrary to centralization. "but this country is a republic !!"

      iiiis iiit ? so, france is also a republic. and there are no state rights or states there.

      switzerland is also a republic, and the decentralization there is MUCH bigger than the one in usa.

      these ignorants seem to think that 'republic'/'democracy' etc have anything to do with centralization/federalization/decentralization.

      they do not. you can have fascism, yet it can be decentralized (like in feudal times), you can have a democracy/republic, yet it can be more centralized than anything else.

      its all about who does the decision making. elected representatives of people, or else.

      its appalling that even here there are fools that have the same misconception - hey, doing a google search and reading a wikipedia article with endless references to political science documents is not that hard ? why not take action now, and dont make out yourself come out as an ignorant bimbo.

      Youre confusing the concepts of republic and federalism.

      Republic means only that there is rule of law that is higher than the will of those with a power (with the exceptions to change the rules by established means, e.g., amend the constitution). It has nothing to do with federalism.

      Democracy simply states who in the system has the power - the people, as opposed to a despot, a monarch, a religion or a small group.

      So we're a democratic republic.

      The interest thing here isn't the definitions of the words, but the trend away from rule of law in general in this country; see: GM bond holder screw job in favor of the unions, completely undermining contractual agreements.

    9. Re:Republic = Democracy by unity100 · · Score: 1

      switzerland is a republic. most of the laws are decided by direct referandum. citizens, individually, can create bills and start referandums and get them accepted.

    10. Re:Republic = Democracy by unity100 · · Score: 1

      ooooh. shift key. i now see that all my worries about the planet, knowledge, horizons and foresight, insight, were pointless.

      SHIFT KEY !!! that is the most prominent thing !! and, capitalization of course !!

      how could i not know ....

    11. Re:Republic = Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Former Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall seems to think there is a difference and his credentials make him a pretty damn authoritative source on the matter:
      "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
      http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/democracy.htm

    12. Re:Republic = Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman arguments are lies.

    13. Re:Republic = Democracy by unity100 · · Score: 1

      former supereme court chief justice john marshal, does not have jack shit authority in regard to political history, for these already have happened, and political science, for he is not a scientist.

      some random partial judge making out concepts out of his own ass because of his political views and willful ignorance of political science, does not change science.

    14. Re:Republic = Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some random partial judge making out concepts out of his own ass because of his political views and willful ignorance of political science

      You didn't try to show any support for this accusation because you knew it was a lie. No other reason is possible.

  220. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by mldi · · Score: 1

    Where's the flamebait rating, mods?

    --
    If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  221. Tomato = vegetable OR fruit? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    The question is as insightful as "democracy or republic" — i.e. not at all, because the answer is very obvious: it's both, and there's absolutely no contradiction despite what a poorly educated mind might think.

  222. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by unjedai · · Score: 2

    Luke 4:17-20 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.

  223. Of course this is political by mbone · · Score: 1

    Of course this is about politics (where, exactly, in the USA are "children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum" ?

    State Sen. Mark Madsen is trying to blow the dog whistle that Obama = Socialism, nothing more, nothing less.

  224. Re:+America is a Social Democracy .... aka sociali by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 0

    No, we are a democratic republic. Social democracy is mumbo jumbo that doesn't mean anything. All governments are by definition social.
    While there is no mad rush to give back SS checks, there is plenty to stop giving them in the first place. It's the "me too" mentality that as long as its going on I might as well get my part, and how many have paid in more than they are getting out now. Personally I would gladly forgo all that SS promises me in the distant future if I didn't have to pay now. You're correct that both SS and Medicare/Medicaid are socialist programs and I look forward to when some politician finally has the guts to abolish them both.

  225. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Jesus Christ != Joesph Smith

    Jesus was literate, as shown in Luke 4. Joesph was literate and grew up reading the family Bible.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  226. 1:1 Relalationship to Roman Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is almost a 1:1 relationship between the Roman Republic and our own.

    President : Consuls/later Pro Consuls
    Senate : Senate
    House of Representatives : Plebeian Consul
    Supreme Court : Augers (and other priesthoods)

    Even the electoral collage existed in Roman times. So yes it is appropriate to call the U.S. a republic.

  227. Questions: Are the United States ... by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    ... a country whose main language is English, or a country where an Indo-European tongue is spoken?

    Also, are most people in the U.S. not illiterate, or can most Americans read?

    Is roughly 50% of the population female, or has half of it a Y chromosome?

    Is there freedom of speech in the U.S., or is Congress prohibited from passing laws restricting the press?

    Finally, is it a Republic OR a Democracy?

    Remember, in every case, you have to pick ONE case, they're all obviously(*) mutually exclusive!

    (*) if you're a Republican

  228. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

    It's all 3, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

    It's a democracy because there are elections in which the public votes for their representatives
    It's a federation because it's a union of partially self-governing states.
    It's a republic because supreme power is in the hands of the people's representatives.

    Now I'm not an American, but this whole thing sounds like a politically motivated semantic argument to me. I'd think that'd get into the way of actually teaching.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  229. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No evidence the word "democrat" is offensive? Well, hell no, nothing *written* in Ootah will say that. But, yes, they do consider it offensive, if not a downright threat. I know from experience...

    As for the illiteracy claim, maybe some hyper-Christian can "intelligent design" us some evidence such as His 3rd grade report cards...:-)

  230. This is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When this country was founded, it was founded as a republic. That the Democrat party would exist at some point in the future has no bearing on this fact.

  231. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by scubamage · · Score: 1

    I don't know if he is literate or not. Wasn't he reading Torah scrolls by age 12 or something? Or was the Torah passed down verbally? Any biblical scholars?

  232. How does the Electorla College fi in this mix, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to really throw a monkey wrench in the works, look up the Electoral College one day. This is a body that is made up of individuals, selected by various means depending on the state, a very small number compared to the entire population created to correct the democratic process if the people look like they are about to make a horrendous error. Everyone in a state can vote for a particular candidate for president but if the members of the Electoral College thinks it's a bad choice they can declare their votes and therefore the votes of that state for the other guy. There are a few states just now trying to pass legislation that would have the votes of the Electoral College follow the popular vote.

  233. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

    Well trolled sir. I applaud you for your skillful use of the internet to piss people off and and start a long off topic series of threads. I see you even got a +5 insightful for it. You have indeed claimed the crown as their king for the most skillful troll.

  234. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Zeio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its a CONSTITUTIONAL representative Republic, with a bicameral house, an executive and a judicial branch.

    Two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner is democracy.

    Sharia is democracy.

    Also, the Senate was purposely designed to be obstructionist and to give small states as much power as large states.

    Improperly educated people of today, largely devoid of critical thinking skills and the ability to abstract concepts (e.g. banning smoking is a gateway to ALL statutory behavior modification, seems like its serving the greater good but its a gateway to a radical totalitarian authoritarian police state controlled by oligarchical collectivists), gladly subscribed to things that were clearly outlined in book like:

    One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
    The Gulag Archipelago - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
    We - Yevgeny Zamyatin
    Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell
    Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
    Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
    Animal Farm - George Orwell
    1984 - George Orwell.

    Given IPADs and Kindles, its shocking people aren't reading more of this material.
       

    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
  235. Technically correct, but for different reason by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Whether the term "democrat" would appear or not is just plain stupid. But, it is a fact that the United States is a Federal Republic. Of course, the former Soviet Union was a Unitary Republic, but I doubt they'll want to teach that in Utah.

  236. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by the_womble · · Score: 1

    You have no idea what Christians believe or why, do you?

  237. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    something that the vast majority of the human race believe

    Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. The majority of the human race is not Christian, even if it currently is still the most adhered to faith worldwide.

    although the fact that you are reality-impaired enough to say something like

    the liberal bastion of slashdot

    Is telling in its own right, and may explain why you don't acknowledge that there are (at least) two people in the world who are not Christians for every one person in the world who is.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  238. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by scubamage · · Score: 2

    A republic is by definition at least partially democratic. You vote for officials who are charismatic and most capable of lying, cheating, and stealing. Then they lie, cheat, and steal for you along with all of the other liars, cheaters, and thieves. And eventually the outcome is the lying, cheating, and stealing that everyone actually wanted to happen, but they just weren't charismatic enough to make it happen. TA DA!

  239. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by mallyn · · Score: 1

    Are you sure?I thought it was the other large church that had the pedophiles. Not the one in Utah.

    --
    Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
  240. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    You know, I usually really like Southpark, but the wookie on Endor joke was some of their poorest work. The joke was supposed to be about making nonsensical statements, and then declaring that if the statement made is nonsenecal, then some other unrealated item must also be nonsensecal, which is in itself nonsesical. Haha, funny. Unfortunatly, there is nothing anymore nonsensical about a wookie visiting Endor than a human visiting Endor.

    The flow of Sourthpark as a show, should have Kyle pointing that Chewbacca was on Endor for the same reason that Han Solo, Luke Skywalker and Princess Lea were on the planet. And that claiming it makes no sense for him to be there shows that Johnnie Cochran was a racist. They would have ended the show with the lesson of the day being that racism comes in all colors.

    The way it played out though just makes it sound like Trey and Matt slept through most of the Return of the Jedi, so didn't understand the plot.

  241. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    Actually it's a constitution-based federal republic. The CIA World Factbook says so.

    It's perfectly acceptable to use more than one word to describe something.

    I thought I said that. Isn't "the United States Government is "Federation". Each State is a constitutional republic." very similar to, if not the same as "constitution-based federal republic"?

    In fact, if you to use word order to determine importance and structure, "federal" comes before "republic" ( after "constitution-based" of course ) and reflects the order of Nation then State. So if you had to choose a single word to ( inaccurately ) describe the U.S. Government, "Federation" takes precedence. Just calling the United States Goverment a Republic is still wrong.

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  242. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by garrobon · · Score: 1

    No. It's time for a "Freedom Czar."

  243. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by scubamage · · Score: 1

    Synonyms = Communism!

  244. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Risen888 · · Score: 1

    You obviously don't know dick about the Gospels. They're actually a collection of unrelated works (except inasmuch as they describe the same events) by several people. The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were not the only accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and several other works of the era corroborate a great deal of the narrative.

    In other words, if a bunch of guys all independently said the guy could read, the guy could probably read.

    Oh, and in closing, save your venomous atheist bullshit for somebody else. I'm not a Christian, just someone who's not a fucking idiot and knows how to read. Like Jesus, probably.

