Talk:Republic/Archive 1

Text from 2001

republic or republicanism

---

I don't think the article as it now exists describes a republic. A republic is a system where political power is held by a body that represents the interests of the public. Democratic participation is the mechanism by which the governing body is made to act in the interests of the public. A republic precludes the existence of a monarch, but does not require a democratically elected head of state.

---

That's a useful point.

'Republicanism' is a little better, though still so short as to be dangerously general. I linked Roman Republic to Republic only because I thought that page had a better name, not better content. --MichaelTinkler

---

"to some the very embodiment of the concept"? Who thinks so? What philosopher or political theorist doesn't draw a distinction between a democracy and a republic? --LMS

---

Sorry, if you think that a Republic is a representative democracy, what would you call the Roman Republic or any other form of government where many citizens were not allowed to vote.

My view is supported by Merriam-Webster. --Yooden

---

Yooden, would you please be more specific about what M-W thinks about 'many' and 'not allowed'? I know how arcane Roman voting procedure was, but one part was simple - physical presence. Therefore, people not in Rome the day of the election were not able to vote (doesn't mean they weren't permitted to travel). The second thing was the bizarre system of voting by classes (not entirely fiscally based, but pretty close), which meant not that people weren't allowed to vote, but that elections were often decided before everyone voted. It was hardly a 'fair' system by modern standards, but a citizen in Rome on the day of the elections certainly was allowed to participate. Of course, then there's the inherent problem of citizenship in the ancient world.... In the descriptive sense, Rome was "representative" and Athens was "direct". In the ideal sense both left a lot to be desired. --MichaelTinkler.

---

I don't know what M-W has to say about Roman voting laws. I only meant to say that they support my view, namely that a republic is neither subgroup nor supergroup of a democracy.

As for Roman laws: Only a small fraction of the population was allowed to vote, even though a lot more were considered citizens. This is in contrast to Greek democracies, where every citizen was allowed to vote. Women, slaves and whatever other perioiks (sp?) lived in any given city just did not count.

The most obvious difference between republics and democracies can be found in Northern Europe: Norway, Sweden and Denmark are democracies and monarchies. I only mentioned Rome because they coined the term. --Yooden

Unsorted text

The republican form of government that governs the republic for which the US flag stands is the American experiment. It is a process that needs not party members, but republicans to exersice democratic responsiblity though education, participation and contribution. Think abourt it! If justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and general welfare can be conceptualized, you can give your consent to perfectively establish objectivity supported by veracity, communicate on a domestic level so as to ensure peacefull coexistence, provide the principles of immovable force, promote the equality of well-being, and secure authority and culture together with solidarity of purpose for future generations.

Unfortunately consent of the governed in the United States is too limited. It depends upon representation; 435 representatives are two few to represent nearly 300 million people. The US Constitution mentions, "...not to exceed (1) representative for 30000..." Worst of all, most of the 'we the people' of America have no clue as what justice, tranquility, commonality, and well-being mean. These things cannot be legislated, but they must be thought of as principles of conduct and behavior of a US citizen if the American experiment is to achieve the perfection so implied.

To establish justice: requires 'we the people' to be objective. There is nothing poetic about the veracity of justice. It is impartial, factual, and severe. People must receive it, retain it, and release it to establish it as a blessing of liberty.

To ensure domestic tranqility: requires 'we the people' to be natural. Cicero said that no one is expempt from right reason in agreement with nature. People must develop the tranquility of nature in the home, growing it with family, culminating in community governed by language reasoned by right; and, natural because nature presuposes language by addressing that which surpasses human understanding. Human understanding is based upon the principles of cause and effect; purpose. Governing the every day means to every day ends so as to ensure this blessing of liberty requires 'we the people to be natural.

To provide for the common defense: requires 'we the people' to have a common heart. The founders of the United States of America provided these unbiased cultural ties of authority, so 'we the people' must embrace them as cultural ties of solidarity. This, solidarity of purpose, entrusted from one generation to the next is the best defense because it provedes the blessing of immovable force. A nation with this heart is most likely to be invincible.

To promote the general wellfare: requires 'we the people' to be objective, and natural with a common heart. Combining the aforementioned principles promotes this most important blessing of liberty. It must govern the quality of food, shelter, transportation, and communication so as to promote justice, tranquility, commonality, and well-being.

