Me: "Democracy is a shitty form of government anyways.
A Minarchal republic is better.
And to the person who said so, No, a Republic is NOT a form of Democracy."
Anarchist: "A Republic is not a form or Democracy?
Answer this... What do you use to elect your representatives?
Don't you use Democracy? Yes you do."
Me: "A republic CAN use democratic representation but doesn't HAVE to. Remind this person that Senators were NOT democratically elected until 1913."
Anarchist: "A Republic is not a form or Democracy?
Answer this... What do you use to elect your representatives?
Don't you use Democracy? Yes you do."
Me: "A republic CAN use democratic representation but doesn't HAVE to. Senators were NOT democratically elected until 1913."
Anarchist: "How were they elected then?
Without Democracy you can't elect a politician.
Did they just came to power by force? I can't think of anything else."
Me: "They weren't elected.
Another false dichotomy.
Appeal to Ignorance. Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the various states via Article 1 Section 1 Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution."
Anarchist: "Who choses the people in the legislatures?
How?
Democracy, majority.
Control and more control, one way or another.
Which history has shown how governments grow, degenerate and fail.
But don't think I'm against you forming your constitutional republic, you can, but let people secede from it, and as long as you can do that you'll be much safer and happier."
What are your thoughts on the last bit. How do I respond to his point about the legislatures being elected via democracy? It sounds like a slippery slope to me. But I'd like to hear what your thoughts/reply on it are.
What is the response to this (especially the bolded part)?
I've shown this to Shane three times (including this one) and haven't gotten a response.
Though it just occurred to me that the Anarcho-tard using the U.S. as an example of a republic being a subset of republic by the USA first using democracy to elect state legislators who would appoint senators isn't so much refutation of the point of republic not being a subset of democracy, but rather using a single example and saying "that's all that's possible": One big fat appeal to ignorance.
Also, he seems to think that the elections in the USA always involve the "mob" (51% or more of the population). That's not true. It's more like 12% (But I wouldn't call this a good thing).
But that does raise an interesting question. How else could the people ruling be appointed in a republic (besides using force like in a dictatorship, or by inheritance like a monarchy, of course) that uses even less democracy?
Also, while him and the other anarchists are right about how long governments last (deteriorating). That in no way strengthens the argument for Anarchy. Many Anarchies last only 10 or so years because of outside takeover (if I'm not mistaken). Granted, there was Anarchic Ireland (700 years) and Iceland, but Ireland lasting that long (I haven't looked into Iceland) out of many doesn't give a very strong case with that high a rate of failure.
Also, his complaint about Mob Rule is ironic for another reason. It's how courts/police/military would work (or could work) in an Anarchy (I recall Shane complaining about this in one of his free market videos).
PS: please respond, even if it's just to say you have nothing to else to add, or don't feel like going into this. ^^;
It's a lot to get into. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to cover everything. All the stuff I'm doing online is starting to get away from me.
It is? Wow. I didn't see that coming. That's OK, I understand you have a pretty full life.
Just glad I got feedback.
Thanks for the reply. :)
I think I might have found some of the problem.
Though my brain is having trouble putting it into words as well as I'd like, judging from the conversation you (Shane) and RationalRat had: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=2C_YBhY11yA&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D2C_YBhY11yA I'd say that it looks like the difference here is semantics in terms of what we mean by "democracy".
Mine and Shane's being direct democracy/mob rule.
and The Anarchist's being any government where some, but not all the people consent.