    --
    Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  245. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Indeed. I'm not sure what the hell any of this is supposed to mean. A republic isn't defined by how the executive and/or legislative branches are chosen, and you can have dictatorial, autocratic and democratic republics, or some combination thereof.

    The United States is a representative democracy, with a bicameral legislature elected by popular vote and a presidency chosen by an electoral college, so is somewhat indirectly democratically elected. The United States is a democracy.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  246. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    1783 to 1791 is 8 1794 to 1798 is 4 more, then 1805 to 1812 is 7 years, then 1815 to 1836 is 21

    So thats 40 years without war pretty easy and pretty contiguously.

  247. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    No, that's a direct democracy. You're using an extremely antiquated definition of democracy, and one that only applied to some of the Greek City States. Since the modern usage of the word is more expansive, what you're doing is simply committing the etymological fallacy.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  248. I thought we were an autonomous collective. by jbezorg · · Score: 3, Funny

    *Proceeds to stack more mud*

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  249. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

    No, at the state level isn't still a representative republic. I voted for House and Senate members to represent my district in the Alaska State House, I vote for city council members to represent my district in the Municipality of Anchorage government.

    I get a direct say on changes to the state Constitution.

  250. Republic != Democracy by zill · · Score: 1

    UK and Sweden are democracies but not republics.

    Syria and Belarus are republics and not democracies.

    1. Re:Republic != Democracy by unity100 · · Score: 1

      syria calling itself a republic does not make it a republic. even if there is an assembly there, the parties, candidates, are still rigged/controlled. yet, technically, it fulfills the requirements of a democracy on the outside.

    2. Re:Republic != Democracy by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Syria is a republic.

      Unfortunately, since 1963, the Emergency Law has suspended most of the consitution.

  251. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Jorth · · Score: 1

    I had to take a stab at this, I'm from the UK and know most of my information on your government structure etc from the insightful/informative posts on here and the news/personal research, and my guesses are (without google I promise!) Senate, House of Reps, and Courts

  252. Article 4 Section 4.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution... "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ...", Has no one actually read the constitution?

  253. Mod parent up. by Gorath99 · · Score: 1

    The morphing occurred in the exact opposite direction. See wikipedia or (highly recommended if you have the time) these free lectures by Yale's prof. Donald Kagan.

  254. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Harsh words for a peaceful religion that does more charitable good for the world than most any other service organization.

    There are a great many Christians (Mormons included) who would argue that your incredulity is at least as laughable as you think their faith is, but slinging offensive remarks at each other won't exactly make the world a better place now will it?

    If you find something that makes your life more meaningful, productive, full of love, and helps you to be the person you would really like to be, I would applaud you rather than tear you down. Just something to think about.

  255. can't call it a democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and a "republic" doesn't have "republicans" in it?
    or maybe is America just finally admitting it hates democracy?

  256. They are Right; We are a Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The referenced article makes no mention of the phrase or even the idea that "because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it." as the poster suggests. With that aside, the Utah legislature is right; the United States of America is a Republic and can be nothing other than a Republic according to the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.

    Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

    Also, reference the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. We do not pledge to the democracy, but to the republic.

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

    The Founders of the United States argued vehemently against a democracy when framing our form of government.

    "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide" - John Quincy Adams

    "A simple Democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils" - Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence

    "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison

  257. Proof of concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, with all the arguing here over what type of government we really have in the US, is it a wonder that someone is trying to get the teachers to teach something about it?

  258. "democratic republic" is the correct term by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Some aspects are representative, some voting. People who say it is either of them are incorrect.

  259. Only one of a bunch of silly bills by dancinfrandsen · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, Utah politicians have spent way too much time on low-priority bills like this. There are so many more important things than designating an official state gun or how a bicyclist should legally stop at a stop sign. A utopia Utah is not. Two things that come to mind we need help with are education spending (in the bottom 5 states of dollars spent per child) and bankruptcy (in the top 10 states).

  260. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Vegeta99 · · Score: 2

    Well damn close, you got two. The Senate and House of Representatives form the Legislative branch, tasked with making policy and laws. The courts form the Judicial branch. You missed one: The Executive branch.

    But props, that's more than my average countryman would know. Oh, and the grandparent didn't RTFA: They ARE going to be teaching the difference, just as I was back in the 90's in PA!

  261. Using the same "logic" by rsmith · · Score: 1

    Using the same "logic" they can't use Republic either, because it has republican in it.

    --
    Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
  262. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Phil-14 · · Score: 1

    It's not the Senate, House, and Courts.

    It's the Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, or more precisely the Judiciary.

    Congress is split between the House and the Senate.

    For Civics Teachers, Slashdot's posters make very good perl hackers.

    --
    (currently testing something about signatures here)
  263. Rest of the world to teach Utah is primitive by Snaller · · Score: 1

    "Republic" and "democracy" are not alternatives to one another. A country can be both or neither or either one but not the other.

    The USA has a presidency rather than a monarchy, that makes it a republic, the government is elected by the people that makes it a democracy (a representative democracy to be more precise).

    Iraq, pre-war, was a non-democratic republic.
    The UK is a democratic monarchy.
    Saudi Arabia is a non-democratic monarchy.
    The USA is a democratic republic.

    Of course who needs education when you are WINNING!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  264. Re:What a troll by slater.jay · · Score: 1

    The issue with high-speed cargo rail transport is that it's more expensive than low-speed cargo rail transport, and the few pennies I can save per ton-mile really add up when I'm moving a hundred tons two thousand miles.

    There's also the issue of rail density: tracks just don't go as many interesting places in the US as they do elsewhere. In Germany, there are 115 meters of rail route for every square kilometer of land area. In the US there are 14. If I wanted to come up with, say, a FedEx High-Speed Rail in the US to fit in between FedEx Ground and FedEx Express, I'd end up having to use trucks a bunch anyway to get from rail stations to unconnected cities, whereas in a more densely-populated and densely-railed country, chances are I'd only need to worry about delivery in a radius where delivery drivers could actually operate.

  265. You might be missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only person here who sees this is a possible good thing?

    Since the past elections Utah has had a large number of "bat shit crazy" people elected and has quite a bit of influence with several Tea party members, which just adds to the bat shit craziness.

    From what I have read over the last few weeks about what has been happening in Utah (there is quite a bit happening surprisingly) this change may not be influenced in trying to find the most correct terminalogy for what our government should be classified, but what it really is. These people are not trying to play some wordsmith game, they could be trying to use this as a way to get people to notice the changes that have been happening in the US over the last 15 years. Let me explain.

    Some people here have said we are technically a constitutional republic, because we have a constitution. But their stance could be that we do not follow the constitution any longer, or it is ignored, or that all the rights and freedoms given to us by the constitution no longer exist, or that the few that still remain are in the process of being removed. So in their view it could be that yes we do have a constitution but it is no longer enforced or is ignored.

    Also some people have said we are a democratic republic because we elect our officials. Technically yes we do (sometimes). But I'm sure very few people could disagree that over the last 15 years there have been far too many problems, corruption and other issues that have happened. And with the current system it is almost impossible to remove "problematic" elected officials regardless of what they say or do. So their stance could be that because of how the current system works and is used / abused that we are not a democracy.

    So to conclude:
    Is the US a republic? Yes.

    Does the US use democracy? Yes, we use the term, and at one point we were a democracy, and we use the illusion of being a democracy as a blanket to make our citizens feel comfortable with what our government is capable of, but the US democracy is very flawed, and some would say at this point has failed.

    Does the US have a constitution? Yes, at one point we did make one, and for a while it was enforced, but now days very little of it is enforced, with our elected officials ignoring it, changing it and only using it when it helps them. But our citizens get very little from it in the form or rights or freedoms.

    1. Re:You might be missing the point by KarrottoP · · Score: 1

      This is not news for nerds, or stuff that matters, but since we have thrown up the flame bait:
      The USA IS a Republic and not a democracy, although it is never taught that way in schools. I think Utah is taking a step in the right direction.

      Shouldn't we learn that we have a similar system to what Rome had and then also what happened in Rome once they lost their Republic...It seems that there used to be an old adage about not knowing history and being doomed to repeat it.

  266. Oh rally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone even read the article

    "A bill that would ensure Utah students learn the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic — not a democracy — has passed both Houses of the Legislature and is now headed to the governor for his signature.

    HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday"

    I hate when people say "THEY PASSED A LAW HEEE HAR HAR". Trying to make it appear that it IS a law already even though the bill isnt a law yet because the bill in question "is now headed to the governor for his signature."

  267. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by elrous0 · · Score: 0

    Neither of the sources you cited mention Jesus or the primitive Christian movement. Christianity doesn't grow large enough to be mentioned in non-biblical sources until the 2nd century. It wasn't even a blip on the radar before then.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  268. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > Oh, and the grandparent didn't RTFA:

    What does that matter? They can write whatever they want and the schools will merrily continue doing the same incompetent job they are doing now. And until we end tenure in the K12 system nothing is going to change.

    Seriously, since this article has already devolved into 90% offtopic religion and mormon bashing anyway...... Define the word Tenture and then can somebody (anybody?) explain what the hell it has to do with a K-12 teacher? How did the practice ever get established? But with teachers pretty much given lifetime employment there is zero chance of improving the government schools. And with guys like Bill Ayers running the education departments at the influential institutions designing the curriculum tachers are taught the notion of socialism in the schools isn't a worry about the future, it is now. And the all have tenure.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  269. Your own sources and US gov't contradict you ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Informative

    Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

    I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary ... Merriam-Webster dictionary ... dictionary.reference.com ...

    You should have looked up both "democracy" and "republic". You would have found that they both share the characteristics you emphasize:
    - Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
    - Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
    However the definitions for republic also includes:
    - A head of state that is not a monarch. In contrast your sources specifically permit a monarchy in a democracy.

    So "republic" is a better fit for the Unites States.

    Furthermore your Merriam-Webster source includes:
    Examples of REPUBLIC
    when asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”

    and your dictionary.com source includes:
    Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.

    Which is why founding fathers described their creation as a republic back in the day. For a more modern perspective lets see how the US government describes itself today:

    Country name:
    conventional long form: United States of America
    conventional short form: United States
    abbreviation: US or USA
    Government type:
    Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

  270. Oh dear by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    As an agnostic Zen Buddhist who sometimes attends Quaker meetings, Jesus of Nazareth is only of interest to me insofar as his teachings were a step towards the modern era. I am interested in the period, but I'm also interested in the evolution of Zen in Japan, and of Protestantism in the UK.