To secure the (se) blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity requires: 'we the people' to secure authority and culture together with solidarity of purpose. The sanctity of human life is more cultural than individual. By securing a place in humankind for posterity, 'we the people' can feel, and grow in the knowledge that solidarity of purpose empowers True authority with the principle of True Law, which is right reason in agreement with nature. This principle secures True Liberty to people and future generations.

If you're looking for the last 2 sections of Republic, you can find them under republic/removed. See below for reasons Kim Bruning 10:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Greek Philosophies on Republic now has it's own page.

---

Parliamentary Democracy and Representative Democracy aren't equivalent to a Republic and the rest of the article supports this conclusion. If no-one objects I'm going to delete them from the brackets at the start.

This is not to say the terms aren't related. -- V 01:42 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

For example Venice, Italy -- V 02:52 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

I honestly don't care if he deletes them. The truth is that the American republic uses propaganda to try and sway people into believing that their government is a democracy. The democracy page points out that there are two meanings of democracy, and refers one to republic should they be interested in limited, parliamentary, partial, indirect, or representative democracy. There is nothing democratic about a system whereby one's vote is made for you by another person whom you do not wish to make a vote for you, no matter what the US Government says. Lir 02:55 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

Tiered voting is still a voting system. In a pure representative voting system there are 2 tiers (people vote for representatives, representatives vote on the issues), in some situations. For example in the Netherlands the Eerste kamer (first chamber/senate), where the voters vote for their provincial representation, and the province then votes for the first chamber. This system can be said to temper peoples votes. People vote for level-headed represenatives, who might then have a better idea as to who to nominate and vote for on the next level. This is important in the dutch senate example, because often the senate are the people who have to ensure that new laws are constitutional.

A democracy (representative or direct) can be a republic, and a republic can be a democracy. However a republic need not be a democracy, for example Venice where the doge was elected by a hereditary council. Nor must a democracy be a republic for example Australia and Britain both of which are Monarchies.

-- V 03:11 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

I was astonished to see that "Representative Democracy" nonsense (in this context, that is) and I was about to comment on it here - only to find that it had already been spotted, so either nothing was done or the correction was vandalised. Accordingly I am going to clarify rather than remove it, then see what happens. PML.

I have never seen or heard of the so-called "older definition" of republic anywhere other than from supporters of the Republican Party in the USA, so I think it would be better to have this "Older Theory" attributed to make the article more NPOV. I'd be very pleased to hear which person or group actually thought up this strange (well strange for me at any rate) definition of Republic.

Hmm, see also: Democracy and especially also Talk:Democracy

JJ seems to have reduced the NPOVness again. Since he didn't put any message here explaining why he thinks (all) scholars in the USA think this, I'll revert for now. If (s)he comes back she can easily rerevert and put some text here explaining why :-) 80.126.238.189 13:23, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ugh, well at least one part of the article comes from somewhere. After the first dividing line or so it becomes... weird. What a mess! I daren't simply delete the rotten parts though, perhaps someone can still salvage something from it.

From somewhere below the dividing line Cicero is mentioned , but Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu is missed entirely. Attributions of certain parts of the text have been removed *again*.

Maybe I'll try adjusting bits already. Can anyone help? Kim Bruning 10:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I now think the Cicero section is probably very distorted, containing much interpretation by whoever wrote it, rather than being a straightforward text. The neutrality of the section above it is seriously broken too. I'm going to boldly delete, and see how much flak I catch. I'll move content to republic/removed

Kim Bruning 10:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article reads like fringe polemic. I agree that the absence of Montesquieu is disturbing. Some words from Federalist 10 would also be welcome. The article is also Americocentric, so perhaps Madison can be left out, though.

     --anonymous

Wow, I did some digging through the page history today. And the middle section (was already deleted, see now first section on talk:republic/removed) seems to have been slipped in under a "minor edit" flag. Well what do you know? And I still have no clue which group of people *does* think this way. It might become important in future. Hmph. Kim Bruning 14:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELERs text may or may not have (some? limited?) merit, I don't know. However his research fails to cover at the very least the writings by Montesquieu who um, is kind of Very Influentual in modern political theory. Missing him is like explaining relativity in terms of Newtons work, without ever mentioning Einstein. You can do it, but the result comes out looking rather weird. I've reverted his text out again for that reason. Kim Bruning 08:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Kim, The Criterion of Truth is Consistency. I believe Cicero coined the term and shall we not also let him define it.

