Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> 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":
> 

That's the old "Gospel according to Webster".  Lexicographers don't make good 
political scientists.  In a democracy such as existed in many of the Greek 
city states (at least for a time and at least for free males), any question 
could be put to a popular vote, the people could be appealed to at any time.  
 In 
a constitutional republic (as we are supposed to have) appealing every 
decision to the popular vote is seen as mob rule and is looked down upon.  
We've done 
it from time to time, but it is done against our political system and the 
results have been poor.

The distinction is very important.  We are a people ruled by laws, not men 
and not mobs.  Here we are supposed to be able to plan our very lives around 
principles of law and not worry about which way the wind is going to blow ten 
years from now.  Doesn't always work that way, but we must keep those who 
find 
the distinciton tedious reminded from time to time that pure democracies are 
not 
to be greatly desired.

James