    I do know what Kelber's schtick is, thank you very much. However, the oral historians have a particular axe to grind. I think you've read a bit to confirm your prejudices, and your knowledge of the NT era is derived from a bit of reading, but you don't understand the background in any depth. (Apart from anything else, even 1.5% literacy is easily enough for a bright kid from an artisanal background to become literate. There was social mobility then - or how did Jews become Roman citizens?) I'm not wasting any more time on you, because you have very fixed ideas and an abusive turn of phrase. I just wanted to let you know your assumptions are incorrect.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  271. Obamacare and Pi by VennData · · Score: 0

    Will Utah outlaw ads against Obamacare because it has the word "Obama" in it? Or just the ones for it? I hope they have Pi in their sites soon, all those numbers after the decimal are confusing.

  272. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Of course Jesus was a Rabbi, perhaps he went to yeshiva, perhaps it was some sort of lay ministry deal like his cousin John was doing, and of course he was married.

    When the Biblical Canon had been decided by about 150-175 CE it was already self-censored to what the proto-Christans wanted it to say and to separate from the Jews. Proto-Christians were getting enough trouble without tying themselves to the rebellious Jews.

  273. A whole lot of stupid in this thread by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

    If America isn't a democracy, then why do you get to vote? Answer that, smart guy.

    1. Re:A whole lot of stupid in this thread by 3247 · · Score: 1

      In most dictatorships, people can actually vote. They might be thrown into jail for voting for the wrong person (i.e. the opposition) or their vote may have no impact (because wrong votes are corrected later) but they can vote.

      Look at Egypt, for example. They did have elections, a parliament, and so on. It was just that for some strange reason, Mubarak's followers won the elections by a large margin.

      --
      Claus
    2. Re:A whole lot of stupid in this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      placebo effect

  274. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by elrous0 · · Score: 0

    Religion has everything to do with everything in Utah.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  275. Constitution-based federal republic by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Accuracy? The United States is neither. It's a Federation. Why the hell do you think it's called "The Federal Government"?

    Merely to distinguish it from state and local government.

    According to the federal government itself, the proper description is:

    Government type:
    Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

    1. Re:Constitution-based federal republic by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      First, "constitution-based federal republic" is what should be taught. To reduce it to a single term is wrong and a disservice to the children to be educated. It's an over simplification that gives a distorted view. It only making it harder for the poor bastard who has to come behind them and actually teach what our system of government really is.

      But... If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, would you describe the United States government to be a federation or a republic? The States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    2. Re:Constitution-based federal republic by perpenso · · Score: 2

      A federation is a bit too vague, a collection of states retaining control over internal affairs. Both democracy and republic share more details, supreme authority in citizens and elected (directly or indirectly) representatives to exercise power. However republic ads one more constraint, a head of state that is not a monarch. So if forced to choose only one word I would say republic is the most descriptive.

    3. Re:Constitution-based federal republic by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      So "republic" is it? Socialist republic like China? Parliamentary republic like Germany? Islamic republic like Iran?...

      That's the problem with just a single term. They are all too vague.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    4. Re:Constitution-based federal republic by perpenso · · Score: 1

      So "republic" is it? Socialist republic like China? Parliamentary republic like Germany? Islamic republic like Iran?... That's the problem with just a single term. They are all too vague.

      Hey I offered three terms, you asked me to cut it down to one. ;-)

    5. Re:Constitution-based federal republic by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      lol. fair enough. But compare my standard vs. yours.

      Mine
      United States = Federation
      China = Socialist
      Germany = Parliamentary
      Iran = Islamic

      Yours
      United States = Republic
      China = Republic
      Germany = Republic
      Iran = Republic

      Yes, I offer less detail but since I base my label on the sovereign branch of the government I can make a greater distinction. Kinda like numeric precision. I am limited to one term so I must describe the most significant unit.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  276. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    Jews have always had a pretty large emphasis on being able to read.

    No, they haven't. That's a relatively modern thing, which evolved long after AD 70 (when modern Talmudic Judiasim was effectively born). Country Jews in Jesus's time were nothing like modern Jews.

    Ah, but they had some sweet music!

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  277. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

    Since this came up in a thread about Mormons, I thought I should mention that Mormons are the exception to this rule.

  278. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    If you think the LDS is just a kind, charitable organization, you've never been around a large number of them for long. Move to Utah sometime and try to run for office without the right LDS credentials and you'll find out about their charity and kindness, alright.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  279. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

  280. Re:WE are a Republic! but don't take MY word for i by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    Can you read? The question was whether the US is a republic or a monarchy, not whether the US is a republic or a democracy. If you'd crack open any dictionary, you'd know that a) Franklin is correct, b) a democracy has little to do with a republic, and a state can be both, neither or just one of them.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  281. Conservatives Are Now So Extreme by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

    that democracy is a dirty word. I am stunned.

    I think the real irony here is that these legislators have resorted to indoctrinating children with political propaganda, for all that it is rather inane. Oh that's right. Propaganda is all right as long as it's our propaganda.

  282. Then... by snookiex · · Score: 1

    What exactly is "Democratic Republic of the Congo"? (The first thing that comes to my mind is: "An irony")

    --
    Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  283. CmdrTaco, please update the blurb, contains a LIE by TonyXL · · Score: 1

    The submitter, 0ryan0, states that the change was made because "Democracy" contains the word "Democrat". This reason is not mentioned at all in the article.

  284. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by bberens · · Score: 1

    Our government IS a republic. If anything this is an example of Utah choosing fact over tradition.

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  285. I learned more from Civilization games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having gone through the Utah Education System, including having one of my representatives to the federal government as a high school history teacher, I can tell you that I didn't learn about the difference between a republic or a democracy or anything else very well from school. I learned it better in Civilization video games. Which probably proves that I still don't really know the differences that well.

    Either way, something tells me this bill won't really affect anything at all, other than get people all upset as the bill is presented.

  286. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Unfortunatly, there is nothing anymore nonsensical about a wookie visiting Endor than a human visiting Endor.

    Ha! Nice rant, but it completely falls apart because you didn't pay enough attention to the Chewbacca Defense.

    Cochran didn't say it made no sense for Chewbacca to be on Endor, visiting. He said it didn't make sense that Chewbacca lived on Endor.

    Which, of course, he doesn't. Which just adds another layer of nonsense to the whole thing.

    I would have thought that for someone chastising Trey and Matt for sleeping through Jedi, this would have leaped right out at them.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  287. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by dmbasso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell
    1984 - George Orwell.

    I only read the later book, but now I'm going to read the former one.

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  288. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Frangible · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it means job security in the face of shitty pay and very uneven budget situations. Due to changes in insurance, teachers make less today than they have in at least 30 years. It's a small portion of the GDP, and if you think gutting the educational system is going to do anything but destroy America's future, you're either delusional or a traitor, or possibly a delusional traitor, who has no understanding whatsoever of Keynesian economics. Your fellow teabaggers are mostly a collection of old white people who want to continue to get their socialist bennies that form the bulk of our government's expense, while contributing nothing to America's future. It is ironic they espouse Ayn Rand so heavily, when they themselves are the parasites. Well, them and the NO BLOOD FOR OIL GEORGE BUSH WAR CRIMES retards on the left. Frankly, I think the best way to improve America's test scores is to take both groups and dump them at the nearest lighthouse in the North Atlantic. You'd be free of those socialist taxes, wouldn't it be great?

  289. In their next Bill, they will.... by Dr+La · · Score: 1

    ...stipulate they tip animals, not cows....

    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  290. why are we legislating ciricula? duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they are right - technically.

    But the schools already teach this! why is the Utah State Legislature even wasting time with this!

    Also, if anyone missed the debate on this, it was hilarious - Legislators were actually consulting Wikipedia for definitions of Democracy, Socialism.... It was embarrassing.

  291. Remember Elementary School? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...

  292. The US is a Representative Republic by triceice · · Score: 1

    Stop shilling for BO and the Dems. They are teaching the truth!

  293. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Fjandr · · Score: 2

    Instead of protecting academic freedom, tenure more often than not stifles it (for college professors, since only those who toe the line get tenure) or is completely irrelevant in a system where academic freedom does not exist (pre-college schools) in the modern age.

    That said, politically-motivated firings should be dealt with harshly, regardless of the political affiliations targeted. I'd be satisfied with complete loss of pension, benefits, and privilege of public employment for provable cases, myself. If it's not directly related to teaching performance, it's likely not a fire-able offense, no matter how much you dislike their politics or views. Have a problem with that? Go pay to put your kid through private school.

  294. Republic by Israfels · · Score: 1

    "And to the republic, for which it stands."

    I'll just leave this here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

  295. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Risen888 · · Score: 1
    --
    Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  296. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    It's like "assault weapons," or "narcotics." It's a political hobby-horse that politicians trot out to sway people to vote for their particular brand of theft and coercion.

    The US is both. To call it simply "a democracy" or "a republic" completely misses the point that those are general categories which are sometimes almost entirely exclusive of what the US actually is in form and function.

  297. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Xyrus · · Score: 2

    Didn't anyone point out to Senator Madsen that socialism IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT?

    Everyday I become more convinced this country is sliding down the slope of failure.

    --
    ~X~
  298. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I don't think they realized that he didn't live there. The rant implies that they thought he did live there, and it makes the joke fall apart. It just isn't there best work.

  299. Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting what to have for supper.

  300. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    And according to the pledge of allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

    We have people the represent us in out government. We elect them democratically, but we have a republic. Unless it is called a democratic republic?

     

  301. unfortuneate that i am so late on this article by bmajik · · Score: 1

    http://wimp.com/thegovernment

    Watch it 10 times if that's what it takes.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  302. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure they knew, since they are giant Star Wars nerds and did not sleep through Jedi. I don't think anyone actually believes Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor. It was a deliberate error.

    On the other hand, you definitely didn't realize they were claiming he lived there, so your claim falls flat.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  303. Dictatorship is a historic response to crisis ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    So, your saying that you would be fine with a dictatorship, as long as the dictator was making moral and ethically sound decisions? While a benevolent dictatorship might work for Linux, I don't think it would work well for a full government.

    Even during a crisis where survival is at stake?