Ayn Rand, Isocrates, and George Orwell all said that forces always seek to change the meaning of words. You seem to want only the marxist veiw of the term Republic. All the basic political terminology is of classical Greece. Without understanding their terms and definitions, anybody can manipulate the word which you are doing.

Democracy and a Republic are far different from each other. I have proven my points by countless of references and quotes. Neither of the Classical authors, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero mixed these terms together. They were quite clear.

If I am wrong, KIM, then why was the Senate appointed by state legislators and not elected by the People???? I tell you why because the Senate as in Rome and as in the Ephors of Sparta as in the House of Lords of Britain (which is a modern evidence) is the representation of the Aristocracy. A Republic is Mixed Government.

You want modern sources. John Adams wasn't confused on the terms. Neither was any of the Founding Fathers. Yet, John Adams is somehow Wrong that we need "modern sources". The word "modern" is code word for communist and socialist ideology. The Founding Fathers thought of themselves as very modern. The founding Fathers not "modern enough" for you.

When someone asked Benjamin Franklin what government they were forming he said, "A Republic, if you can keep it". What is he referring to?

The most manipulative thing that's happening above is the gratuitous shouting of the word MARXIST, as well as other bits of shouting. Just because the word "modern" is considered a code word for "communist" among extremist conspiracy theorists does not mean that that usage has become current in the more normal population. The normal population still believes that the surviving founding fathers were well advanced in years. (John Adams was already about 83 years old when Marx was born, and Marx was only 8 years old when Adams died. Franklin died in 1790, so I seriously doubt that his reference was to Marxism.) So rather than using the tired "Marxism is evil" polemic cliché you would serve your cause better by rational deliberation. Eclecticology 00:26, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

I'm mad that this man has deleted my posts en toto every time. He didn't leave a trail the first time. I had no idea what happened. He says himself "I don't know" if my work had any merit. I didn't know who to talk to. It's a little forboding and confusing on this site. The second time I posted I used practically all quotes from books. He still deleted them en toto. He left nothing. He didn't compromise, he didn't give me a solution just zip. I was treated unfairly.

I point out again, Charles Matthews edited my original post many times. I never complained. I never said anything. I was happy somebody would edit it professionally. Kim on the other hand did not treat me well.WHEELER 22 Mar 04

Your text is not actually gone, you can find it back in the page history, but I actually saved it especially the first time I moved it: you can find it in its entirity at talk:republic/removed.

It's just going to need some more work before it makes it back into the main article I think. And no, I'm not a marxist, so I'm not really familiar with marxist terminology.

Your text seems more appropriate to seperation of powers than it does to republic. Even then, my history books claim Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu as being a key influence. Missing him in a discussion on seperation of powers strikes me as a bit odd. Maybe you could try and do some more research in that direction? Then you might be able to balance your article better, and we can reinclude it in the wikipedia, perhaps even on its own page.

"I don't know" here is more of a politeness phrase. I mean that the text probably shouldn't be on the main republic page in its current form. With judicious editing, perhaps it can still be used.

By the way, if you disagree with me, there's several places you can go, check Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution especially. I knew I might get into a dispute by doing the text move, but thought it would be worth the effort.

It might help to point out that I do not live in the USA, so my point of view on this matter might be different from yours for that reason alone. (I'm assuming that you are a US citizen, partially based on the position you are taking)

Kim Bruning 09:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To Kim: Benjamin Franklin said, "A republic if you can keep it." He is referring to Plato's Republic where Socrates describes the Kyklos. It is the political wheel. All government start out as Monarchies, then move to aristocracies, to constitutional government and then to democracies. From democracies arise tyranny and the Tyrant's son becomes a monarch and repeats the cycle. Eric von Kuehnelt Leddihn in his book "Liberty or Equality" printed in l954 states:This we have seen in Germany, and Plato had visualized with uncanny accuracy what happened, i.e. the transition of the Weimar Republic's democracy to the Third Reich under an extrememly popular leader. (Plato, The Republic, Books VIII-IX.)

There is nothing that says you can not add Montesquieu's "balance of powers" into the definition of the Republic. Cicero says the same thing. Right now, there is no balance and checks in the American Government since l913 with the fundamental change of the Senate's election.

