Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> How can we take anyone seriously when they refer to the U.S. as a
> democracy.  It is a republic . . . .
>
> > Why New Rules?
> > Because the old ones don't work any longer. They undermine local
> economies, subvert democracy, . . .

You are knee-jerking and not reading carefully. "They" speak of old rules 
that subvert democracy; they do not say America is a democracy.

But now that you mention it, I find the insistence on the distinction to be 
tedious. What useful purpose does it serve? The USA fits both definitions. 
Here is the Webster definition of "democracy":

1  a government by the people: esp. : rule of the majority  b: a government 
in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them 
directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. involving 
periodically held free elections."

Sounds pretty much like the USA to me.

Here is the definition of "republic":

a  (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who 
in modern times is usu. a president  (2) a political unit  (as a nation) 
having such a form of government  b  (1): a government in which supreme 
power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by 
elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing 
according to law  (2) a a political unit (as a nation) having such a form 
of government  c : a usu. specified republican government of a political 
unit, the French Fourth Republic>   . . . .

Again, sounds pretty much like the USA to me.

What is the point of beating on a distinction?