    Dictatorship is a historic response to crisis where survival is in question. It uses the battlefield proven concept that sometimes there is no time to debate, no time to search for the best solution, that a good-enough solution from an expert is needed at this precise moment. The concept is not theoretically totally without merit, the problem is that in practice dictators tend to lack the morals to give up power once the crisis is over and such rapid decision making is no longer necessary. One of the rare exceptions:

    Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519 BC – 438 BC) was an aristocrat and political figure of the Roman Republic, serving as consul in 460 BC and Roman dictator in 458 BC and 439 BC.[1]
    Cincinnatus was regarded by the Romans, especially the aristocratic patrician class, as one of the heroes of early Rome and as a model of Roman virtue and simplicity. A persistent opponent of the plebeians, when his son was convicted in absentia and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he immediately resigned after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines and Volscians.
    His abandoning of his work to serve Rome, and especially his immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis, has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, and modesty. As a result, he has inspired a number of organizations and other entities, a number of which are named for him.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus

  304. Obllig by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Thundercougarfalconbird!

  305. Ahh by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The Economist had an article, 10+ years ago, about countries' names. They wrote, "People's Republics . . . usually aren't."

    So they've been to Utah!

  306. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

    If you think the LDS is just a kind, charitable organization, you've never been around a large number of them for long. Move to Utah sometime and try to run for office without the right LDS credentials and you'll find out about their charity and kindness, alright.

    If you go on record in Utah saying most of the stuff you've been saying here then I'd say your problem (or whoever is running for office in Utah) is that you are offending the people who you need to vote for you. Offending the voters has never been a great tactic to win elections.

  307. Pass the bill to know what's in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're making an entire law without backing up their statements over there

    Pffft...you're worried about them not backing up their statements?? We have the former leader of the House saying that we have to pass a bill (Obamacare) to find out what's actually in it. This seems minor by comparison.

  308. Re:Right-wingers by Blink+Tag · · Score: 4, Informative

    Having met many of these legislators (indeed, having previously been in a position where I would headdesk regularly at their antics), even if the article doesn't say it, I can vouch for the fact that those pushing the bill are in the ultra-conservative wing of Utah's already conservative (and controlling) Republican party.

    Pretty much anyone from Utah County, including Sen Madsen (R-Eagle Mountain), Sen Dayton (R-Orem) and Sen Stephensen (sp?; who sits just across the north border of the county) are at the extreme conservative end of the political spectrum, and regularly introduce legislation designed to disrupt public education. For example, a couple of years ago, Sen Dayton (on the word of a single constituent who thought alike, and despite resistance from every education-saavy person I know) went on a crusade against the International Baccalaureate program, decrying it as a socialist takeover of state's rights (never mind that each school, and thus each locally elected school board, must choose to opt in).

    The representatives from the same area (unsurprisingly) act similarly, and most of them would like to see a complete dismantling of public education in favor of a completely market-based approach. Now that's a whole different kettle of fish, but it provides some insight into why they are so consistently disruptive--and I don't mean in the positive innovation-friendly sort of way, but rather the time-consuming, prevent-actual-innovation-because-of-extra-work sort of way.

  309. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spoken like a true post-modern mush head. Most Congress Critters are fine upstanding citizens. The problem isn't so much them, the problem is us. The first candidate that comes along and says he/she will raise taxes and cut benefits to fix the deficits will get voted down because Americans still think they can get something for nothing.

  310. Pretty close to being right by sarbonn · · Score: 1

    I think they're pretty close to being right, even if their motives might be somewhat suspect. Personally, I've recently been under the impression that we're an Oligarchistic Republic, or whatever governmental entity that requires bad spelling like I just used..

    --
    Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
  311. Democrac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Democracy" has no "Democrat" in it. 0ryan0 must have meant to say "Democrac."

  312. Re:+America is a Social Democracy .... aka sociali by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    Social democracy is not mumbo jumbo. It is merely more terminology which accurately reflects where we are in our evolution now.

    As to all governments being social, that has little to do with the descriptor of a social democracy. You could say a totalitarian regime is social or a collective is social. The way you phrase it has little actual meaning.

    Your assertion that there is plenty of effort to stop giving social security is unfounded.

    Nobody has paid more than they are getting except the wealthy. Most people have paid less at this point than what they will receive. This has only been amplified over time.

    Politicians will never abolish either program since they are popular. Both democrats and republicans are socialists. The only non-socialists I see are the libertarians whom I largely agree with, but they are a fraction of a fraction. Their ideas have more pull sometimes, but they have next to zero political power.

  313. What the article ACTUALLY says... by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    "Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it."

    Doesn't say that. Commentary fail.

    What the article actually says:
    "HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday."

    Sounds like a well-rounded course. So unless you're only wanting to teach from one side, I don't see a problem with this.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  314. The USA is a republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one has mentioned one of the most obvious indicators--the pledge of allegiance. "...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

  315. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    (I presume that you you meant that you don't think anyone actually believes Chewbacca DOES live on Endor.)

    I just went back and watched it again to make sure that I wasn't confused. You should do the same. The point of the Chewbacca defense was to say things that are true, but don't make sense, and then associate the trial with the absurd statement.

    The whole point of the Chewbacca Defense was to make fun of Strawman Arguments. The idea of making fun of Strawman Arguments is the kind of thing I would expect from Trey and Matt. The fact that they didn't prove their Strawman breaks the joke. Everything in the joke is to come to the final strawman statement of "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit". There is nothing in there that indicates that "Chewbacca lives on Endor" is an intentional error, but the entire structure of the joke indicates that it was an unintentional error.

    Yes, "lives" is more specific than "is on". That doesn't change the fact that the crux of the joke is wrong.

  316. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Blink+Tag · · Score: 1

    Been there. Done that. It's more (IMNSHO) about whether you subscribe to ultra-right-wing ideology (outside of Salt Lake Valley, that is, although it helps there too). Heck, there is an openly gay member of the state legislature (from Salt Lake)--he's clearly not a member of "the dominant religion," so your generalization is inaccurate and unhelpful.

  317. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    I agree and to reduce it to a single term is a disservice to the ones to be educated.

    But... If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, would you describe the United States government to be a federation or a republic? The States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence.

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  318. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    I agree it's a semantic argument. To reduce it to a single term is a disservice to the ones to be educated.

    If you were to reduce it down to a single ( inaccurate ) term like these educators seem to have done, the States are not the sovereign entity while the Federal Government is. Thus, to me, the sovereign entities description takes precedence and the label "federation" should apply.

    However, if you wanted to focus on state rights and distance yourself from the Federal Government, you may want to apply the label "republic".

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  319. pledge of allegiance by j33px0r · · Score: 2

    and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands

  320. try 'social democratic party' on an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That makes the Americans I know head's explode (or at least a pause for confused looks in their eyes)...

    You can almost hear the thought process - how can they be Socialist (i.e. Like Russia) and Democratic (i.e. Like America) AT THE SAME TIME!!!

  321. Not a democracy; oft majority rule doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if we don't go to referendum, I'd say a democracy requires representative and senators to vote in line with popular opinion. Examples: healthcare (at varying points, polls showed majority of American opposed to), Patriot act (I'll guess that most would oppose), and currently most Americans feel that cutting programs and the number of state employees is better than taxation. Granted, polls aren't votes, but perhaps they can give us an idea of how people would vote, and illuminate the fact that our government isn't a true democracy: it's only a democracy insofar as we decide who controls our lives.

  322. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by the_raptor · · Score: 1

    Jewish males of the times were generally expected to be able to read, at least small extracts of, the Torah. And given that the Jesus quoted in the Bible is seen to quote the Torah and use rather sophisticated rhetorical methods it is more likely he was fairly educated.

    A craftsman like a carpenter had a far higher socio-economic status in that period than your are implying.

    Modern people have a fascinating need to denigrate the abilities and accomplishments of those that preceded them.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  323. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    Good point, i misread lawmakers for lawyers, sorry :)

  324. Dictatorships sometimes have consent of governed by perpenso · · Score: 1

    A dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. This is inherently bad.

    Not really. When we hear the word dictator we think of absolute rulers who claim divine authority, the president for life, etc. However there is another type of dictator. One that was chosen by the people to temporarily lead during a crisis that threatens survival. If that dictator is a Cincinatus rather than a Caesar things may not be bad.

    "... an invasion caused him [Cincinatus] to be called to serve Rome as dictator ... Cincinnatus led the infantry in person ... the war ended and Cincinnatus disbanded his army. He then resigned his dictatorship and returned to his farm, a mere sixteen days after he had been nominated dictator ..."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus.

  325. They had elections by Quila · · Score: 1

    All of those countries have/had elections. The problem is that only one party is/was allowed to run in the elections.

  326. the original post is NOT true by trialjudge · · Score: 1

    Yes, the United States is not a pure democracy. Most of the posters have that correct. What is NOT true is where the original poster said Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, "BECAUSE A DEMOCRACY WOULD HAVE DEMOCRAT IN IT. I can find that language nowhere in TFA or any associated news stories.

    1. Re:the original post is NOT true by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. Don't you know we just make shit up when writing article summaries, and the editors don't give a damn?

      In fact, if you want a hope of your submission NOT being rejected, it seems to help to make shit up, and the more inflammatory and incorrect the better. If you make the mistake of just sticking to the facts, you'll never make it to the front page.

  327. Montesquieu said it best by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    When the body of the people in a republic are possessed of the supreme power, this is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy.

    The Spirit of Laws

  328. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New York lawmakers pass a bill that forces teachers to teach that the number 3 immediately follows the number 2 in base 10 notation simply because 5 is right out!

  329. Reading comprehension..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    both looked absolutely fuck-all like our government

    sentences like that are difficult to read. if you must swear, can you at least make it readable?

  330. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    One of my kids came home with a poll which the clever school teacher probably thought would expose the general ignorance of the American public. The question was "Which one describes the American system of government?" and the two possible answers were Democracy and Republic. Before hearing the two possible answers, I replied "Democratic Republic". Unfortunately, my child was not able to bring back a suitable answer to the teacher because the right answer was not one of the possibilities.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  331. Bad Summary by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

    Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

    Correct.

    Their reasons for doing this may be wrong...

    What? I RTA and they don't say anything about democracy having the word democrat in it. It is a valid concern that students in public school systems should be correctly taught what type of government we are (meant to) have. Especially these days when so many are being taught that the government takes care of everything and is the ultimate authority in everyone's lives.

  332. Re:+America is a Social Democracy .... aka sociali by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 0

    No your not...your social liberals....my sworn enemy!

    -Social Democrat.

    --
    My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  333. Re:The US is a republic & a representative dem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    There is no country in the world today which is a "full democracy". Even Switzerland is still a representative democracy. But we still call them "democratic countries", or simply "democracies", colloquially.

