![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Socrates: You recognize that the word is in common mis-usage. Correct?
Man: Yes
Socrates: And it is not possible to re-correct it then, right?
Man: yes
Socrates: Does the military use bad maps?
Man: no, they use the most current update maps.
Socrates: What happens when there is faulty information in directions.
Man: Accidents occur just like Private Jessica's Lynch's convoy took a wrong turn because the direction was not clearly marked.
Socrates: Aren't words like maps--they point to a direction.
Man: Why-yes. Use bad words and we end up like the convoy of Jessica Lynch.
Socrates: Bravo. WHEELER 17:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER 16:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I repeat again: "And the whole constitution is intended, it is true, to be neither a democracy not an oligarchy, but of the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms." Politcs, II iii 9; 1265b 25; or page 105 Loeb WHEELER 15:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Definition of what is oligarchical and Aristocratic. Oligarchical is election by wealth and election by merit is aristocratic. Further down he points out that oligarchical is motivated toward wealth and Aristocracy is by worth, or and virtue. Politics, II, viii 5; 1273 20-25; pg 161 Loeb WHEELER 16:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aristotle says, "The constitution resulting must of necessity be another one, so that when men destroy these classes by laws carried to excess they destroy the constitution." Democracy seeks to destroy all classes of heirarchy making them the same. This is opposite of what a Republic is. A Republic keeps all classes and does away with none. All participate. Republics seek not to destroy class. WHEELER 16:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cicero: "When however, instead, a group of men seize the state by exploiting their wealth or noble birth or some other resource, that is a political upheaveal, though they call themselves conservatives. If, on the other hand, the people gain the supremacy, and the whole government is conducted according totheir wishes, a state of affairs has arisen which is hailed as libery, but is, in fact, chaos. But when there is a situation of mutual fear, with one person or on class fearing another, then because nobody has sufficient confidence in his won strength a kind of bargain is struck between the ordinary people and the men who are powerful. The result, in that case, is the mixed constitution which Scipio recommends. (It is footnoted as monarchy, oligarghy and democracy.) Which means that weakness, not nature or good intention, is the mother of justice. On the State 23-4, Cicero On Government, Michael Grant, pg 180
What Montesquie said was nothing new. I assume he copied and quoted and read the Romans. WHEELER 16:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The problem can be seen in the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. (see page 485) The Latins translated Plato and gave the title Respublica, thus leading to centuries of misleading. It states, "The original meaning is closer to 'society' or 'the state'.
The word 'Polites' in the Greek means citizen. But because the Latins translated Plato's Politea as Republic, the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil war wanting to be citizens called themselves "Republicans" thinking that the term of the Republic would mean that Republicans are citizens.
Republic Roman
"The Latin words res publica mean ‘affairs affecting the state’, ‘the state’ itself, or ‘the constitution’ of the state. The Roman Constitution was a republic in the modern sense of the word, in that the supreme power rested with the people; arbitrary rule by an individual (monarchy or tyranny) or by a small group (oligarchy) was renounced, and the right to take part in political life was given to all adult male citizens (but not the right to take equal part; compare DEMOCRACY). For the beginnings of the republic at Rome see ROME 3. Under the republic, in the constitutional sense, lasted from the expulsion of the kings in 510 BC to the death of Mark Anthony in 30 BC.
Nominally a democracy in that all laws had to be approved by an assembly of citizens, the republic was in fact organized as an aristocracy or broad-based oligarchy, governed by a fairly small group of about fifty noble families (see NOBILES) who regularly held all the magistracies. Pg 485 of the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature."
We need to archive and I don't know how. WHEELER 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"For the anti-democratic character and intentions of the Constitution of the United States cf. William E. H. Lecky, Democracy and Liberty (New York: Longmans Green, 1896), pg 66-67. It is well known that Alexander Hamilton regretted the strictly republican character of the United States. Efforts were made by N. Gorham and Von Steuben to induce Prince Henry of Prussia (a brother of Fredrick II) to become a hereditary sovereign of the United States. The old Dutch Constitution would have served as a pattern. But these efforts failed; cf. Chester V. Easum, 'Prince Henry of Prussia, Brother of Frederick the Great (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1942), pg 339." Liberty or Equality, pg 317. WHEELER 00:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have created a page to talk of something I have seen on this site Wikipedia:Revisionism. WHEELER 23:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay well, most federations are also run as republics at the top level. (see USA, the (Federal Republic Of) Germany, etc). I also noticed that in the recent past Russia *was* literally called a federal republic by the russians themselves. Okay well, that was sufficient for me to put it on the list at the time. Is there a particular reason to think Russia is *not* a republic, according to the definition here? Kim Bruning 08:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It looks like you're actually a Russian or a Russia expert, so I'm probably going to loose this one, but well, let's hear why I'm wrong in any case :-) Kim Bruning 08:15, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The United States is also a federation, and is frequently called a (or more frequently, the) republic. See also the Federal Republic of Germany. The distinction you are making is between unitary and federal republics, not between republics and some other form of government. (And, yeah, by that standard, every country other than monarchies is a republic...which leads me to suggest that we not list current republics at all) john k 18:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I removed Perhaps the most significant exception among the forms of today's monarchies is the oligarchical form of election used in the United Kingdom (described under Privy Council) since there is no description, and as far as I know the Act of Settlement means there is no election of the head of state: the proclamation is for information only. -- Henrygb 15:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The page says: "In recent times there have been a large number of not-so-democratic republics, and the definition of the word has become more constrained."
Can you give an example of such a republic?
(I'm not doubting they exist -- I really want to learn more about this. Where do I read? By itself, this sounds like a dead-end fact: here's a fact, accept it, move on.)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Socrates: You recognize that the word is in common mis-usage. Correct?
