Talk:Republic/Archive 3

message: "The view that democracy and Socialism are inwardly related spread far and wide in the decades which preceded the Bolshevist revolution.  Many came to believe that democracy and Socialism meant the same thing, and that democracy without Socialism or Socialism without democracy would not be possible." Socialism, Ludwig von Mises, pg 67.
What is really going on is that "democracy" is Marxism/Socialism.  George Bush who considers himself a "Christian" is busy spreading socialism everywhere---What a yahoo.  What dumb is, dumber does.
I am not deceived, people.  That is why the necessity of confusing the terms democracy with a republic.  To deceive the people into socialism-the heresy of our day.WHEELER 15:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the "hokey-pokey"

message: I have changed the basic defintion of a Republic from "one without a monarch as head" to simply "constitutional government".  Aristotle writes of this basic meaning.  The English government has always been called a "Commonwealth" or "Commonweal".  England for the majority of her existence has always had a Monarch as head.  A republic meaning "one without a monarch" is simply illogical and even against commonsense.  The basic meaning of republic and politiea, is constitutional government.WHEELER 14:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to be picky, but it's been a few hundred years since England had a monarch. Perhaps you mean the United Kingdom?
One can have a constitutional democracy. One can have a constitutional monarch.  One can have a constitutional aristocracy.  One can have a straight republic which is mixed constitutional government.WHEELER 15:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the basic defintion

message: *"A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses.  If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33.
*"At the time of the English Civil War of the 1640's some supporters of the Parliamentary cause took the radical position of advocating democracy.  They reached this position in part because of their religious convictions." ibid pg 35.
*"With the Crown, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons sharing the powers of government, the British constitution was a mixture or balance of rule by the one, the few, and the many, just as republican theory prescribed." ibid, pg 36. WHEELER 18:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What FOOLS

message: ::::::Mr. SimonP, your actions on trying to hide this when you deleted the material on the talk page, is a sign that you don't know what you are talking about and you have ulterior motives.  And your talking in circles when you don't want to acknowledge that you are heavily mistaken.
::::::You don't want to acknowledge the facts. Let me quote from The Prince, "Setting aside republics, about which I have spoken at length elsewhere; I will only concern myself with princely states..." (pg 4)  The Prince is not about any republics or democracies!!!!  The Prince is a handbook for PRINCES; Leaders of their state or city; nothing about 'republics!!!! Republics are discussed in his "Discourses on Titius Livius" not in The Prince. The English Bishop, Stephen Gardiner, was one of the Foundational stones in republican theory of mixed government, wrote an unpublished treatise on Machiavelli.  Machiavelli influenced the early Republican Theorists of England. 
::::::You don't know what the heck you are talking about at all.  And why do I argue with a man that can't understand plain English is beyond me.  If you can't understand Plain English, I can't help you.  Your not understanding of plain english  and your deletion of my points showing your errors shows that you are dishonest.  And if the administrators watching and reading this debate and are still going to let this stupidity continue is just beyond me. Your failure to see facts is a proof that your ideology is stronger than reality.  WHEELER 14:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I ever remove material from a talk page? Could you show me the diff where this action occurred. - SimonP 15:14, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Someone has conventently manipulated the page history.  How interesting.  On Friday afternoon, I came up on the computer and checked Talk:republic.  The whole section called "merging" was deleted.  I checked the page history and SimonP removed the whole section. So I reverted the section as 198.... Now, someone has manipulated the history page to show otherwise.  How interesting. On Friday afternoon, when I checked Talk:republic the merging section was gone!WHEELER 15:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: ::You just keep on talking in circles. And what I am witnessing is a coup de etat.  You destroyed my article in order to fulfill and rewrite history.  What "republic" was not mixed?WHEELER 18:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to your definition Athens was only a republic under Solon, but Machiavelli refers to Athens as a republic throughout its history. See Discourses Chapter LIX, for instance. - SimonP 19:21, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ancient/Modern, classical republicanism used, another link with the term classical republicanism, Course outline on classical republicanism,  Wikibooks: Classical Republicanism, Classical republicanism in Tudor England
Point is type "Classical Republicanism" at google and there are 45,000 hits. Machiavelli like most people confuse things and if he read Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, he would now there is a difference.  A democracy is not a state so it can not be a politeia. many people don't catch this.WHEELER 19:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: So if Machiavelli is wrong, whose definition of republic did you base your article on?  I never denied that "classical republicanism" is a non-existent term, in fact I read and cited  Zera Fink's The Classical Republicans for my republicanism article.  One important, but understandable, error you seem to have made is in assuming that "classical republic" is the term used to describe republics and thought on republics in the classical period.  Rather political scientists use the term "classical republic" to refer to the ideas of a republic during the early modern period, which were inspired by classical works.  Scholars acknowledge that the terminology is confusing and some thus advocate the use of the term "early modern republic" instead. - SimonP 20:05, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Your reasoning is always in circles.  Your repubicanism does not work in The Kyklos, What steps are taken that change a republic into a democracy or a republic into a tyranny?  Your article is totally worthless for that purpose.  Your republicanism is just democracy.  You confuse the terms.  What government did Sparta have?  Your circle reasoning is confusing.  Governments are defined by their "dominant" factor.  You use Greek terminology all except for the Roman word respublica which is a translation of a Greek word and yet to refuse to use their system of definition.  Can't be done! Dominant factor is the essence of all the differences between "forms" of government. WHEELER 20:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3