  334. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by naoursla · · Score: 1

    Most teachers get pensions. That often means half pay for the rest of your life after working 20 years. That is a huge savings.

    Play with this spreadsheet. Assume a teacher earns $40k/year from age 25 to 45 and pulls $20k/year in pension from age 45 to 80. What salary and savings rate would be required for someone to have the same standard of living in the private sector without a pension?

    https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag9h4XC7DlGWdGoxZlZoeFcwbGVLMURPdW02YTRVSHc&hl=en#gid=0

  335. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by naoursla · · Score: 1

    The point of tenure is to prevent those who control the purse strings from having control over what the schools teach. It is supposed to prevent corruption by prevent threats behind closed doors. Mandates like this have to go through legislation and fall under public scrutiny.

  336. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, all upstanding citizens.

    The only mush head I see in the room is you. Well not the only one, but definitely the closest.

  337. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    huh, I stand corrected.

  338. Re:Your own sources and US gov't contradict you .. by guspasho · · Score: 1

    Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.

  339. Oh, the republicans must be in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republicans are in, so the USA is a republic. Its not a democracy. I happen to agree, the USA is not a democracy. Freedom of speech? No. Freedom to organize? No. Freedom to bargain in a collective fashion? No. Free Press? You can ask old Julian Assange about that one, but lets just call it a No. Do citizens take a back seat to corporations? yes. Given the opportunity, corporations would have a vote, citizens wouldn't. Your vote gets passed on up to your company. The larger the corporation, the bigger vote they have. The CXO of the corporation has the vote for the corporation (with additional input from shareholders). It makes the US a kind of feudal state. In a democracy, every vote counts. In a feudal state, every count votes. In the looming corporateocracy (rule by corporations), the US will look like and operate like a medeval feudal state. Its somewhere between 65-75% of the way there now.

  340. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jmorris42 · · Score: 2

    > The point of tenure is to prevent those who control the purse strings from having control over what the schools teach.

    All government employees employment conditions are controlled by the various Civil Service laws which prevent politically motivated hiring and firing. Justify the case where K-12 teachers require additional protection over and beyond those existing protections.

    The current reality is that between Civil Service, Tenture and Unions teachers have become a protected class that can't be fired unless convicted of a major felony that imposes jail time such that that simply can't show up for work any more.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  341. "It must be a utopia!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!

    Of course it is, because utopia has UT in it.

  342. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Bassman59 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most teachers get pensions. That often means half pay for the rest of your life after working 20 years. That is a huge savings.

    Play with this spreadsheet. Assume a teacher earns $40k/year from age 25 to 45 and pulls $20k/year in pension from age 45 to 80. What salary and savings rate would be required for someone to have the same standard of living in the private sector without a pension?

    First of all, starting teacher salaries are nowhere near $40K.

    Second, where do you get this idea that teachers are retiring at 45 and living the high life?

    Most important, you have to realize that contributions to the pension plans are deferred benefits paid in lieu of immediate salary. In other words, when the retiree collects a pension, he is collecting from the money that was put aside for him. The total compensation package is cash salary plus pension contribution.

    The other option, of course, is for the employee to be given the pension money in cash up front and then he can invest it how he wants (or spend it, or whatever). Or, more likely, the employee will be told, "We are no longer contributing to your pension, and we are not giving you the pension contribution to you in cash," which is, no matter how you slice it, a significant reduction in compensation.

  343. Re:+America is a Social Democracy .... aka sociali by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    "Social democracy" is not the same as "socialism", however.

  344. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by shmlco · · Score: 2

    "Never mind the actual fact that the form of Government here in the United States is a Representative Republic. Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct..."

    Yeah, start tossing around terms like Democracy and Democratic Process, and people might actually start to think that their votes matter...

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  345. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jmorris42 · · Score: 0, Troll

    > Yeah, it means job security in the face of shitty pay and very uneven budget situations.

    For certain values of shitty. Teachers in Madison WI (focus of the current fight) are pulling down $100K in wages and benefits. Teachers here in my state would kill their mother for that pay and these spoiled children are bitchin' and moaning about having to actually kick in something from their paycheck to their retirement account? Considering the lifetime promise of employement after three years I'd bet over half the slashdot crowd reading this would at least off a hobo or two to get get in on such a sweet deal. And if even FDR says collective bargaining for government workers is a stupid idea why are we even having the argument over getting rid of a bad idea that the unions got rammed through in better times when we could afford to be stupid?

    > Due to changes in insurance, teachers make less today than they have in at least 30 years.

    They aren't chained to those desks. If they can make more in the private sector they should consider changing jobs. Just like everyone else reevaluates their career path from time to time. But considering an education track at most colleges leaves one barely qualified to be a school teacher they might need to get some real course credits first.

    > and if you think gutting the educational system is going to do anything but destroy America's future,

    No, I think gutting the current education system is the only hope of saving the next generation. It is broken and probably can't be fixed so drastic measures are called for. Vouchers as a path toward total privatization.

    > who has no understanding whatsoever of Keynesian economics.

    I understand Keynesian economics. But I think it is wrong at best and wicked at worst.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  346. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    You were obviously confused since your whole original rant was based on misquoting the joke, so your reading is a mis-reading. The point was not to say things that are true but don't make sense. It was nonsense from start to finish.

    And there is a very good reason to believe it was an intentional error, other than the simple fact that any Star Wars fan knows Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, and Trey and Matt are fans. In the actual quote by Cochrane that they were parodying -- "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" -- it is widely believed by those who are critical of the OJ Trial that OJ's demonstration that "the glove doesn't fit" was a farce. As in, it was not true.

    So it was both a non sequitor*, a conclusion that does not follow from its premise, and a false premise. Just like in the Chewbacca Defense. To even get to the part that the logic didn't make sense, you had to accept the premise, which was false. They weren't just making fun of illogical statements in general, but also the shear magnitude of nonsense that Cochrane was able to get away with.

    Sorry, but you're just way off on your reading, both in the specifics and in the context. I'm not even much of a SP fan, but they were spot-on in their parody of Cochrane with the Chewbacca Defense and it is some of their finest work.

    * Not a Strawman Argument, since neither real nor SP Cochrane was misrepresenting their opponent's argument

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  347. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

    Sorry if it was too subtle for you, imbecile - the parent went off about ALL religion, not just Christianity. But I wouldn't expect someone of you limited capabilities to be able to grasp the difference.

  348. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by edeefelt · · Score: 1

    I would never expect to see such hateful and bigoted comments from anyone who claims to have the intelligence to understand the technical issues of today. The last time I checked Utah State history it was added to the United States of America the same way all other US states were. It's name doesn't even have anything to do with Mormonism but the Ute Indians of the area. Yes, the center of the L.D.S. Church is in Utah, but there are many religions existing there. In fact, Salt Lake City has less than 50% Mormon population. Your brash and angry use of the English language is proof of the weakness and out of control, vacillating, uneducated position of your opinion.

  349. Even Worse by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Somehow people also have some sort of assumption of capitalism as part of the Constitution. In fact there is nothing at all to even imply that capitalism be permitted within our system of government. The ability to tax for the general good and maintenance of the nation and its people is a bold faced declaration of socialism.

  350. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by DrLang21 · · Score: 2

    Only in the contemporary. Classical understanding of the terms has a Democracy almost exclusively referring to direct democracy. This is a question of scholarly understanding. Utah should consult the philosophy professors at U of U to decide how the terms should be taught in schools today. I myself no longer know if referring to a democratic republic as a democracy is correct usage of the term today. Any philosophy professors on here want to chime in?

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  351. The Pledge of Allegiance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

  352. Re:Your own sources and US gov't contradict you .. by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.

    Actually the post that I responded to was asserting that the US gov't was not a republic, claiming that those who thought it a republic were brainwashed. So there was a contradiction and various other shortcomings.

  353. Government Interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else have a bigger problem with the legislature passing bills to dictate what is taught in schools? Curriculum should be decided by a independent group of experienced academics, not by politicians.

  354. Seriously by kenh · · Score: 1

    Everything in the article summary is wrong EXCEPT the link!

    0ryan0 opined:

    "Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it."

    No, that statement isn't supported by the article you linked to...

    And CmdrTaco threw in with

    The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!

    Which really added nothing to the point, but then again, that is his right ;^)

    What I find fascinating is the number of posts that slam the legislature for bothering with this, and then they'll add hundreds of words defining precisely what form of Gov't they believe we have in the US of A...

    Any chance folks would want to slough-off the topic if the legislature wanted to emphasise the word "theory" when describing evolution?

    The goal of the legislature is that students be taught what the form of government we have here in US of A is, and based on the nearly 1,000 posts on this topic, to consider this "settled science" is a bit premature. If the debate here is any indication, clarity on this topic has not been in our education system for a number of years.

    --
    Ken
  355. Re:Dictatorship is a historic response to crisis . by gman003 · · Score: 1

    I am well aware of Cincinnatus's dictatorship, as well as several others - Calatinus, Fabius Maximus, Sulla, and Camillus, to name a few.

    However, let us not forget the last dictator, a certain Gaius Iulius Caesar, who used that power to make himself dictator for life. A rather short life, to be sure, but his successors found ways to secure the power of the dictatorship without the title itself.

  356. Utahpia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be a Utahpia there!
    After all, Utah is hardly Democratic. The husband gets one vote, and his wives get one vote.

  357. What about China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does that making China and the other communist nations in the world one big Love In Hippie Commune?

  358. 0ryan0 - HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it."

    I read the newspaper article from his link.. the word 'Democrat' doesn't appear anywhere .. 0ryan0 must be reading between the lines or ???

  359. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
    The bible never says Jesus is a god, rather it says that everyone on earth are the sons and daughters of God.

    I don't know why i'm responding, because obviously you've been indoctrinated by somebody who has never read the bible and neither have you. The trinity is an invention by the Catholic church which not all churchs agree with.

  360. Suggested Alternative Headline by severoon · · Score: 1

    Having fixed all other problems with the state public education, Utah senate fixes common misconception of students reading chapter 3 of their Civics book.

    --
    but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  361. Obviously the education is needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging from the responses, it seems that my Eastern Bloc education has though me better about political orders than the public USA education - it's a shame.
    The USA is a constitutional republic with democratic representation. Constitutional republic is key - the majority cannot trump the constitution, which guarantees certain personal freedoms and private property.
    In a pure democracy, the majority can strip the minority of such freedoms.

