Just a quick search yields these results:

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

this is over simplified (maybe slightly biased) but seems to make sense...

Funny, doing a search for "democracy vs. republic" seems to yield severely biased results. most of the criticism going toward democracy... sighting quotes like:

John Adams - “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.â€

We live in a 'republic' not a true 'democracy' and the elected minority in control of the proletarians have to protect their capitalist system to keep the wheels in motion and keep their lifestyles intact.

re·pub·lic n.
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. 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.
4. A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
5. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
6. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

de·moc·ra·cy n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
3. Majority rule.
4. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community


i think that these two terms are not interchangeable; instead, they are complimentary. e.g. "This state is a republic" and "This republic represents true democracy", not "This state is a republic, not a democracy"

the government in capitalist regimes just make sure that the proles stick to work and the capitalists reap the profits; be it a monarchy, a democracy of any kind, a dictatorship or whatever doesn't change the nature of capitalism which is simply based on the notion of exploitation of the masses work by a very small subset of economic and financial rulers.

actually, what you describe here is in reality an oligarchy, which is a different concept altogether. however, i'm not pointing that out to disagree with you; i think capitalist nations are very much an oligarchy, be it evident or masked.

interesting talking point on this: a good friend of mine said recently that the divisive nature of this election could lead to the breakdown of the 2-party system. i disagreed - why? not because i don't believe that there are other good ideas out there, but because so much money is poured into the republican and democratic parties. you may have good ideas, but you need $$ to be heard.

unarmedman wrote:i think that these two terms are not interchangeable; instead, they are complimentary. e.g. "This state is a republic" and "This republic represents true democracy", not "This state is a republic, not a democracy"

I think this may be wrong... they are both "forms of government".

I found this in my travels:
"The fundamental debate that the Founding Fathers fought over was this: republic or democracy. No matter what you've been told, you can't have both. The country we live in today is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic."

I'm still looking....

I think this may be wrong... they are both "forms of government".

I found this in my travels:
"The fundamental debate that the Founding Fathers fought over was this: republic or democracy. No matter what you've been told, you can't have both. The country we live in today is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic."

I'm still looking....

i can buy that - looking at democracy as being 'majority rule' (definition 3), that makes sense. however, i've seen the word used in more of a conceptual context as well. very good point you make there-

what do you think of the second point i made? any input on that? anyone?

unarmedman wrote:what do you think of the second point i made? any input on that? anyone?

you mean your the breakdown of your 2-party system ?
well, from here it looks like a one party system

the same could be said of any so called democratic capitalist countries. all those people in charge of governing have the same heritage, that of money and power: they walk hand in hand from the word go and it's a matter of taste or position availability if they at some point slightly orient themselves right or left. their families own the few companies out there that make this world dysfunction, those families dispatch their young either to administrate the companies or to administrate the people who shall work for them

democracy implies majority rule and a direct connection between the people and the decision-making process

republic implies representative government

the electoral college and its function in the 2000 pres election shows the difference rather painfully

democracy is unwieldy as a day-to-day tool. hell, a REPUBLIC is unwieldy, but it is at least workable.

you mean your the breakdown of your 2-party system ?
well, from here it looks like a one party system

gah

from here, it looks like there's a big fucking difference between one party and the other

tmidgett wrote:from here, it looks like there's a big fucking difference between one party and the other

you're a bit too close
well, this is not to say that - even from here - it is not apparent that we would be all momentarily better off if you guys did not vote for the other guy, in fact I do urge you all to vote kerry please, but, as I said, the relapse will be only momentary (I fear)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/368rqgqt.asp

you're a bit too close

delicious!

re the article linked:

i don't think kerry's bank account is terribly reflective of his policymaking

you can argue that the money in american politics makes for a vanishingly small pool of possible presidential candidates, and i would not disagree

and the staggering diversity and size of our populace demands a certain uniformity of official conduct in potential figureheads

but the differences between one party and another are acute. 1000 more gore votes in FL, and i don't think you have the u.s. military going it alone in iraq. gay marriage ban talk etc. hideously one-sided tax cuts etc. the alienation of most of the rest of the world etc. there are huge global consequences to our choice for president.

Kerry is certainly not going to topple any of America's politico-economic structures. What he could do, however, is move the collective political conscience in a direction that could open the door for more progressive candidates in the future (I won't say Obama but, well, no, ok, Obama), which is the complete opposite of what the Bush administration will do with the another four years, which will take the United States further down the road of global intrusion and manipulation of the American social conscience with cheapened buzz rhetoric.

That is, if you believe in linearity. But look at Spain: that country went from Aznar to socialist, whim-bam-boom. You might say it was because of a train bomb, but that's not true: it was more because the people truly believed that Aznar was a shitbag.

But Spain is more socially mature and less expansive, diverse, and manipulative than the US. We need work on brains before our political and social infrastructure will be able to do an about-face. That's why it will be useful for us to have a conscientious, hypocritical, smooth-talking, rich-woman-wooing capitalist presence in the white house. That's the Kerry-Edwards chimera.