Tony Blair coming back?

[pErvinalia]

It's a democracy just like all other republics like Australia are.

[Hermit]

It's a democracy just like all other republics like Australia are.

We're not even a republic. Remember that referendum we had about the issue?

[pErvinalia]

Other than the Queen as figurehead, we are a federal republic of the states and territories.

[pErvinalia]

...

[pErvinalia]

And the government isn't elected on the popular vote (a la Seth's narrow definition of democracy).

[Hermit]

Other than the Queen as figurehead, we are a federal republic of the states and territories.

Were we a federal republic we wouldn't have a republican movement, and we wouldn't have had that unsuccessful referendum in 1999 "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic".

[pErvinalia]

You are confusing two similar but disparate concepts: republic and republicanism. Look them up. You are usually good at knowing the fine differences between terms, so I'm not sure what is going on in this case. Remember, Seth is trying to explicate a difference between republic and democracy, not republics and monarchy.

[Brian Peacock]

Remeber, whenever Seth says 'Out Founding Fathers' we all have to repeat "Peace be upon them" in return.

His brand of constitutional fundamentalism is as bogus and impractical as any other form of political fundamentalism. Perhaps Seth rails against his marxists-under-the-bed because he fears that if he looks too deeply into that cramped, dark space he'll see his evil twin grinning back at him - or worse, his good twin? Who knows?

Blair is not a 'great man' even if he was a skilled and effective political operator. Getting to the big chair is obviously a team effort, but he mistook authority for personal virtue and, ignoring that team (which also comprised the electorate), put his personal interests before all others. This is what happens when one gives narcissists executive power - history is clear on that point at least.

[pErvinalia]

His brand of constitutional fundamentalism is as bogus and impractical as any other form of political fundamentalism. Perhaps Seth rails against his marxists-under-the-bed because he fears that if he looks too deeply into that cramped, dark space he'll see his evil twin grinning back at him - or worse, his good twin? Who knows?

[Hermit]

You are confusing two similar but disparate concepts: republic and republicanism.

Am I? You referred to republics like Australia. I quoted your post in full and pointed out that we are not a republic. After I reminded you of the failed referendum that asked if we should become a republic you doubled down, starting with "Other than the Queen" and reiterating thus: "we are a federal republic". Despite your repeated assertion to the contrary, we are not a republic, and that is what I keep pointing out. I was not even touching the concept of republicanism in this exchange because you were not either.

Afterthought: If you wish to discuss the concept of republicanism all I can do is to wish you good luck. About three quarters of this planet's nations include "republic" somewhere in their official name, and there were hundreds more stretching back to ancient times, beyond those of the inventors of the word "republic" (res publica - thing of the public) to Plato's Politeia. Distilling a concept from them all called "republicanism" that is coherent, consistent and all-encompassing would be nigh-on impossible without resorting to the no true Scotsman ploy.

[pErvinalia]

You are still missing the point. Seth isn't contrasting republic vs monarchy. He's (falsely ) contrasting republic vs democracy. You are focussed on the wrong concept.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep that the excuse given for the state of American politics; it is not a democracy.

[Svartalf]

to be precise it's a system that's completely fucked up because a number of its institution have been subverted and diverted from their original goal, due to the emergence of a two party political system that's gotten institutional when it shouldn't.

[pErvinalia]

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance, a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term;....


However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

[Hermit]

You are still missing the point.

You can argue with Seth as much as you like about whatever you like. I am arguing with you about your assertion that Australia is a republic, and my point is that Australia is not a republic. Nothing more than that.