  362. Sad by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    This should be a "well, duh". The fact that a state legislature finds it necessary to micromanage the public education establishment on something so obvious should speak volumes about the rampant incompetence of the latter. Sad that our Republic has come to this.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  363. Federal Democratic Socialist Republic? Then... by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    I'd respectfully disagree about "constitutional", notwithstanding that yes, we do have a constitution. But considering that we are, as you say, a Socialist Federal Republic Democratic, then members of the national party (the Socialist-Fed Dem Publicans) should have no problem if we taught that in the schools. There. Got that out.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  364. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by zeroshade · · Score: 1

    Actually, it IS the Democratic Party

    Democrat is just a shortened form.

  365. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    You clearly don't know what a strawman argument is.

  366. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by rhook · · Score: 1

    Man you are ignorant. Do you know the Pledge of Allegiance? Let me refresh your memory.

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the [B]republic for which it stands[/B], one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

    One of the reasons that this country is so messed up is because the socialists is this country have led many people to believe that they're supposed to be able to vote for things that they want, such as handouts. However this is not what our founding fathers wants, they knew that a pure democracy is a dangerous thing since it allows the majority to trample the rights of the minority. This is why the US was formed as a republic, republics are ruled by law and not by the wants of any group of individuals. Pure democracies only work until the people discover that they can vote themselves free stuff, which in turn bankrupts their government. Does this sound familiar?

  367. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
    Wasn't it pretty much the custom almost everywhere that marrying age was puberty? Besides, the younger a person is when they conceive the longer the telomeres. Although i don't know anything about the mormons except they're a bit more wacky then usual.

    Why so much vehemence in your arguments?

  368. Actually, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can have dictatorial, autocratic and democratic republics, or some combination thereof.

    A republic is representative government with *consent of the governed.* Dictatorships a re therefor out, regardless of what the Norks or PRC's call themselves.

    1. Re:Actually, no by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That's more of a propaganda line than an actual political definition. Do you think the Roman Republic ceased to be a republic because of the Triumvirates?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  369. Other republics by mathfeel · · Score: 1

    You know what other countries are also a republic? People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Islamic Republic of Iran, etc.

    Their government are really form by representatives of the people, just not elected representative (well, not universal and fair election anyway...) What sets us apart IS the strong democratic tradition.

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  370. Pornocracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I would prefer to live in a Pornocracy

    ...or maybe not.

  371. Re:Federal Democratic Socialist Republic? Then... by King+InuYasha · · Score: 1

    You're confusing Socialism with political repression. Socialism doesn't need to be single party governance. Just because it happens to be that way most of the time doesn't mean it has to be that way all the time.

  372. Re:Seriously? Could the summary be any more biased by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    "Time to spend my browsing time elsewhere,"

    Close the door on your way out thanks.

  373. "Factually Wrong" by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    You would be a classic case. I live in Australia we have a representative democracy. We do not vote on everything as you claim.

    Look it up in a dictionary for goodness sake.

  374. Mmm, Butterscotch! And just look at that shine! by DynamoJoe · · Score: 1

    old SNL rules.

    --
    bah.
  375. Utards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I went to high school (35 years ago in a state adjacent to Utah we learned that the US had a democratic/republic form of government. I have learned since moving to Utah that most of the local population has problems dealing with concepts that are not "black or white" or "all or nothing". This is the Utah legislature's normal reaction to a perceived contradiction -- just make a law so that no such contradiction exists. Problem solved. I know that they consider this to be a strength but mostly it just makes us look ridiculous when we have to deal with an issue which presents a contradiction.

    Here is another gem from this legislative session to illustrate the point:
    Utah is considering a bill to eliminate daylight savings time. They are also considering legislation to address childhood obesity.
    Hmmm, you mean we eliminate an hour of daylight in the evenings that could be spent playing soccer, baseball, ... ,riding bicycles and don't expect that to have an affect on childhood obesity?

  376. On republics and democracies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican."
    A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government -- may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans."
    Well! You are a democrat?"
    No."
    What! "you would have a monarchy?"
    No."
    A Constitutionalist?"
    God forbid."
    Then you are an aristocrat?"
    Not at all!"
    You want a mixed form of government?"
    Even less."
    Then what are you?"
    I am an anarchist."

    — Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (Proudhon: What is Property?)

  377. 1928 U.S. Army Manual defintiion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
    U.S. Army Training Manual

  378. Not liking the tone by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1
    What's with the snarky editorial tone of this submission?

    "Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it."

    was not found anywhere in the linked article, and the utopia comment was uncalled for. Especially since, as many others have pointed out, the US *is* a Representative Republic. I was not aware that the submission form was a place to blog our feelings about the political atmospheres of various states.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  379. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by ronocdh · · Score: 2

    Second, where do you get this idea that teachers are retiring at 45 and living the high life?

    This. Why don't we take this anti-teacher Tea Party animosity and point it at bankers, pharmaceutical companies, and the military-industrial complex, where it belongs? It cannot possibly be so hard to see that the labor argument has been very recently recast, so that the average Joe perceives other average Joes as much better off. Your desire for socioeconomic equity is being leveraged so that you can be deployed as a weapon to seal your own fate with lack of economic mobility.

    Stop picking on the teachers. They're doing a job you don't have the balls to do. If you want change, go where the money is.

  380. Education? Here is what was drilled into me... by managerialslime · · Score: 1

    Every morning. 180 mornings a year. For 13 years. (Year 1 = Kindergarten).

    My teacher had us stand at attention, face the flag, a recite the pledge of allegiance as approved as law by the US congress.

    That is 2,340 recitations where I swore "I pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

    Note that the congress did not ask me to pledge my allegiance to a democracy. In a democracy, each citizen gets an equal vote. Had we been a democracy, Al Gore, not George Bush would have been elected in the year 2000. In a republic, our state "electors" get to override the popular vote if they so choose. (And in 2000, for the 4th time in US history, that is just what happened.)

    No matter what the conspiracy theorists say, GW did not "steal" the election. He played by the rules. The rules of our REPUBLIC.

    That is the way things are and I don't expect either party to amend the constitution to make us a democracy in my lifetime.

    The upper chamber of congress is little better with voters in small states having up to 17 times the power of voters in big states. (I.e. little Utah and big California each get 2 and only two votes.)

    However, as I love my country, this is where I'll stay and exercise my right to be a curmudgeon.

    --
    Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
  381. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Now you're just trolling, or just being an idiot, not that there's a difference.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  382. Seems to me the first thing by onemorechip · · Score: 1

    you would want to do to disempower the people is to start teaching them that we don't have any semblance of a democratic system. Don't want to give them ideas that they can change things.

    --
    But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  383. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
    Apparently you are angry that the message you wrote in reply to a message you clearly didn't read was moderated down. It is likely therefore worth while to point out that I was not responsible for the down-moderation of your ill-informed message, as I was writing in this thread already (to say nothing of the fact that I have no moderator points currently).

    Of course, since you didn't bother reading the message before replying to to, I don't expect that you'll read it this time, either - even though I just gave you a link to it. However since it was a very short message that you replied to without reading, I don't mind quoting it here for you.

    It started:

    Do you expect a real education in a state where almost everyone believes the state was founded by fucking angels visiting con men pedophiles in caves?

    Which as the topic of discussion is Utah, clearly the state in question is also Utah. Whether he is talking specifically about Mormonism, or more generally about Christianity, the point remains the same and you are not even close to the

    vast majority of the human race

    as you plainly stated in your reply.

    The original message then went on to say:

    And before all you Christians have a good laugh at these backwards Mormons, keep in mind that *you* dipshits believe that a first-century illiterate peasant was the "Son of God" (as evidenced somehow by the fact that a backwoods Roman prefect was able to crucify this "god"). So don't laugh too hard.

    Which very specifically mentions Christians - which again are not a "vast majority of the human race" - not

    ALL religion

    As you just errantly claimed.

    So perhaps you are angry because you couldn't bother to read the original message you were replying to, and hence you were down-moderated because your reply was irrelevant fact-free garbage. Or perhaps you are angry because your close-minded assumptions on the world are also fact-free garbage. One way or the other, you are simply wrong. And throwing out insults like

    someone of you limited capabilities to be able to grasp the difference.

    Doesn't help your position; nor does your grammatical error within the same statement. Of course, when you can't even write your first sentence without resorting to a petty insult, you've already lost any high ground you may have been hoping for.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  384. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by jkauzlar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Teachers in Madison WI (focus of the current fight) are pulling down $100K in wages and benefits

    Can't let that one slide. Without even looking it up or verifying it in any way, I can tell you with 100% certainty that teachers in Madison make nothing in the ballpark of $100K a year. That would be absurd. Even $50K takes a decade or more to work up to. I do earn money in that ballpark and I'm not even 40 yet, and do I deserve to make more than a school teacher, with the responsibility they're given? heck no. If you paid them better, we'd get better teachers, that's economics 101. Also, the system is broken because it IS gutted.

    I understand Keynesian economics. But I think it is wrong at best and wicked at worst.

    Ah, an ideologue. Put your books down and look at the real world. Total privatization of the U.S. in the vein of your heroes von mises, hayek, et al, would lead to a banana republic and mass poverty on the scale of which the world has never seen. Mountains of evidence suggest so. A cursory glance at world history suggests so (and a deep look proves it). So unless a truly stratified class society is your 'ideal', then you're just plain wrong. If it IS your ideal, which is, I suspect, deep down for you so-called libertarians, to be the case, then you are literally wicked at worst.

  385. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Amouth · · Score: 2

    i can ensure you that where i live Tenure is the least of the issues.. even with it you can still be "fired" but right now everything is the lowest common denominator.. and that is the parents.. right now the teachers hands are so tied that they can't do anything - they are forced to use a different programs each year some that have zero measurable out come - the schools are full of wasteful spending and wasteful use of resources.

    They can't discipline a child at all - my wife is a teacher - she isn't allowed to take recess away because the school board decided that it might make the kids view exercise and physical activity in a negative way and we need to ensure that all the children have a good view of physical exercise to fight the obesity epidemic. these are the same people that agreed to put vending machines for candy bars and soda in elementary school cafeteria because they get a cut of the revenue from them.

    when i do the math and realize how much we are spending per child in our county.. vs what we are getting. it really makes me want to ***************

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  386. In the State of Utah, reality is a concept by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    In the state of Reality, Utah is a concept

  387. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Good thing for you that perl is a write-only language then[0], or did you miss the part where he said he was "from the UK" and "taking a stab" (that is, a guess) at it?