If you understand the Greek mentality, they loved the "Golden Mean". They were "lovers" of Beauty. (Hesoid) One of the principles of beauty is "proportion". Socrates talks of this in length in the Republic where he says "disproportion" leads to evil. This is also marked on the wall of Delphi, "Nothing in Excess". Aristotle continues this with his "golden mean". A republic as Plato says, is the "golden mean" between the Athenian democracy and Asian monarchy. A Republic then is the Heglian dialectic between democracy and absolutist monarchy or Asian despotism. A Republic is the synthesis of all the classes in government. They are all checks and balances upon each other. A democracy is the extreme because it allows for no participation of the aristocracy and in the French and Russian revolutions sought to destroy utterly the aristocracy of those countries.

A Republic is the participation of ALL classes of monarchy, aristocracy, and demos in government. It is not anti-monarchical as someone has stated in the original definition.

Sparta had two kings. The council of the Ephors. The council of the Gerousia, (old men). These made policy and law. The Spartiates, gathered in the commons, would either shout assent or dissent. The Spartiates could not make law just shout their disapproval or approval. Sparta truly had "tri-political" government. Their institutions came from Crete. (Plutarch and Aristotle.)

What I have posted is revolutionary and groundbreaking. It is disconserting because it is sooo strange. But it is true. None, in this country really understands what a Republic is and what it truly means. This definition will help greatly.

I am sorry for my unprofessionalism.WHEELER 23 Mar 04 at aprox 10.00am

Can someone explain the next step and steps and resolutions to this because I would like to get this up and running.WHEELER 23 Mar 04 at 12:50

Here is the conundrum: The first sentence of the definition of a Republic:

"A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state. " Who said this? Is this not opinion? Where is the reference to this?

This is not possibly even correct. Sparta had two kings. Both Plato and Aristotle, Polybius called this a Commonwealth. Britain still has the monarchy and Queen is head of state. It is a Commonwealth. A commonwealth and a Republic are synonomous.

The American Founding Fathers did consisder having a German King instead of British. Can there be some resolution here? WHEELER Mar 23 04 2:20pm

While expressing no opinion on how the opening sentence ought or ought not to be changed, may I ask you, WHEELER, to demonstrate somehow that commonwealth and republic are synonymous terms? Furthermore, Merriam-Webster defines a republic (under its first definition) as "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president". This would appear to be a defense of the sentence you object to. Furthermore (we must always consider this when quoting ancient, or even modern, sources) what did Polybius mean when he called Sparta a "commonwealth"? And what word did he use? Not commonwealth (an English word) assuredly! What possible translations are there for the word he originally used? I find, when reading Greek and Roman classics, that translations often vary widely. I don't think your argument is as unassailable as you imply. Can you provide the names of the translations you are using that offer the word "commonwealth" for Sparta? Jwrosenzweig 19:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What my research has shown is not only shattering all known concepts of what a Republic is but also bringing into light its original conception and accentuating it.

As I have stated in the very first post which has disappeared, the Greek is "politeuma". St. Paul uses this twice in the new testament, it is translated as "commonwealth". As Aristotle pointed out all the typical government systems are labelled by the dominant factor in it. Monarchy--the dominant factor is the king--one ruler. Oligarchy--dominant factor a small group of people. Aristocracy--the dominant factor is rule by the aristocracy. Democracy--the dominant factor is the common people. But Aristotle laments that there is no dominant form for Sparta because there is no dominant factor!! This was difficult to catalogue and name.

Aristotle records that ?some people assert that the best constitution must be a combination of all the forms of constitution, therefore praise the constitution of Sparta.? (2) He further remonstrates that ?the better the constitution is mixed, the more permanent it is.? (3) The definition he gives for this kind of government is a POLITEIAN; ?the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, (mesi de touton in kalousi politeian)for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms.? (4) Again, Aristotle states that constitutional government is, to put it simply, a mixture of oligarchy and democracy.? (5) Cicero uses the same phrase, "mixed government". Our Constitution without the amendment shows this "mixed government". Our Country is "Tri-political"--Presidency; Senate (Aristocracy); House of Representatives (Demos).

(2) Aristotle, Politics, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1932 bk II iii 10; 1265b 30-35; Pg 107.

(3) Ibid, Bk IV x 4; 1297a 5-10; Pg 339.

(4) Ibid, Bk II iii 9; 1265b 25; Pg 105

(5) Ibid, Bk IV vi 2; 1293b 30-35; Pg 315

I do not have the Loeb of Polybius.

