[OC] How democratic are F1 venues over the years?Submitted by alison359 t3_xvas3m in dataisbeautiful
Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0fcww wrote
Reply to comment by dog_superiority in [OC] How democratic are F1 venues over the years? by alison359
What does a republic that is no a democracy look like? How would governance be a public matter if people didn't get to vote? If people get to vote how is it not a democracy?
Terebo04 t1_ir0gzom wrote
republic just means there is no monarch, noth korea is also (still) considered a republic although the current leadership is starting to look a lot like a monarchy
Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0hwru wrote
Where do you get the definition from? It's not what I remember from school. Wikipedia says the same thing my teachers taught me:
>A republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a form of government in which "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives".
Do you disagree with that definition?
Terebo04 t1_ir0r0ru wrote
The line between definitions is definitely thin. but in a practical sense not every republic is a democracy. they might say they "rule for the people" but de facto it ends up being a tyranny/autocracy
Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0t66l wrote
>The line between definitions is definitely thin. but in a practical sense not every republic is a democracy.
I'm not asking you if there is a difference but what that difference is. I am sure every republic necessarily is a democracy. Res publicas: "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives". How could you get this without a democratic process?
> they might say they "rule for the people" but de facto it ends up being a tyranny/autocracy
How could you argue that it is a republic then? If it's not the people ruling than it's not a republic. North Korea calls itself democratic, I don't suppose you would believe them, would you?
Please excuse my impatience. I feel like we are running circles. Could you describe a state that is a republic - not by claiming to be one but by fulfilling the definition that the power lies with the people and their elected officials - but not a democracy?
Terebo04 t1_ir0tyxd wrote
the way i see it, a republic is a country without monarch (so no hereditary power), a democracy is when a country is ruled by the people or their representatives.
So if the ruler of a country is only chosen by a handful powerful people, i wouldn't consider it a democracy but i would consider it a republic.
Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0vmec wrote
That is a good explanation! I can see how that would apply to certain states that called themselves republics (Venice, Lübeck) and it's a definition that makes sense (although I would say that the word republic would imply something else to me). Thank you!
Caspi7 t1_ir0vwxa wrote
NKorea is authoritarian, whether you call yourself a republic or monarchy or even a democracy has nothing to do with the system that is actually in place.
dog_superiority t1_ir0lr5b wrote
A constitutional republic is a democracy with limitations. That even if a 90% majority votes to infringe on the rights of 10%, the constitution would not allow it (without due process like warrants, juries, etc.).
Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir0mier wrote
So what you meant here
>No, but there are better ones than democracy.
Was that a democracy is the best system but that it should also fulfil certain criteria?
dog_superiority t1_ir10dhf wrote
Well the criteria is very important. For example, no matter how the people, or representatives vote, they should not be able to restrict rights, unless that also expands rights. For example, infringing on the liberty of murderers (by throwing them in jail) protects more rights than to let them murder at will. But even then, the government must follow due process to do so.
Steve_the_Stevedore t1_ir1f4g7 wrote
I don't see how having a constitution in itself would prevent this though or how a constitution would be necessary to prevent this.
The law defines due process. If a constitution said that the police could search any home at any time under any condition then random searches would be due process.
On the other hand you have countries like the UK that do not have a constitution in the literal sense but the powers of the executive are restraint anyway. Maybe (as above) not in the way you would want them to be but they could be. I don't see any reason why it should be impossible to have the restraints you mentioned without a constitution.
Where does the "constitution" in you constitutional republic come from?
dog_superiority t1_ir1gww3 wrote
You would need something like a SCOTUS (that actually does their job) too. If a state tried to change the law to say the police could search any home at any time, then the SCOTUS should shut that down. Of course, if everybody in government just ignored it, the the constitution would have no teeth nor a purpose. But of course the society would quickly go down the shitter too.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments