Philosophy Now Forum

Constitutional Republic v Democracy
""These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.""
This kind of view bemuses me. It assumes democracy at the lowest level it can be, of mere majority rule. And it assumes a written constitution is antithetical to democracy.
Mere majority rule would be a dangerous place.
Britain is nominally a monarchy. Democracy has to be defined by the constitution, written or not.
It is perhaps a pity demos' gave us democracy, and we did not have some other term as against tyranny etc

I should have sad that a constitution as noted, safeguarding minorities etc, is the form of democracy we pretend to have. Democracy should not be taken too literally. In any case rule by the people does not mean it must be simple majority rule. We have to set Altruist democracy apart from Anarchistic democracy. Society and absolute individual freedom are antithetical, unless society itself is reduced to a mere aggregate of individuals not controlled by any common ethic.

Democracy is mob rule; constitutional republicanism is mob restraint.

In the first, the individual suffers; in the second, the individual flourishes (more accurately, the individual has the chance to flourish).

Democracy promotes instincts, impulses, appetites (usually those of the many arrayed against the one); constitutional republicanism promotes restraint, reason, patience (allowing one to get out from under the crush of 'we').

Democracy makes shotguns neccessary; constitutional republicanism makes shotguns optional.

henry quirk wrote:Democracy is mob rule; constitutional republicanism is mob restraint.

So who gets to write the constitution? On what authority?

uwot wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Democracy is mob rule; constitutional republicanism is mob restraint.

So who gets to write the constitution? On what authority?

the guys who killed all the opposition...

-Imp

Yup. That about sums it up.

RWStanding wrote:Constitutional Republic v Democracy
""These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical,

Ridiculous place to start.
You might as well say that a monarchy, or a plutocracy are antithetical to democracy when all three work in the same polities.

henry quirk wrote:Democracy is mob rule; constitutional republicanism is mob restraint.

Do you just make this shit up as you go along, or did you "learn" that in school?

Historically the only difference is that a Republic is a democracy formed from the dissolution of a monarchy, where the body politic is limited to the armed forces. Such Republics have grown to extend their democracies to people that matter more than the brut thugs, or simply the propertied classes, that deposed the King in the first place, such as working people, especially women.

Quirk is using his bottom to speak.

In a democracy, many can dominate a few, or one, by way of a vote.

In a constitutional republic, many must jump through a whole whack of hoops to inflct themselves on a few, or one.

Democracy encourages mob rule; constitutional republicanism moderates that impulse.

But if the few or the one can avoid the notice of the many, the few or one can pretty much do what they want.

Oh, sure, crafty folks will survive and thrive in any environment.