Posted on 09/09/2009 8:26:55 PM PDT by TheHound
So far you win. You have defined everything a Free Republic is not, and done so very well. The task was, however, to define what a Free Republic is. You do that as eloquently as you did, for what it is not, then you win.
By defining everything which it is not, the definition for what it is are all the things that set does not contain.
Q.E.D.
Honestly, I’m not sure myself,that is why I made the post. I believe it came from the Greek States, where totally different groups Federated for mutual protection.
Republic comes from the latin words res publica, the stuff, or things of the people, (more or less).
The Roman republic was a system that didn’t have adequate checks and balances between the powers of the senate, the consuls and the tribunes, and with time, various politicians learned to game the system, starting with the Gracchi brothers, and in the end, this led from the Roman republic to the Roman military backed Emperor system.
Our system, influenced at least in part by the neoclassical ideal of the Roman republic worked hard to set up a system with real checks and balances between the different branches of government. It only works as far as those in the system respect the system.
I personally would define a free republic as one that maximizes the liberty of the individual while allowing for reasonable functioning of society. Democracy unchecked leads to tyranny by whoever can sway public opinion. A truly free republic keeps the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority under control. Our constitution without the bill of rights was a brilliant stab at creating checks and balances. Without the enumeration of the rights, even that could have created situations where the liberty of the individual becomes insignficant. By enshrining them in the constitution, the founders also gave credence to the belief that I myself matter as much as the state itself.
So in my humble opinion, the freest republic is the one that takes care of the wellbeing of the populace while maximizing the rights and freedoms of the individual.
A hard juggling act, but one most worthy in my opinion. And one we need to be vigilant on. There are always those who want to run roughshod on the individual, and that way lies the loss of the freedom we’ve worked hard for for generations.
that is the primary question, since a Republic is the best form of government to receive the most controlled freedom possible without anarchy.
Anarchy does give the most freedom but it can not exist for long. Anarchist will claim that it can by forming a type of city/states organized without leadership or currency. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure out how long a small town would last without a leader of any type.
as i said earlier, a republic is not a very good system of government until you look at the others.
I know i didn't answer why should we have freedom. I was going to give a really long post on freedom but you know what this does a very nice job of it: Make Mine Freedom
A constitutional republic with the rule of law is the most free realistic form of government because it defends the weak against the strong. In anarchy, only the strong are free.
yeap
Really, this is HUGH and SERIES!
BTTT
Hahaha, “All your bases are belong to us”, “Hey dude don’t ZOT me”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.