If envy is about desiring your neighbors property then it is about economics not democracy. Democracy is a political term not an economic term. Are industrialists who wish to get more and more increased profits by manipulating illegal aliens or cheap foreign labor guilty of envy. Again democracy is not an ECONOMIC term it is a POLITCAL term.

If this is what you think of your friends and neighbors in your precinct I feel sorry for y'all. You probably think your precinct is fine and upstanding and honest but it is those "others over there" across town or state that are the fraudsters. While we must be forever vigilant we should not be forever paranoid.

Stoppard was such a genius in writing "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" I don't know how he could pen such cynicism as this. This is in bad taste and of poor quality. I may be wrong but do any here believe that as a general rule the vote of the American people has been counted in any fashion other then honestly. I have been the judge of election and when the machine is opened the opposite party looked over my shoulder as I read out the numbers on the totalizator. Six persons from opposing parties recorded the figures so read on to six different manifests. All politics is local and if the locals allow themselves to be defrauded well I just cannot beleive the Americans I know would let that happen.

In a democracy each of us are free to choose the quality we like for our private lives but must adhere to the quality of the majority in our public lives. Don't confuse private with public. Would we prefer the quality in public life be chosen by some commissar of the republic in charge of public taste or quality?

My idea of democracy is about human rights. Just because folks are illeterate or not college does not mean that they are less human or have less that anyone else's rights. I'll take mediocrity and universal brotherhood in the political arena (the big tent idea) over elitism every time.

Thanks Archer for the compliment that I am in the majority. I was beginning to feel that I was some kind of crazy or something. The soon we get off of this republic versus democracy kick so many of you enjoy the sooner we can have meaningful interaction.

I am here Ben! Thanks for inquiring. The logic of this quote says that democracy does not lead to war and tyrants but to something even more cruel. I disagree. Tyrants generally have to give their subjects continual triumphs in order to appear strong and to stay in power. Thus Hitler and Saddam. Tyrants climb to power by currying favor with majorities by beating up on minorities, Hitler on the Jews for example. (Note: the Bushes curried favor by beating up on the IRS.) Democratically elected leaders and term limits can serve to put a stop to this strong man mentality. People talking to people is the best way to confront any propensity the human has towards violence thus I think Archer is wrong in lambasting the League of Nations which if the US had joined may have prevented WWI and lambasting the UN. Secret treaties among European nations is said by some to be the cause of WWI.

Look at the source. This guy is a Lord. France has a Minister of Culture to tell the people what is good and proper culture, taste etcetera. If we had these guys in our beloved States we never would have had Elvis. I will take a democracy in my republic every time. Political freedom, cultural freedom and all of the rest of it.

Much truth here. One man one vote means illiterates get to vote also. We must look beyond public life if we wish to escape mediocrity. Hitler was really big on elitism and distained mediocrity or at least what he called mediocrity.

The only thing worse is the tyranny of a minority or one over everyone else as in Logans Tutsi/Hutu example, or Saddam Hussein, or Adolph Hitler. Burke is widely respected I understand but this statement is either simplistic or taken out of context.

In humility I think we should as a general rule allow to others the same good thoughts we have of ourselves, our judgements, intuitions etcetera not ignoring differences in education and experience. Until they cross us that is! I agree with what you are saying Logan 100%. I simply do not agree with your and others divisive rhetoric concerning the two words Democracy and Republic. If you could point out a time when a democracy allowed rape it would be helpful. I in no manner support rape whether by one or more persons as it is a violation of the rights of one. I disagree that a republic protects rights anymore than does a democracy. The Tutsi/Hutu conflct was sad. It apparently was rooted in real or imagined oppression by one group a minority over another group a majority. Democracy would have averted this mayhem befoe it had started.

In the long run I will trust the people every time. Let me ask you , Do you trust yourself to make right judgements. If so why do you deny this to others. If you do not trust yourself then yes I would not trust the people either.

Obviously he is kissing his Queen's behind. Kingdoms have all had the same problems Disraeli is stating here. He apparently never heard of King John and his nemesis Robin Hood or of Lady Godiva's ride which had something to do with taxes also.

Religious scriptures are "the wisdom of the ages" and yes they have much to say about how we should live together in respect. I believe that Judeo/Christian belief and teaching and especially the teaching and minstry of Jesus are the foundations of democracy. Again it is the wisdom of the ages and not something that has fallen from the sky. I do believe that mankind can come together into agreement about the "wisdom of the ages". I don't think this wisdom needs to be set up as some type of mantra, taboo, talisman or whatever you wish to call it. Mike your words will never hurt me. Love to my misguided friends.