As regards to the KYKLOS

Athens started out as a Monarchy, moved to the reforms of Solon, then moved to pure Democracy that during the lifetime of Socrates turned into a tyranny back to a democracy, erupted into a tyranny and back again. There was constant civil war.

Rome "But any Roman standing on the Palatine Hill and overlooking the Eternal City would see that this city has once been part of a monarchy, then of an aristocratic republic, then of a democratic and finally a plutocratic republic followed by a military dictatorship(Julius Ceasar), A Caesarian monarchy(Octavian), a barbarian kingdom, a hierocracy, a kingdom, etc. (LIberty or Equality, pg 162.

Germany's kyklos mentioned above.

Russia Monarchy, moved to 7 years transitional government, moved to Tyranny of the Communist Party.

America, Monarchy under George III moved to a Republic in l776, in 1913 became a Democracy, Next step, as the chaos furthers, a Tryanny.

The Republic should be named by its dominant factor like all the rest are. Consistency is the criterion of truth. The dominant factor of a Republic is Mixed Government or Tripolitical government. Wheeler 23 Mar 04 6:25pm

In the Politics of Aristotle Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 264 pg 71 Aristotle titles Plato's Republic "Ty Politeia" He does this twice. The translator is H. Rackman. Wheeler 6:35pm

All our names for the systems of Government come from the Greeks. Shouldn't we let the Greeks define what a Republic is? Wheeler 23 Mar 04 800pm

You're *Greek* are you? Hey! Now that *is* an interesting point of view.

Well, words and concepts change through time. The republic is no longer an exclusively Greek thing. I think this happened sometime when Rome conquered Greece. Since that time, lots of other peoples have started using the word republic to mean all kinds of things to them, and the current revision of the republic article covers what most people these days think of as a republic.

Tell you what I'll do, which I've been thinking of doing. I'll create a new article : Greek Philosophies on Republic, link to it, and add your text there. We'll see how it fares!

Hmm, as to how people are treating you online, it's called a "culture clash", there's seperate cultures for seperate continents and countries, and the internet and wikipedia itself also have varying cultures. What's happened to you is that you had a particularly nasty episode of culture clash right when you started adding in large bits of text which weren't entirely right yet, and people (naturally) wondered what the heck to do with them :-)

The moment you then actually started communicating with each other... Well, all the parties thought they were speaking one language (english), but that alone doesn't mean as much as the underlying principles people hold.

Nice to see you around, and good luck editing your article! :-)

Kim Bruning 09:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, checked your user page, and it now shows you're actually american, like I thought at first. Your text still concentrates on Greek philosophers, and things I've said still appear to hold true. Kim Bruning 10:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad that we're getting away from the anti-Marxist polemics; it certainly makes ones views more credible.

Part of the clash is Wikipedia's guideline against using this as the place for original research. Somewhere along the way Wheeler mentioned that his approach would be breaking new ground. The arguments are interesting, and deserve fair consideration - probably more than I can fairly give (which is why I'm doing nothing substantive to the article itself). The question becomes are they encyclopedic? Our audience comes to us because they want to know what a republic is; they would not need to do this if they had any packground in political science. How much can we deviate from the generally accepted dictionary definition of "republic" without seriously confusing the naïve reader?

Now that the dialog has become more elevated (:-)) it makes me wonder about the possibility of how te contents such a talk page might be adapted to a Dialog on the Meaning of a Republic as a part of a series of similar dialogs on themes of political philosophy in Wikibooks. Eclecticology 13:32, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

To Mr. Bruning: I seriously disagree. Please notice on HOW the systems of government are defined---by the Dominant factor. The definition of Wikipaedia's Republic does not mention this principle of definition. By moving it away you are obscuring it. The current definition IS DEFICIENT IN MANY CASES.

Part I A Socratic on current Definition

Socrates: "Does Wikipedia's definition of a Republic fit the condition of Sparta which had kings?

Wikipaedia: Um-NO.

Socrates: "Does the Wikipedia's definition of a Republic fit the condition of Britian who has a monarchy?

Wikipaedia: Um-NO.

Well yes it does. Britain is not a Republic, it's a Monarchy by admission. Our definition of republic is "A nation that does not have a monarch", Britain has a monarch, so it's a monarchy, not a republic. Sounds correct to me. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "Does the Wikipedia's definition of a Republic have any direct reference and quotes from the Founding Fathers?

Wikipaedia: Um-no.

