Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

While not a formal Constitution, not even a Constitutional Letter, there's a document written back at the early 12th century when Portugal fought the Kingdom of Leon and turned independent. Our first King, King Afonso I, immediately reunited "Courts" for the fist time in Portugal, being present the three "states" - nobility, clergy and people.
They made a document, known as the "Shout of Almacave", that states this particular phrase:

We are free, our King is free and by our own hands we have liberated ourselves.

That, my friend, it's the only Constitution you'll ever need and generations to come never forget.

"Our land is wide and rich, but there's no order in it. Come and rule over us."

Unfortunately for Portugal, rebelling against it's monarchy was a big historical mistake.

I wonder what America would be like if it had a genuine democracy?

I wonder what America would be like if it had a genuine democracy?

I don't know how many times you gotta be told, but contrary to your European opinion, we don't have, nor do we want what is in your opinion a 'real' democracy.  We've been doing just fine with our Constitutional Republic for over 235 years, which is based on basic democratic principals, but it is not a democracy by your European standards...... thank God ......it was never, ever meant to be from day one in 1776 ---- & that sits just fine with us too.

Quote from: jax on 2014-09-10, 21:57:51

....

The USA, yes… But increasingly approaching the other alternative.
With the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the US Senate became little more than the UK's House of Lords… (The effect of "popular election" was to dissipate the influence of state legislatures and governors. Thus was the 10th Amendment, finally, obviated!) Similarly, the Executive branch has -by its numerous Agencies, Bureaus and Departments- encroached upon matters great and small, simply because they can. And, of course, there are examples of the Judiciary's excesses…
If these qualms don't give you quivers, you're either far removed from their effects or far more complaisant with their entrenchment.
Please note: When most Americans speak of our Republic, we mean: A constitutional, presidential, separation-of-powers, federalist thing-a-ma-bob…! You're excused, if you don't readily understand. And we're excused, if we can't quite make you…

Canada, no. It is a parliamentary system — the ruling party is entitled to rule! [...]

Australia is a difficult case: [...]

The UK is the exemplar of parliamentary government. It is not and likely never will be a republic. Their history of class divisions will always "inform" their politics, either in ascendence, decadence or reaction.
The "problem" with parliamentary systems is that they try to approximate majority rule.

No doubt, I've not satisfied you, jax: You want me to explain our way of life — by giving a glib definition of a single term, republic… Our history shows that we've not secured such a simplistic explanation.
But, when contrasted with another often-thought-to-be synonymous term, democracy, we bristle! And you become confused… (Or think us un-sophisticated! If you're aware of that word's dirivation, you know we're not offended. ) To us, democracy is synonymous with majority rule. And that principle is odious, since it doesn't comport with liberty — except accidentally: We meant to be deliberate…

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

Democracy, as lampooned as the dictatorship of the majority, didn't exist when the Athenians  coined the words

It can't exist for much the same reason an anarchic system-- if such a thing could exist outside of Somalia-- could long exist. Anarchy quickly breaks down into rule by warlords, with each tribe trying to kill off the others until one rises supreme and has power to enforce its dictates on everybody else.

Those $%&# executive orders that Obama has been using to side-step Congress can all too easily lead to one man running the show unless the president can be checked by the courts. Executive orders have their place, but using them to make end-runs around the Congress-- just ain't right.

only a couple of other peoples have had anything like it before-- the Greeks and the Romans

Socrates might have disagreed… But he was put to death.
I think your definition of "dictatorship" is what's lacking in particulars; not my definition of "democracy"…
I understand why you want a "pure" definition (of republic). The concept is outside of your experience…at least, the way Americans would use it; and translation is sometimes deucedly difficult. But the impediments need not be considered insurmountable: Our differences are all reasonably understandable.
By contrast, were I try to try to explain to Howie why the U.S. isn't and shouldn't want to be a democracy in his sense, I'd have undertaken a fool's errand!

BTW: I'm not sure I mentioned the explicit embrace of the concept of limited government our Constitution enshrines… (Yeah. I meant the word! And -as we all know- idols are, at best, transitory.) Without this, such a republic as ours cannot survive long…

It seems you mistake my intent: I don't mean to denigrate other forms of government (for other peoples); nor do I mean to recommend ours to them. I'm primarily concerned with the preservation of our own system, as I understand it. (You know, that old "defend against enemies foreign and domestic" oath I took so long ago… ) When I descry dangerous "innovations" and decry them, my aim is a conservative one: The continuation of our experiment.
You may not feel the same as I would, about the process of its abandonment…

Socrates might have disagreed… But he was put to death.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-09-30, 05:51:24

Socrates might have disagreed… But he was put to death.
I think your definition of "dictatorship" is what's lacking in particulars; not my definition of "democracy"…
I understand why you want a "pure" definition (of republic). The concept is outside of your experience…at least, the way Americans would use it; and translation is sometimes deucedly difficult. But the impediments need not be considered insurmountable: Our differences are all reasonably understandable.
By contrast, were I try to try to explain to Howie why the U.S. isn't and shouldn't want to be a democracy in his sense, I'd have undertaken a fool's errand!

BTW: I'm not sure I mentioned the explicit embrace of the concept of limited government our Constitution enshrines… (Yeah. I meant the word! And -as we all know- idols are, at best, transitory.) Without this, such a republic as ours cannot survive long…

It seems you mistake my intent: I don't mean to denigrate other forms of government (for other peoples); nor do I mean to recommend ours to them. I'm primarily concerned with the preservation of our own system, as I understand it. (You know, that old "defend against enemies foreign and domestic" oath I took so long ago… ) When I descry dangerous "innovations" and decry them, my aim is a conservative one: The continuation of our experiment.
You may not feel the same as I would, about the process of its abandonment…

For all of these, including the US founding fathers, it was all theory, not observation. It is like a group of virgins discussing the merits of sex. That was two hundred and two score years ago or so. Much has happened since, from basically no liberal democracy (lawish thing-a-ma-bob), there are now many. Depending on how inclusive you are on things-a-ma-bob, a majority in fact. Furthermore the systems have changed often over the decades and centuries. These days we have a plethora of case studies with different systems of government.

What I am looking for is clarity of thinking, a pre-requisite of clarity of presentation. You claim your system has some substance, let's call it woo, that other systems lack, but when pressed for the characteristic of this woo, you evade. It seems you believe this woo is under threat, that there was more woo before, but in that case it would be more important to be clear what woo is, and what in woo is worth preserving unchanged, what could or maybe should be adapted to newer circumstances, and what is  fluff. 

I am not offended on behalf of any system of government (neither should or would I), but any comparison should be based on observation, not on rhetorical ideas. Other systems may have woo too, of different flavours, which may or may not be desirable, with their own set of proponents and detractors. Some try to compare and rank directly, using some or other form of metric, like Freedom House's Freedom in the World survey



or EIU's Democracy index,



and that is fine as far as it goes.