I disagree Mike that there is a difference between a democratic process and a democracy. I disagree Archer that the nominees and the ultimate President has already been chosen by the "big shots". If you believe that then you probably don't even vote yourself. So you say Logan. I disagree with your entire analysis Logan that the states are soverign. The states have never taken their soverignity as far as declaring a state King or a Dynasty or a state Dictator for Life etcetera. And the states nor the Federal Government are not soverign or democratic in one respect. Neither the states or the feds or any group of us can dissovle The Union. As some of us know and the rest of should learn, The Pledge says, "and to the republic for which it stands one nation, indivisible". So no power can dissovle the union. So you say Logan, I agree with you absolutely that a republican form of government is rule by the majority. I disagree with you that democracy takes away inalienable rights. I think you and I are on the same wave length. It is time to get over these allegianceis to words and to deal in substance. NO state has ever left, no state has ever had a dictator or a King. The feds enact and enforce voting laws to insure that the states maintain and improve a republican (that is to say a democratic) form of government.

Archer I know nothing about Jefferson okay. I am dissecting his statement above. An honest reading shows that he is referring to individuals rights, who may wish to dissovle the union formed by the majority of perons or colonies, to stand and be heard and have their say. They are then to be answered by the majority. A free people should not flinch from debate. But most importantly a free people should not be ruled by a minority or by written documents falling from the hand of God or gods.

In '76 I found that England and Wales were approximately 5,722,000 persons and the colonies were 1,600,000. The colonies were however increasing in population at a much faster rate than England. In fact doubling every twenty years. My source also said contemporaries in 1776 were aware of this fast rate of growth. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that many felt as did the "manifest destiny guys" that these colonies would increase while the mother land decreased thus they felt confident in pushing their agenda of independence for a future majority over a future minority.

Mike I disagree with your thinking that the Declaration and Constitution dropped from the sky or was written by God. Your kind of thinking is what constitutes fraud in many walks of life especially the major religions of the world which claim their scriptures all came into being this way. Such dictatorship of the WORD be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, flies in the face of human equaltiy/democracy/republicanism. Marxism also incorporates this feature of dictatorship of the word, the word of Marx and Engels. From all such sources of these comes TOTALITARIANISM. I prefer the smaller totalitarianism of the mob. At least the mob is fluid and constantly chaning and thus I guess not really totalitarian at all.

PS: I missed the fact that the majority Spooner was referring to was the UK. It could be argued that the UK was minority rule of the Colonial Majority in several ways. 1) Monarchy signifies the rule of One, mono means one. What more stringent minority rule could one have aleit I accept that UK also had a parliament. 2) I don't know the population numbers at the time but have read that Philadelphia was the second largest city in the world after London. 3) A majority only has power or rule within its manageable territory. The colonies were only manageable by the UK to the extent that public opinion allowed them to be. Once sufficient opinion shifted against the UK it was in essence all over. Adams said this happened in 1730's.

This is the correct quote to describe the governmental philosophy and a direct contradiction to Spooner above. Here Jefferson is recognizing the natural right of the majority to rule and the democractic/republican necessity of allowing the minority to speak, be respected, and to change opinions if they can, or be corrected by the majority if they will. (I do not think it is logically correct to admire both Spooner's and Jefferson's quotes here at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. If you like one you must hate the other.)

The fathers did recognize that the majority had the right to rule the minority. What the hell else was the puropose of a constitutional convention of men from the various Confederated States (Articles of Confederation). They met, they pondered, and they voted. The majority ruled and we became a a more perfect union. Spooner is an a## for saying this. Many of these same men had prior experience in majority rule during the Continental Congress that ran the revolutionary war etcetera. What purpose is any convention or gathering of men to seek common purpose if it is not MAJORITY rule. Come on guys get a life, really!

You guys make me laugh with your twisted logic. The words mean exactly what they say and how they have been lived up to in history. No state has ever violated the republican form that is to say DEMOCRACY. Each and every state has a democratically elected government. A state dictatorship to my knowledge has never existed. The Feds guarantee a republican government which as we all know (but many fail to admit publicly) is a DEMOCRACY by actions investigations etc of the FBI into political corruption. The Constitution guarantees to the Government of the United States a government based upon itself (the constitution) without regard to any other label.

wow, that quote was crap...

But it is. Civil government is letting illegals run roughshod over our public services,

Shoot first ask questions later is the seminal characterization of the "Bush The Worst" presidency. He should not be held accountable for anything he has ever said because he has no ability with the English language. He also speaks in jest at times. Condi and Ashcroft told the US terror experts to in effect "get lost" and ignored their information while the administration tried to renew the cold war with Russia since Condi's only strength was/is speaking Russian and playing classical Tchaikovsky. Because of Bush's early failures he may have overreacted to save face and appear strong to the American people and the world. He was right to go after terrorism even if belatedly and yes they made mistakes. Logan Wikipedia is just a start toward research and learning. You should give research and learning a try or at least a start.