And Rightly So! Your founding fathers aren't my founding fathers. :-) Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "Did you read John Adams' 'Defense of the Constitution of the United States' to see what he said"

Wikipaedia: Um-no

Socrates: "Please give me a definition of a Republic that fits ALL situations where a Republic exists."

We have this definition. It is true for ALL situations where a Republic exists. I am unsure if it is true for all situations where a Republic existed Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipaedia: "Well, words and concepts change through time."

Socrates: If the characteristics change doesn't the nature change also?

Wikipaedia: Yes.

Socrates: "If the nature changes, then is it not a completely different thing?"

Wikipaedia: Yes.

Socrates: "Then if the 'thing' is completely different by nature, then it doesn't fit the old definition Correct?"

Wikipaedia: Yes.

Socrates: "But if the Old nature reappears, does the new definition or the old definition apply".

Wikipaedia: Well the old definition would apply to the old nature."

Socrates: "Then words and concepts DO NOT change through time."

You can't make that a conclusion. It might also be possible that a word only has meaning inside a certain context of space, time, and maybe also within the context of a single discussion. It happens all the time in formal languages, in any case. Please see: Namespace. Define each year as a new namespace. Now you can have it both ways. The language can evolve, and yet meanings do not change in the same way. Handy philosophical tool that. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipaedia: No that is not right. People's perception changes and so and so...I have got to go, I have moved your thing to a new section. Problem solved. Good-bye.

Socrates: Good bye.

Part II A Socratic

Socrates: "Hello again"

Wikipaedia: Hello

Socrates: You said, "The republic is no longer an exclusively Greek thing. I think this happened sometime when Rome conquered Greece.

Wikipaedia: yes

Socrates: Was not Rome a Republic also?

Wikipaedia: Uh Uh Uh Uh

Socrates: "Did not Cicero also term his government a 'mixed' government?

Wikipaedia: Uh Uh Uh

Socrates: "What elements made it mixed?"

Wikipaedia: I don't know.

Socrates: "Was not the Senate of Rome made exclusively of the Aristocracy but the Romans had no kings?"

But the romans had no aristocracy exactly, they had patricians, which is a term that does not map precicely or accurately onto Aristocracy. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You know you are making me work to hard here. Patricians are "heads of families of the old tribes." "The patricians thus formed an hereditary aristocracy. Pg 1184, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Literature and antiquities.WHEELER 17:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipaedia: Yes.

Socrates: "So what factor made Cicero declare the Roman government a 'mixed government'?

Wikipaedia: Uh- I got to go to work, I have no time now, but I have moved your section elsewhere. Good bye

Socrates: Good bye.

Part III A Socratic

Wikipaedia: words and concepts change through time. The republic is no longer an exclusively Greek thing.

Socrates: "Do we not use the Greek word for a monarchy?"

Wikipaedeia: Yes.

Socrates: "Does the meaning of the word Monarchy change over time?"

Wikipaedia: No

Very emphatically *YES*. See constitutional monarchy for a great example. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "Do we not use the Greek word for a aristocracy?"

Wikipaedia: Yes

Socrates: "Did the meaning of aristocracy change over time?"

Wikipaedia: No

It sure did. Try find an honest to goodness modern aristocrat sometime. Did you ever meet one? I have. They're somewhat different from what aristocrats were like in the 19th century, and those again were very different from the aristocrats of the middle ages in their clunky armour. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "Do we not use the Greek word for a democracy?"

Wikipaedia: Yes.

Socrates: "Does the meaning of the word democracy change over time?"

Wikipaedia: No.

Why yes it does. In the past, democracy was direct democracy by default. Now it's representative democracy by default. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "Do we not use the Greek idea in the Roman word Republic?"

Wikipaedia: Yes, but the republic is no longer an exclusively a Greek thing.

Socrates: "But we just determined that three other terms are Greek words and have not changed their meaning. But how is it now that the Roman word for the Greek idea has changed when the others have not? Where the Greeks unsure of what the Spartans and Cretans had?

well your straw man and you determined that, but I do not agree. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipaedia: No.

Socrates: "Was Cicero confused on what his own Government was organized on?"

Wikipaedia: No

Socrates: "Where's the consistency?"

Wikipaedia: My friends are calling me--I have to go Good by

Socrates: "Good-Bye" Wheeler 25 Mar 04 1000am

Part IV A Socratic

Socrates: "Did not the Greeks define systems of Government by the dominant factor?"

