Talk:Republic/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Part V.a A Socratic 

message: ::Solution suggested.  Just like Democracy is a divided into (a) direct and (b) indirect, I suggest Republic is a Mixed Government based on a Constitution defining the parts and their duties.  (a) The Spartan Model which has King, Aristocracy, Demos. Britian is the Spartan model. (b) The Roman model which has as an head counsels or tribunes (a Changeable civilian head), Aristocracy (Senate), Demos.  The American form of Government is based more on the Roman Model.    This definition answers all cases were there is mixed government and excludes all and defines it clearly throughout time.  This will give students a clearer road on how to classify and define governments through history and maybe correct misconceptions and misdefinitions and this will utterly help the political discussion because NOW we know what we are talking about. The Republic is the 'genus' and 'The Spartan model'  and 'The Roman model' are the species.  The species both share in the definition of the genus but there are differentians of characteristics that divide one from another.
WHEELER 16:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Aristotle himself called the Spartans a monarchy numerous times in the Politics.  I don't understand why you keep trying to call them a republic.  Furthermore, your comments above don't seem any improvement to me on the language in the article now, which is very clear that republics come in many shapes and sizes (in fact, limiting them all to two so-called models seems more restrictive to me than it should be).  Use of the words "genus" and "species", as I've remarked to you before, is a misapplication of taxonomy to political science.  It may be useful for purposes of casual analogy, but we cannot resort to it in an encyclopedia article, or we will confuse and mislead our readers.  You have yet to demonstrate that any authority refers to a government such as that current in the United Kingdom as a republic.  As noted in this paragraph, Aristotle himself describes Sparta as a monarchy -- one in which the monarch held weakened powers, yes, but fundamentally part of the "monarchy" category.  Your ideas have the merit of being an unusual take on republics which has given all of us cause to consider political terminology, but I am afraid your quotations, though well cited, do not appear to me to compel us to accept your two model theory of republics -- it's original research, something Wikipedia is not.  Jwrosenzweig 20:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: As to the point that Aristotle calls Sparta a monarchy is nowhere to be found.  Politics II, v 14; 1269a 25-30; pg 133 Loeb "On the subject of the consitution of Sparta"  In Greek it reads, "tys Lakedaimonion politeias".  Sparta had a Constitution, therefore a Republic.WHEELER 17:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: WHEELER, thank you for providing citation information.  Sadly, we have a translation issue.  In the Jowett translation of the Politics (the one I prefer), the word "republic" appears 7 times, six times referring to the title of Plato's work, and once in reference to the government of Hippodamus.  Obviously, our translators are dealing with a word that is difficult, and my translator seems to prefer to avoid the word "republic".  Furthermore, the sentence you offer above from "Politics, II iii" -- that is a reference to Book II, Part iii, isn't it?  I could not find that sentence anywhere in my translation, nor even a close approximation of it.  Could you have mistyped the reference?  Obviously this is not easily settled.  And as to your final point, I don't see that you've established that Sparta wasn't called a monarchy -- I'll find you references if you want them.  Constitutions cannot be said to define a republic because there is such a thing as a "constitutional monarchy" -- or are you arguing that a republic is "any state with a constitution"?  Would that include the USSR, for example, as a republic?  Please clarify, and do check that first quote. Jwrosenzweig 16:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution suggested 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your quotation of Aristotle seems pulled out of context to me, and I cannot find it in my copy of the Politics -- we must have different translators.  Will you please provide a reference?  Furthermore, if we're going to rely on Aristotle as our chief source on government (he was brilliant, but I'd rather not), don't you have to accept that there are three kinds of government: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy?  So if republics aren't monarchies or democracies, according to you, are they oligarchies?  Your terminology, while it is fascinating, leads to very confusing conclusions for me.  Will you clarify? Jwrosenzweig 20:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote comes from Politics, V. vii 18; 1309b 39; or pg 435 in Loeb. As in confusing terminology please read above where I enumerate Aristotle's comment on how sytems of government are defined by the dominant factor.  Also look at the socratic.  Please read also Aristotle "A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state".  Politics II i 4; 1261a 20; or page 73 LoebWHEELER 15:29, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite your reference to Book V, Part vii, I cannot find the sentence to which you refer -- much talk of constitutions, but nothing concerning "destroying" them.  Perhaps my eyes are poor -- will you look at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html as a courtesy to me, and point out the sentence by copying it here?  I would appreciate it.  You and I seem to rely on very divergent translations.  I read Book II Part i, and cannot see its relevance to us (though I thank you for returning me to Aristotle -- it is pleasant to read him, even when I am not finding the answers you have sent me in search of). Jwrosenzweig 17:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of Interest 

message: "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)
thread_title: Anti-democratic character of the Constitution of US

message: 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)
thread_title: UK election?

message: 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.)
:Peoples Republic of China any of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, especially under Stalin, and famously of course, Nazi Germany, too many to name! Kim Bruning 10:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example?