    Like an uncle-post said, he still did better than most of the voting public would have.

    [0] If you're going to flame me, flame me for something I deserve. I love perl the best.

  388. Re:Your own sources and US gov't contradict you .. by guspasho · · Score: 1

    Were you not responding to this post? That's the parent I see.

    Um, actually, it doesn't assert that. With all due respect, I suggest you reread it, as well as its parent. That post does not assert that the US is not a republic, it doesn't even mention the word. It asserts that a republic is a kind of democracy, and that those who think that the US is not a democracy (as if republic and democracy were mutually exclusive) were brainwashed. You're both making the same point, that the US is a democracy and a republic.

  389. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

    All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.

    Nope, and you can go to their web site and see for yourself.

    Here is a wikipedia article on the subject.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  390. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Utah....49th out of 50 in average IQ. The legislature is overwhelmingly puffy-white-guy Mormons. Keep 'em stupid, keep drumming up pathetic "moral stands", keep control.

  391. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by geminidomino · · Score: 2

    You cite what to amounts to little more than a free-verse poem to support your position on the reality of a political question, and you've got the cogliones to come out calling OTHER people ignorant?

    Thanks for the wonderful demonstration how you can be right (or half-right, at least. The USA isn't a pure republic either) and yet STILL come off as a douche.

  392. More Mud by dainbug · · Score: 0

    I'm sure its been said in previous comments but being from Utah (oh no, did I just Geo-tag myself?), this is 100% about politics and political party names. No one, knowing anything about Utah State Government could, would, honestly say otherwise. Its also another in a long long long list of Anti-Government Zealots Legislators insisting you do and think what they want and they will pass a law if they have to! Truly, for all who revel in human (and government) folly, look here! For Utah excels where others just fail. Thank god, Google is hiring!

  393. taco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck you taco! It's a republic.

  394. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have people the represent us in out government,

    WTF does that mean?

  395. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by naoursla · · Score: 1

    "contributions to the pension plans are deferred benefits paid in lieu of immediate salary"

    Exactly. My argument is that teacher's salaries are much higher than they appear because of the deferred payment in the form of pensions. I don't think teachers are living the high life, but they are make quite a decent living.

    A teacher who works for 20 years and retires for 40 years with half pay will have the same standard of living as a person who earns twice the teacher's salary but earn but saves enough to pay themselves the same pension. The only difference is that the teacher will keep getting the pension after 40 years if they keep living, while the independent saver will run out of money.

  396. {{Citataion needed}} by angus77 · · Score: 1

    Hitler was elected, but Lenin? Mao? Kim Il-Sung? Really?

  397. Re:+America is a Social Democracy .... aka sociali by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    It is a form of socialist government. The other 2 being democratic socialism where there is a democracy with the government owning the means of production and private property or marxism. There are some who will debate whether fascism is actually falls under the umbrella of socialism as well.

    "Blackwell gives some clarity, describing three branches of socialism:

            To characterize the socialist left, we perhaps need a threefold distinction, between Marxism, democratic socialism, and social democracy. . . . Democratic socialism shares the Marxist belief in the prime importance of bringing the means of production into social ownership but adds the view that this change can be secured by democratic means [instead of Marx's revolution]; social democracy shares the democratic socialist's commitment to democracy, but rejects the primacy of ownershp which both the Marxist and the democratic socialist hold as central, and defines socialism largely in terms of redistribution and greater equality within the context of the mixed economy. ("Social Democracy," pp. 484-85, italics and bold added)"

  398. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can ensure you that where i live Tenure is the least of the issues

    I'd imagine that you'd want teachers that could, for example, teach you the difference between "ensure" and "assure"?

  399. Re:Your own sources and US gov't contradict you .. by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Were you not responding to this post? That's the parent I see. Um, actually, it doesn't assert that. With all due respect, I suggest you reread it, as well as its parent. That post does not assert that the US is not a republic, it doesn't even mention the word. It asserts that a republic is a kind of democracy, and that those who think that the US is not a democracy (as if republic and democracy were mutually exclusive) were brainwashed. You're both making the same point, that the US is a democracy and a republic.

    The post I responded to merely quotes three dictionary definitions of democracy. I see no assertion that a republic is a kind of democracy, just an attack on someone who rejects the vague label of democracy and accepts the more specific label of republic. You are being extraordinarily generous in your interpretation of this post. :-)

  400. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most teachers get pensions. That often means half pay for the rest of your life after working 20 years. That is a huge savings.

    Play with this spreadsheet. Assume a teacher earns $40k/year from age 25 to 45 and pulls $20k/year in pension from age 45 to 80. What salary and savings rate would be required for someone to have the same standard of living in the private sector without a pension?

    First of all, starting teacher salaries are nowhere near $40K.

    Second, where do you get this idea that teachers are retiring at 45 and living the high life?

    Most important, you have to realize that contributions to the pension plans are deferred benefits paid in lieu of immediate salary. In other words, when the retiree collects a pension, he is collecting from the money that was put aside for him. The total compensation package is cash salary plus pension contribution.

    The other option, of course, is for the employee to be given the pension money in cash up front and then he can invest it how he wants (or spend it, or whatever). Or, more likely, the employee will be told, "We are no longer contributing to your pension, and we are not giving you the pension contribution to you in cash," which is, no matter how you slice it, a significant reduction in compensation.

    God bless you for your good sense. --A pension actuary.

  401. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have people the represent us in out government,

    WTF does that mean?

    BlackSnake112 didn't proofread?

  402. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Zeio · · Score: 1

    Thats ok, the second book is more equal than the first one :)

    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
  403. Talk to a Political Science Prof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Day one of my Pol Sci class this semester, our professor was adamant about the fact the United States is NOT a democracy, it's a republic.

    He'd also say that using the terms interchangeably is just a product of postmodern bullshit thinking (aka shifting definitions of words etc)

    my 2 cents

  404. I pledge allegiance... by EricX2 · · Score: 1

    WTF does everybody think the pledge of allegiance means when it says

    ".. and to the republic for which it stands..."

  405. Read the Federalist Papers by transami · · Score: 1

    USA is BOTH a Democracy AND a Republic.

    Or at least it was. It's now a Plutocracy and Corporatocracy.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  406. Perhaps they share my misunderstanding by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    I always thought that:
    - the word "republic" was an abbreviation of "represents the public". (ie. a group of decision makers who are meant to represent public opinion)
    - the ideal of "democracy" was that the "the people rule the people for the good of the people".

    So to me, "modern democracies" really meant "democratically elected republics".

    Having read other posts on this page, I realise I was mistaken. It may be that the Utah lawmakers made the same mistake as I.

    That said, I believe that with better educated "mobs" and higher technology, we are edging towards what I would call "true democracies", meaning that the people take control more and more. Government powers have already been reduced from telling the people what to do, to legistlating what people may do. As more people get connected, and more people have their say, and more people get organised and driven, then more decisions and driving power come from the people. Eventually the role of goverment will have to change again, and become a manager for peoples opinions (to keep things together). This will be when "the people rule the people for the good of the people".

    We're not there yet, but we will be when we have online voting, not just for parties but on portfolios and/or topics, and the ability to change our votes on the fly, not just at "election time".

  407. An Opinion of the Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

    And see this: http://www.articlev.com/Repeal17/repeal_the_17th_amendment.htm

    The original federalism concept.

  408. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Never mind the actual fact that the form of Government here in the United States is a Representative Republic.

    Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...

    Heaven forbid people actually knowing the definitions of the words they speak, or perhaps pass fourth grade social studies!

    Sigh. See attached. I'm so fucking tired of correcting this same basic error from all you self-assured fools.
    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1728628&cid=32997544

  409. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Even better would be if they would actually teach some of the fundamentals of our form of government. Teach what a Republic is and what a Democracy is and the important differences between them.

    I hope that schools would teach an apple is, and what a fruit is and the important differences between them.

    For talking big about the us constitution you certainly don't seem to have passed elementary social studies,

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1728628&cid=32997544

  410. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Sharia is democracy.

    Actually it's not. Sharia is a type of law. Not a type of government. Just like Halakha or Common.

  411. Lets use the RIGHT word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually they still got it wrong. We are now a "Fascist Republic" since the corporations and war machine has taken over. Welcome to Nazi Amerika.

    Definition Fascism:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
    Fascism (pronounced /fæzm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.[9][10][11][12][13] Confusion over whether fascism is of the left or right is due to the inability to fit the economic policies into a clear-cut category, because while fascism is considered on the right politically, fascist economic controls were left-wing, though ended up benefiting social groups considered to be supportive of right-wing parties.[14]

    Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism.[15] Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19]

    Idolization and exaltation of violence, war, and militarism are central components of fascism, which fascists see as providing positive transformation in society, in providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through the military service.[20] Fascists view violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[21]

    Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favour of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will.[22] Fascists oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[23] Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[24] They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly governing a nation, and that a merit-based elite of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.[25] Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but disagrees with its typical opposition to change and modernization.[26] Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.[26]

    Fascists tend to support a "third position" in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[27][28] Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.[29] However, other fascist movements and ideologies, such as Nazism, did not use this form of economy

  412. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by sorak · · Score: 1

    Someone modded this down, and I'm curious if it is because the correct names of the two largest political parties in America are not all that relevant, or if this was an attempt at censorship. Anyway, I've got plenty of karma, so I'm going to repost it.

    All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.

    No. It's "democratic party" See here

    "Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2]

  413. Re:Your own sources and US gov't contradict you .. by Smurf · · Score: 1

    Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.

    Actually the post that I responded to was asserting that the US gov't was not a republic, claiming that those who thought it a republic were brainwashed. So there was a contradiction and various other shortcomings.

    No, I never asserted that the US government is not a republic. In fact, I agree: the US is a republic. I am just arguing that it is also a democracy and that the reason given by most to say it is not is based on the misconception that all democracies are direct democracies. The perpetuation of the misconception is the "brainwashing" part. That's all.

  414. Re:Your own sources and US gov't contradict you .. by Smurf · · Score: 1

    The post I responded to merely quotes three dictionary definitions of democracy. I see no assertion that a republic is a kind of democracy, just an attack on someone who rejects the vague label of democracy and accepts the more specific label of republic. You are being extraordinarily generous in your interpretation of this post. :-)

    Nope, as I said above he is interpreting my post exactly as I meant it. My original post has nothing to do with the term "republic" and whether it applies to the US or not (in fact, I believe it does). Just with the term "democracy"

  415. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that what every school teaches anyway? That's what I was taught in school.