Man: Yes
Socrates: And it is not possible to re-correct it then, right?
Man: yes
Socrates: Does the military use bad maps?
Man: no, they use the most current update maps.
Socrates: What happens when there is faulty information in directions.
Man: Accidents occur just like Private Jessica's Lynch's convoy took a wrong turn because the direction was not clearly marked.
Socrates: Aren't words like maps--they point to a direction.
Man: Why-yes. Use bad words and we end up like the convoy of Jessica Lynch.
Socrates: Bravo. WHEELER 17:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER 16:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I repeat again: "And the whole constitution is intended, it is true, to be neither a democracy not an oligarchy, but of the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms." Politcs, II iii 9; 1265b 25; or page 105 Loeb WHEELER 15:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Definition of what is oligarchical and Aristocratic. Oligarchical is election by wealth and election by merit is aristocratic. Further down he points out that oligarchical is motivated toward wealth and Aristocracy is by worth, or and virtue. Politics, II, viii 5; 1273 20-25; pg 161 Loeb WHEELER 16:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aristotle says, "The constitution resulting must of necessity be another one, so that when men destroy these classes by laws carried to excess they destroy the constitution." Democracy seeks to destroy all classes of heirarchy making them the same. This is opposite of what a Republic is. A Republic keeps all classes and does away with none. All participate. Republics seek not to destroy class. WHEELER 16:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cicero: "When however, instead, a group of men seize the state by exploiting their wealth or noble birth or some other resource, that is a political upheaveal, though they call themselves conservatives. If, on the other hand, the people gain the supremacy, and the whole government is conducted according totheir wishes, a state of affairs has arisen which is hailed as libery, but is, in fact, chaos. But when there is a situation of mutual fear, with one person or on class fearing another, then because nobody has sufficient confidence in his won strength a kind of bargain is struck between the ordinary people and the men who are powerful. The result, in that case, is the mixed constitution which Scipio recommends. (It is footnoted as monarchy, oligarghy and democracy.) Which means that weakness, not nature or good intention, is the mother of justice. On the State 23-4, Cicero On Government, Michael Grant, pg 180
What Montesquie said was nothing new. I assume he copied and quoted and read the Romans. WHEELER 16:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The problem can be seen in the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. (see page 485) The Latins translated Plato and gave the title Respublica, thus leading to centuries of misleading. It states, "The original meaning is closer to 'society' or 'the state'.
The word 'Polites' in the Greek means citizen. But because the Latins translated Plato's Politea as Republic, the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil war wanting to be citizens called themselves "Republicans" thinking that the term of the Republic would mean that Republicans are citizens.
Republic Roman
"The Latin words res publica mean ‘affairs affecting the state’, ‘the state’ itself, or ‘the constitution’ of the state. The Roman Constitution was a republic in the modern sense of the word, in that the supreme power rested with the people; arbitrary rule by an individual (monarchy or tyranny) or by a small group (oligarchy) was renounced, and the right to take part in political life was given to all adult male citizens (but not the right to take equal part; compare DEMOCRACY). For the beginnings of the republic at Rome see ROME 3. Under the republic, in the constitutional sense, lasted from the expulsion of the kings in 510 BC to the death of Mark Anthony in 30 BC.
Nominally a democracy in that all laws had to be approved by an assembly of citizens, the republic was in fact organized as an aristocracy or broad-based oligarchy, governed by a fairly small group of about fifty noble families (see NOBILES) who regularly held all the magistracies. Pg 485 of the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature."
We need to archive and I don't know how. WHEELER 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"For the anti-democratic character and intentions of the Constitution of the United States cf. William E. H. Lecky, Democracy and Liberty (New York: Longmans Green, 1896), pg 66-67. It is well known that Alexander Hamilton regretted the strictly republican character of the United States. Efforts were made by N. Gorham and Von Steuben to induce Prince Henry of Prussia (a brother of Fredrick II) to become a hereditary sovereign of the United States. The old Dutch Constitution would have served as a pattern. But these efforts failed; cf. Chester V. Easum, 'Prince Henry of Prussia, Brother of Frederick the Great (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1942), pg 339." Liberty or Equality, pg 317. WHEELER 00:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have created a page to talk of something I have seen on this site Wikipedia:Revisionism. WHEELER 23:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay well, most federations are also run as republics at the top level. (see USA, the (Federal Republic Of) Germany, etc). I also noticed that in the recent past Russia *was* literally called a federal republic by the russians themselves. Okay well, that was sufficient for me to put it on the list at the time. Is there a particular reason to think Russia is *not* a republic, according to the definition here? Kim Bruning 08:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It looks like you're actually a Russian or a Russia expert, so I'm probably going to loose this one, but well, let's hear why I'm wrong in any case :-) Kim Bruning 08:15, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The United States is also a federation, and is frequently called a (or more frequently, the) republic. See also the Federal Republic of Germany. The distinction you are making is between unitary and federal republics, not between republics and some other form of government. (And, yeah, by that standard, every country other than monarchies is a republic...which leads me to suggest that we not list current republics at all) john k 18:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I removed Perhaps the most significant exception among the forms of today's monarchies is the oligarchical form of election used in the United Kingdom (described under Privy Council) since there is no description, and as far as I know the Act of Settlement means there is no election of the head of state: the proclamation is for information only. -- Henrygb 15:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The page says: "In recent times there have been a large number of not-so-democratic republics, and the definition of the word has become more constrained."
Can you give an example of such a republic?
(I'm not doubting they exist -- I really want to learn more about this. Where do I read? By itself, this sounds like a dead-end fact: here's a fact, accept it, move on.)