>a large republic can't exist because a true republic has to allow for the participation of all legal citizens>representative government doesn't actually make the people sovereign>elected representatives become the new sovereigns, the ones with actual power>the people continue to have no more real power than they had under a monarchyThis is a really interesting critique of representative democracy. A commonsensical one, I suppose, but I confess one I hadn't thought of before now. But it does make sense, doesn't it? How much do Senators or MPs or any elected officials really, truly answer to 'the people' once they're elected? They become sovereign in all but name, at least until they're voted out of office.From Chapter 4 of Considerations On France, by the way.
Rousseau said pretty much the same thing in the chapter "Of Deputies and Representatives" in his Social Contract. Here's a funny quip from him>The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing. In the brief moment of its freedom, the English people makes such a use of that freedom that it deserves to lose it.
>>24778335>because a true republic has to allow for the participation of all legal citizensWhy, that wasn't true of the Roman Republic or the Venetian Republic
>>24778417England has never been a republic except under the Protectorate
>>24778335That's the point of democracy it's a way of tricking people into thinking there free because they can support there side of an argument that democracy created.
>>24778335>the participation of all legal citizensFranchise was/must be limited and conditional-- because so is agency. Good character suffices as little as good breeding in isolation. Self-government requires good inputs from the intelligent and capable. There can be accommodations and modifiers as merit warrants, but they will always be less than the natively fit.>doesn't actually make the people sovereignThe mob's impaired agency requires the stewardship of actual Citizens with the Vote.>the people continue to have no more real power than they had under a monarchyBut the Citizenry does. As it should be.
>>24778564Republic =/= democracy The Third Reich and Fascist Italy and the USSR were republics
>>24778335>How much do Senators or MPs or any elected officials really, truly answer to 'the people' once they're elected?this reminds me of when Charles Coulombe was talking about the people's love for their king and loyalty even unto death in a monarchy and then rhetorically asked who would die for the federal government kek
>>24778417Why are frogs like this?
>>24778335Who says it has to be a "true" Republic to function well enough? Nobody. Philosophers are retards.
>>24778335>It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election.>-- Aristotle, Politics, Book IVHe pretty much came to the same conclusion as the Greeks, sadly the understanding of how the Athenian political system worked wasn’t wide spread at the time
>>24778428We seem to have a problem with the term republic because somewhere in 17 or 18 century it changed its meaning. Republic used to mean country as a 'common good' not as a 'propriety of souvreign'. One can see it looking at Roman Republic/early Empire or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. They both refer'd to themselves as 'res publica' yet in both there was a ruler (Cesar, elected kind respectively). Then it started to mean a political system without one single ruler.
>>24779786People in his day were justifying republicanism on precisely the high-minded moralistic grounds he criticized as impossible. It’s pretty obvious even from OP’s summary that his opponents are appealing to popular sovereignty, not pragmatic considerations. And “my alternative system works well enough” is hardly a good justification for a violent political revolution.
>>24780261>Then it started to mean a political system without one single ruler.Isn't it moreso that the legitimacy of the system isn't derived from that single ruler('s personal authority)
>>24780538>And “my alternative system works well enough” is hardly a good justification for a violent political revolution.The French Revolution wasn't bloody and they were planning for a constitutional monarchy before the Flight to Varennes and the discovery of Louis' retarded letter
>>24780732That actually makes sense and fits both definitions. But I wanted to highlight that republic before that times wasn't the opposite of monarchy. State could be republic and monarchy simultaneously
>>24778335Based and redpilled. All self-styled democracies today are effectively oligarchies.When I think of all the corrupt and incompetent fucks in the UK parliament, who can never be ousted because they've got safe seats, it makes me want to start a revolution. They will have access to the levers of power for as long as they wish. That is literally an oligarchy.