  416. Peoples Republic of North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is also a republic...

    I guess the Utah mad man will make it a one party system next time?

  417. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    You obviously don't know what trolling or an idiot are.

  418. It's about time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States IS a Republic. A democratic Republic, but STILL a Republic. (e.g."...to the Republic for which it stands....."....) Hell it's even in The Pledge of Allegiance. I don't see how people missed this over the last 75 years. They're doing it for the wrong reasons, but they are correct, the US *IS* a REPUBLIC.

  419. How come ... by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

    How come the biggest discussion threads on /. seem to revolve around semantics?

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  420. Falconhell "eats his own words" & runs? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  421. Falconhell "eats his own words" & runs? LMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2019504&cid=35417262 better luck next time, troll. How do your trolling words taste? Flavored with "the BITTER TASTE OF DEFEAT" perhaps?? Of course!

  422. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by bstender · · Score: 1

    Wrong! ...in answer to the obvious question of why the Legislature feels it is necessary to stick their benevolent guiding fist into the school curriculum: "Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum."

    IOW, this bill is yet more grandstanding troglodyte tea party propoganda.

    and DAMN, you would think that the paucity of political philosophy being taught is schools is already sufficient to keep kids from learning evil ideas, but you would be wrong.

    --
    look sig is kool
  423. It's my signature! by euroq · · Score: 1

    HOLY SHIT I made my signature about this subject three months ago. And sorry for the caps, I sorta freaked. If it isn't already stated in the other 1000 comments, the U.S. is indeed both a republic and a democracy.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  424. By German standards the US is not a Democrary. by krischik · · Score: 1

    Funny that you mention Germany because by German standards a democratic vote is direct and equal and the US Presidential election is neither.

  425. UTOPIA by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

    There is actually UTOPIA in Utah.

  426. our holy founders by bstender · · Score: 1

    Our founders said so, so it's more than a mundane fact, it's the best! The same founders who 'granted' voting rights to men with property, setup the electoral college, sanctioned slavery!...these founders were the wealthy privileged men jockeying for a government that might hold together in the face of the enlightenment; nominally 'democratic' while maintaining the status quo that feathered their nests. The only 'freedom' dear to their hearts was from the wealthy privileged men that were sucking _their_ blood, the English aristocracy. They were not against the concept of blood-sucking, per se, and they were absolutely _not_ selfless heroes fighting for anything but their own revenue stream.
    That fight is still ongoing and it woulda been over too if it weren't for those pesky kids.

    --
    look sig is kool
  427. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    yup.

    We have people THAT represent us in OUR government.

    THAT could also be who.

    Note to self: Do not comment on slashdot while having three other conservations at the same time.

  428. Back to the language of origin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word "republic" comes from the ancient Greek term "re public" meaning "of people." It doesn't necessarily follow that a republic is democratic, but a true republic always has a broad committee of government, cross representative of the people, if not directly elected by them. eg: the East German Republic was a dictatorship but all governance was performed by a committee of officials within a strict rule of law. That didn't matter to the poor, oppressed East German people, but the country was republic in the strict meaning of the term.

    The USA has an executive government structure which flows from the President. Without the democratic processes of choosing those officials, including the President, the USA wouldn't be a republic, it would be a dictatorship.

    Westminster countries are both republic and democracy as the construction of government is done from the bottom, up.

  429. Christianity did not succeed Judaism by Slur · · Score: 1

    Good thing you point out there. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all emerged within the last 2 millennia. Buddhism is over a millennium older, and Hinduism even older still. Comparing the older traditions to the newer ones, it looks like a game of telephone that got really out of hand. It also gives strong evidence that the laws of entropy hold for all forms of information. Indeed the insights of the East have only very recently been properly disseminated to the West. Prior to the modern age these rich traditions only made it to the West in the most obfuscated and corrupted forms. Thus the Abrahamic religions are a ridiculous muddle of nonsense interpreted by fools.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  430. illiterate != ignorant by Slur · · Score: 1

    Whether JC could read or write, who knows? Is there an account of his reading or writing in the New Testament? You know those books are apocryphal, not journalistic anyway. One should not conclude one way or the other, even based on probabilities. One presumes if Jesus could write he would have put down more on paper, as did the Buddha and many ancient writers much older who survive to this day. But it appears this prophet, twin to Horus in most respects, is more of a legend than a founder. Fascinating phenomenon, religion!

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  431. Re:Falconhell "eats his own words" & runs? LOL by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Yawn, Boring. Nobody but you cares, annoying eh?
    Nothing better to do than post on a dead thread....hmmm
    Your only highly rated in your own mind as far as I can tell.
    Still stirring you up is fun, the desperation to *WIN* you show is precious!
    Pro tip; Get a real life.
    Bye now, I've got a life to get on with!

  432. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Hmmn. My ignorance is showing.

    Perhaps next we'll have officially-sanctioned teachings that points-out that the US has been at war (or involved in armed military-conflict) every year since 1890 (apart from six years scattered around non-contiguously) ?

    1890 - 2010

    1897
    1955
    1957
    1959
    1995
    2007

  433. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    United States was involved in military actions in 1995 - Bosnia no fly zone , Iraq No Fly Zone and occupation of Bosnia following Dayton Agreement.

    Indian Wars ended in 1891, so 1891 to spring of 1898. 1935 to 1941, 1954 to 1960, 1975 to 1979, 1980-1982, 1984 to 1990, then with no fly zones over Iraq, war or military action since 1990.

  434. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Clearly I'm out of my comfort zone. I half-quoted something I heard in one of Noam Chomsky's rants but couldn't find the document he referred-to. This seems fairly similar:
      * http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

  435. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    By that list, if a US embassy is attacked it blocks out the whole year as a war year.

    The author has the casualty rates for the first entry (300 at Wounded Knee) wrong - 150 died, 40-60 were wounded on the Lakota side with 33 dead and 31 wounded on the US Army side. Notably the highest US Army death tolls after Little Bighorn.

    His entry for Cuba - CUBA 1898-1902 (-?)Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base. The note about Gitmo and the ?, does that mean in his mind we are still at war with Cuba because the US has a lease on Gitmo, it's not "still holding", it's a lease. By that, do all the Lend Lease base leases the US had and have count as an occupation?

  436. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by easyTree · · Score: 1

    What source do you refer to? Or is this all from memory? :D

  437. Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith by plover · · Score: 1

    You can't recast the Tea Party's agenda any more than I can. It's set by Rupert Murdoch and the Faux News crew, at the behest of billionaires like the Koch brothers. They pay top dollar to keep that network broadcasting their message to cut taxes, and the only input they accept from the non-billionaire club is the crap about the right-wing social agenda. Want to complain about abortion or gays? Go ahead. Want to complain about drugs? Sure, whatever. Moslems? Yeah, profile them in airports if you want. Black people? *cough*. Patriotism? Hey, as long as you're buying more ammo and more jets, wave them flags! Want to complain about the economy? Well, umm -- DEATH PANELS! PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY! NO NEW TAXES! LIBERAL AGENDA!

    Seriously, the Faux News network is the Billionaire's PAC, and it's a hell of a lot easier to own a TV network than it is to launder that much in political donations.

    --
    John
  438. Re:Your own sources and US gov't contradict you .. by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

    Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.

    Which is why founding fathers described their creation as a republic back in the day. For a more modern perspective lets see how the US government describes itself today: >

    Now that is an answer I can agree with. Argument settled, I hope.

  439. USA marionette republic by luk3Z · · Score: 0

    USA is marionette republic (or virtual democracy). Corporations and their dollars rule in the USA.

    --
    Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
  440. You missed the point entirely. by chaboud · · Score: 1

    An aggregate popular measure is invalid for arguments because we know that people vote with consideration of the limitations of the system. I vote, but I know that others in heavily leaning states are less motivated to than those in swing states. Similarly, campaigning is heavily targeted at swing states. This would not be the case in a purely popular vote.

    You want everyone to be a patriotic idealist, too stupid to inspect the mechanisms of the system and adjust their behavior accordingly. You don't just stop there, though. You appear to be arguing that everyone *is* a patriotic idealist.

    Quite simply put: The popular vote counts would be vastly different if we based our presidential elections on the popular vote.

    If you deny that, you're either an idiot or a troll.

  441. IBM 101 key clicky keyboard w/coiled cable 1391401 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey,
    If you or anyone you know is interested in the IBM 101 key clicky keyboard with coiled cable, the part number is 1391401 you get 'em really cheap from this computer reseller in New York called nyce - call them up - 516.997.7170 and ask for that part number and speak to mac - he's the owner's son and thinks its dead stock - i picked up 4 pieces for 80$, which is cheaper than anywhere else i found online...and he told me he'll give me a better price if i buy "quantity"
    -Viktor

  442. Falconhell you're nothing but a trolling scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watching you RUN, isn't boring: It's FUN! See below:

    "Yawn, Boring." - by Falconhell (1289630) on Thursday March 10, @06:26PM (#35448588)

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2019504&cid=35417262

    Run, you trolling weasel... run! LMAO...

    ---

    "Nobody but you cares, annoying eh?" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Thursday March 10, @06:26PM (#35448588)

    Funny you posted back then, eh? What a completely STUPID bullshitter you are... in replying, you gave away the fact you DO actually care, not that it matters - everyone's SEEN you run away from your big mouth writing checks your stupid ass can't cash.

    ---

    "Your only highly rated in your own mind as far as I can tell." - by Falconhell (1289630) on Thursday March 10, @06:26PM (#35448588)

    LOL, care to show us you've done more or better & earlier in the field of computing than I have, big mouth? NO?? Figures - you're a TROLLING "ne'er-do-well" & wannabe.

    "Still stirring you up is fun, the desperation to *WIN* you show is precious!" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Thursday March 10, @06:26PM (#35448588)

    Making you look like the cowardly FOOL you are, is priceless... see the URL above, big mouth coward.

    ---

    "Pro tip; Get a real life." - by Falconhell (1289630) on Thursday March 10, @06:26PM (#35448588)

    LMAO - a "tip", from a LOSER like you, that's never done a damned thing worth noting? No thank you.

    ---

    "Bye now, I've got a life to get on with!" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Thursday March 10, @06:26PM (#35448588)

    Yea, lol - the life of a trolling little big mouthed weasel that dishes out a lot of bullshit to others, but can't handle it when it's directed BACK @ him. You're a cowardly little loser and you know it.