List of "translated" names?

n7axw wrote:The best guarantee of freedom is a stable governmemt that honors the rule of laws consented to and implemented on behalf of the citizenry.

The notion that as an individual I can protect my own turf and my freedom is a dangerous illusion. Even if I could protect my turf with my own gun, it certainly doesn't protect my right to go down the street unmolested.

Don

-

Indeed. The right to own weapons does not mean an absolute right to use weapons as we wish. It only secures the best tools available to protect ourselves against a threat government CANNOT protect us from.

Government's best protection is to secure the social contract we sovereign citizens have agreed upon, not just the rule of law. We are NOT a democracy. Some popular laws violate our social contract. Slavery and Japanese American internment are some of the most egregious.

PeterZ wrote: We are NOT a democracy.

The notion that you (the US) are not a democracy is one of the silliest things I know of, and each time I read it I have to shake my head anew in disbelief. It's a desperate try to distinguish your political system from the others in order to block off unpopular discussions. It's a knockout argument, and it's a false one.

Now why would I say this?

There are two ways one can interpret the word "democracy". The first one would be the literal meaning, i.e. "rule of the people". The people directly exercise power.
Now that's definitely not how things are going in the US. So if that would be your definition of democracy, then you'd be right - yep, the US is not like this. But here's a bummer: Basically nobody else is like this either.

The other way to interpret "democracy" would be a system, where people elect deputies who represent their interests in a parliament. This is not democracy in the direct sense. But it's what the common understand of "democracy" is about. The US is doing this. And most of the rest of the world as well.



So either your claim about "not being a democracy" is about not being a direct democracy, in which case the claim is right - but won't distinguish your system from any of the others in use around the world.
Or your claim about "not being a democracy" is false - since you're practicing what everybody else in the world considers to be democracy, only you don't call it this way.



It's like everybody in the world claims the sky is blue, only you're like "Nope, not for us, our sky is azure."

clancy688 wrote:

PeterZ wrote: We are NOT a democracy.

The notion that you (the US) are not a democracy is one of the silliest things I know of, and each time I read it I have to shake my head anew in disbelief. It's a desperate try to distinguish your political system from the others in order to block off unpopular discussions. It's a knockout argument, and it's a false one.

Now why would I say this?

There are two ways one can interpret the word "democracy". The first one would be the literal meaning, i.e. "rule of the people". The people directly exercise power.
Now that's definitely not how things are going in the US. So if that would be your definition of democracy, then you'd be right - yep, the US is not like this. But here's a bummer: Basically nobody else is like this either.

The other way to interpret "democracy" would be a system, where people elect deputies who represent their interests in a parliament. This is not democracy in the direct sense. But it's what the common understand of "democracy" is about. The US is doing this. And most of the rest of the world as well.



So either your claim about "not being a democracy" is about not being a direct democracy, in which case the claim is right - but won't distinguish your system from any of the others in use around the world.
Or your claim about "not being a democracy" is false - since you're practicing what everybody else in the world considers to be democracy, only you don't call it this way.



It's like everybody in the world claims the sky is blue, only you're like "Nope, not for us, our sky is azure."

Indeed. We are not a direct democracy. The will of the people is limited by our social contract. Never said other nations were any different. Only that as Don states "honoring the rule of law consented to and implemented on behalf of the people" is limited by our social contract. There have time we have ignored those limits to our detriment.

Have no idea why you went off that way?

The problem comes up because in common usage the term "Democracy" has come to be understood as a political system where the rulers/leaders/etc are chosen by the people in an election. See Webster's, ([A] system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives).

Then of course you have your Republic, which is more akin to what America is. Websters, ([A] state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch).

But even that isn't wholly correct, because America is also Federated.

At the end of the the most accurate description of America is, imo, "Federated Constitutional Republic." Democracy is no where to be found.

But with the way schools are today it is likely that less than 5% of American adults actually understand the differences and nuances between the different words. Plus, it's much funner for legal adults with the mindset of children to march around screaming "This is what democracy looks like" than it would be to scream "This is what a federated constitutional republic looks like."