Wikipaedia: What do you mean?

Socrates: What is the dominant factor of a Monarchy?

Wikipaedia: A King.

Socrates: What is the dominant factor of an Oligarchy?

Wikipaedia: A small group of people.

Socrates: What is the dominant factor of an Aristocracy?

Wikipaedia: the aristocracy of that nation.

Socrates: What is the dominant factor of a Democracy?

Wikipaedia: The people

Socrates: "All the previous systems of government, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy are all defined by their dominant element--Correct?"

Wikipaedia: That seems to be the case.

Socrates: "So what category of Governmental system does Sparta and Crete fall under?"

Wikipaedia: I don't know.

Socrates: "How do you define what a Democracy?"

Wikipaedia: It is ruled by the people.

Socrates: "Is the 'people' a dominant factor?"

Wikipaedia: yes

Socrates: "So, we shall use the same procedure to define what style of government Sparta and Crete has. Shouldn't we?"

Wikipaedia: No no, that is not right, A Republic is a Greek thing and the meaning has changed.

That's odd, we should do that for the ancient Sparta and for Crete, they're in the same namespace as the original meaning of the word. I have absolutely no problem with that. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "But we just determined that all systems of government are defined by their dominant factor."

Wikipaedia: Yes.

Socrates: "If we use this rule of "dominant factor" to define systems of government, shouldn't this rule be also applied in the definition of a Republic? I ask again, What is the dominant factor of the Roman system of government before Julius Caesar and the dominant factor of Sparta and Crete?"

Wikipaedia: I have to go, I have moved your site to a different place. I have a phone call to make. Good bye.

Socrates: "Good bye" Wheeler

Part V A Socratic

Socrates: "Hello"

Wikipaedia: Is this you again?

Socrates: "Yes"

Wikipaedia: You know that you are getting a little irritating.

Socrates: "Yes. But we haven't reached a satisfactory conclusion."

Wikipaedia: I have moved your thing to another place, it is on site now. Aren't you pleased.

Socrates: "Well, I have a problem which I hope you can solve."

Wikipaedia: Which is?

Socrates: "The Wikipaedia definition of a Republic is: 'A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state.'"

Wikipaedia: Yes that is the definition.

Socrates: "Does a monarch the head of state for an Aristocracy?"

Wikipaedia: No.

Socrates: "Then an aristocracy is really a Republic then!"

Wikipaedia: Uh UH UH

You yourself stated that Rome was an aristocratic republic, did you not? Do be consistent! Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "Does a monarch the head of state for a Democracy?"

Wikipaedia: Certainly not!

I live in a democracy, and the head of state is a monarch. So yes, that's quite possible. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "Then a democracy is really a Republic then!"

Wikipaedia: Uh that is not right, you're fooling me and I don't like you go away.

Some democracies are republics, yes. it's called a Democratic Republic. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I have stated before, a "democratic Republic" is an oxymoron. WHEELER 17:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates: "But we haven't finished or concluded this conundrum."

Wikipaedia: The definition stands so go away please.

Socrates: "Nice talking to you." Wheeler 25 Mar 04 1050

Hmm, it's an odd form of running a discussion, and I've never seen someone deliberately use a strawman in a positive way before. Perhaps the strawman article needs an NPOV edit ;-). But at least we're talking, and you are adhering to some form of logic. :-)

Note that you can save time and sign your name using four ~ signs in a row.

Notice I haven't answered all your points at once. I don't have to, I'll just take my time to think about them, and answer them if and when I have time.

Hmm, note that wikipedia won't go away, you can take your time and just discuss each of these topics one at a time. Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Democratic Republic is an oxymoron. Systems of Government are defined by the dominant factor. A Democratic Republic means literally "dominant democracy" and "mixed government". This is nonsense.

Well, Democratic Republic is often used as a shorthand to mean a republic which uses a democratic form of government. (usually representative democracy). I think that's a pretty valid way of looking at it. Kim Bruning 18:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or a People's Democratic Republic. :-) Eclecticology 17:48, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Madison Federalist Papers #39:

The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of Republics.

You will have to explain to me *where* though. According to the CIA World Factbook (which is a fairly authoritative source) the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. see: [1] Kim Bruning 18:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why is British Government defined as a Republic, because it is Mixed Government. As I have stated before, A Republic is a mixture of the monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

The Problem of the word Republic is because there has never been a clear definition and no one researched it among the Greeks and got their definition except Cicero.

From the same Federalist Papers #39:

The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress.

Again, here is proof of the truth I stated earlier in my original post that the Senators are to represent the States as corporate entities in the Federal Government. WHEELER 15:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I apologise for not seeing the relevance of the united states senate at this point in time? Kim Bruning 18:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is my purpose? I have discovered the real meaning of a Republic and what it's characteristics. The Republic has been losely defined and used by everbody as in "Republican" Forces. The "Republican" Forces of Spain were actually socialist. The burned the churches and killed the priests. The USSR is labelled a United Soviet Socialist Republic. The French and Americans called democracy and common people Republicans.

I'd like to point out that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were run by um, well Soviet Socialist Republicans. The one does not exclude the other, apparently. Hmm, please note that wikipedia is not the place to go with new discoveries. While your discovery might have great merit indeed, it might be wiser to take such things to another venue (see what some of my co-wikipedians have said about that). However, if you're going to research something new, its always a good idea to see what's already there, to contrast with what you know. The things you find during your research might be quite relevant to wikipedia. Kim Bruning 18:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The term Republic has never been defined well. The Greeks defined all the systems of government. No one picked out how the Greeks defined a Republic. I am doing it now. Cicero was not Greek but got it right as Mixed Government.

Definition is compsed of two parts. The principle of Identity and the principle of non-contradiction. This is what Socrates says in the Republic.

When he thinks that he is reasoning he is really disputing, just because he connot define and divide, and so know that of which he is speaking; and he will pursue a merely verbal opposition in the spirit of contention and not of fair discussion. Republic, 454 Jowett translation Vintage books pg 174.

The Principle of identity is: A is A. A is not B or C. A is A. The Definition as got to be tight enough to exclude all others not having the characteristics of A. Right now as it stands, Republic is confusing terminology. Why? Because it is NOT Clearly defined. It has to be divided from what it is not. We do not label dogs as simply animals. Then, anything, birds, humans, cows can be labeled dogs. The definition of dog includes things that separate it from other things.

Well, excellent. Could you explain how the term as stated by wikipedia is confusing? Here's something to think about along the way. With your new definition of republic, you appear to have reclassified the United Kingdom (which might conceivably be, well... a united kingdom) as being a republic. Your definition might still need a little work. :-) Kim Bruning 18:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are wolves and foxes dogs? Eclecticology 17:48, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Principle of non-contradiction is that a subject can not hold two opposing predicates. This all goes into definition. Socrates went around in just this same way. This is the importance of Socrates and what is reasoning.WHEELER 15:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've learned to reason in many different ways to suit whatever the thing is I'm reasoning about. If we both apply our systems of reasoning and come to the same conclusion, then it's likely the conclusion will be correct. If we reach a different conclusions then either one or both of the 2 systems were flawed, and one or both of the conclusions are going to be flawed. This is why it helps to have multiple systems of reasoning on hand. They're tools, and at least one of those tools is likely to fit, right? Kim Bruning 18:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Bruning, can I ask you a favor--Can you reformat your responses in the Socratic dialogues to the end of each part. Can I suggest a [a reference number] to mark where your response you want to reply to. That would look nicer and those Socratic dialogues are quite artistic if I do say so myself. They kind of interfere with the artistic expression of the points.

Request denied. Kim Bruning 17:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler's principles of definition may be very solid, but when he tries to apply those principles to a word that is already in common mis-usage his chances of success are negligible. He would have better success by coining an entirely new word. Definitions are inherently not provable, so philosophers of science reject that they can be considered as scientific hypotheses. Political concepts are notorious for escaping the definitions that were originally applied to them, and it's impossible to put that genie back in the bottle in the way that Wheeler appears to be attempting. Eclecticology 17:48, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Mr. Eclecticology: As you correctly pointed out, the situation is terrible. But whose at fault. People who were encyclopaedists before us have been sloppy. DO WE ACCEPT THESE CONDITIONS? Do we accept the status quo of confusion? What is our job as encylcopaedists? What is our duty? Do we accept mediocrity or do we acheive greatness and perfection?198.108.150.2 17:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In response to "Putting the genie back in the bottle" because words mean things. Change the meaning and people's concept may not change. Words are attached to meaning. Words are used to deceive and manipulate. Propaganda is on this very principle. Let use a Socratic shall we.

republican form of government

is it possible to view it?noknow|ledge