LOL! Don't disagree in the slightest.

Erls wrote:The problem comes up because in common usage the term "Democracy" has come to be understood as a political system where the rulers/leaders/etc are chosen by the people in an election. See Webster's, ([A] system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives).

Then of course you have your Republic, which is more akin to what America is. Websters, ([A] state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch).

But even that isn't wholly correct, because America is also Federated.

At the end of the the most accurate description of America is, imo, "Federated Constitutional Republic." Democracy is no where to be found.

But with the way schools are today it is likely that less than 5% of American adults actually understand the differences and nuances between the different words. Plus, it's much funner for legal adults with the mindset of children to march around screaming "This is what democracy looks like" than it would be to scream "This is what a federated constitutional republic looks like."

But the real problem comes in the difference between electing representatives and electing delegates. What most of us seem to want are delegates, who are bound to act as they are instructed by the majority of their voters. What we actually have are representatives,who are free to act in whatever way suits them and will advance their careers or wealth - or both. And it doesn't matter wheter you call it a republic, like the US, or a constitutional monarchy, like Britain, because with representatives you always end up with professional politicians who ignore what their voters say.

Cheers, John

John Prigent wrote:But the real problem comes in the difference between electing representatives and electing delegates. What most of us seem to want are delegates, who are bound to act as they are instructed by the majority of their voters. What we actually have are representatives,who are free to act in whatever way suits them and will advance their careers or wealth - or both. And it doesn't matter wheter you call it a republic, like the US, or a constitutional monarchy, like Britain, because with representatives you always end up with professional politicians who ignore what their voters say.

Cheers, John

Yes, this is the current constitutional crisis in the UK. If a particular decision is delegated to a referendum, are the MPs then bound to act as instructed by the majority? Do they become 'delegates' for the purpose of enacting the referendum's decision?

That's certainly what the voters were told beforehand. Winner takes all, the decision made will be acted on. Of course, that was when nobody in Westminster realised that there might actually BE a majority for Brexit.

It's slowly morphing into a full-on constitutional crisis because the very basis of 'parliamentary sovereignty' is being questioned. Is Parliament given its sovereignty by the people? Or is Parliament sovereign over the people?

Bluesqueak wrote:

John Prigent wrote:But the real problem comes in the difference between electing representatives and electing delegates. What most of us seem to want are delegates, who are bound to act as they are instructed by the majority of their voters. What we actually have are representatives,who are free to act in whatever way suits them and will advance their careers or wealth - or both. And it doesn't matter wheter you call it a republic, like the US, or a constitutional monarchy, like Britain, because with representatives you always end up with professional politicians who ignore what their voters say.

Cheers, John

Yes, this is the current constitutional crisis in the UK. If a particular decision is delegated to a referendum, are the MPs then bound to act as instructed by the majority? Do they become 'delegates' for the purpose of enacting the referendum's decision?

That's certainly what the voters were told beforehand. Winner takes all, the decision made will be acted on. Of course, that was when nobody in Westminster realised that there might actually BE a majority for Brexit.

It's slowly morphing into a full-on constitutional crisis because the very basis of 'parliamentary sovereignty' is being questioned. Is Parliament given its sovereignty by the people? Or is Parliament sovereign over the people?

I wish you both well during this period of transition (crisis?). We in the US have had our own battles with the question of where sovereignty lies. Libertarians and conservatives argue that sovereignty lies wholey in the individual citizens. Porgressives argue that too mcuh sovereignty is entrusted to the citizens and more needs to be ceded to the government. The battleground here primarily is over the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms......hence John Ringo's passionate assertion.

The problem for both our countries is that sovereignty at present effectively lies with the unsackable bureaucrats. And it takes a strong government leader to overrule them.

Cheers, John

John Prigent wrote:The problem for both our countries is that sovereignty at present effectively lies with the unsackable bureaucrats. And it takes a strong government leader to overrule them.

Cheers, John

Totally agree.