News Related To The Ukraine / Russian War

"In theory a benevolent dictatorship can be better than a democratic republic, but the risk is too high and there is the problem of succession." R5 #399
I asked my 9th grade history teacher, what's the most efficient form of government.
He said: "Benevolent despotism."

Succession is indeed a problem. Lookit what it's done to North Korea.

" Ukraine should be returned to Russia." R5 #400
R5, you obviously understand what's right, and what's wrong politically here.
Setting all that aside, do you have an opinion on what would be best for the quality of life of Ukrainians?

If for example a Ukrainian plebiscite demonstrated >70% majority of Ukraine favored maintaining Ukraine sovereignty at borders as they existed a year before Russia's invasion including Crimea,
would you support their preference? Or
would you instead say:
" Ukraine should be returned to Russia." R5 #400
 
I asked my 9th grade history teacher, what's the most efficient form of government.
He said: "Benevolent despotism."

Succession is indeed a problem. Lookit what it's done to North Korea.


R5, you obviously understand what's right, and what's wrong politically here.
Setting all that aside, do you have an opinion on what would be best for the quality of life of Ukrainians?

If for example a Ukrainian plebiscite demonstrated >70% majority of Ukraine favored maintaining Ukraine sovereignty at borders as they existed a year before Russia's invasion including Crimea,
would you support their preference? Or
would you instead say:

If the 2014 Maidan Coup had not committed treaty violations, then I don't think Russia had a problem with an independent Ukraine.
Look at how long they negotiated with Kyiv, from 2014 to 2022, before being forced to resort to war.
And in fact, Russia showed no hostility towards the Ukraine being independent from 1992 to 2014.

But what the majority of the Ukrainians want is not relevant.
The majority of Ukrainians are descendants of the failed Polish invasion of 1700.
So if they are racist and want to murder the ethnic Russian minority, that can not be allowed.
Their attempt to prevent Russian use of Sevastopol can not be allowed.
Their attempt to join NATO and put US nukes on Russia's border can not be allowed.
 
"But what the majority of the Ukrainians want is not relevant." R5 #402
Fine. BUT !
Self-determination is the premise of U.S. sovereignty.

So it appears either you're applying a double-standard, it's OK for U.S., but not for them, OR
you undermine the legitimacy, the right of sovereignty of the Peoples of the United States.
 
Fine. BUT !
Self-determination is the premise of U.S. sovereignty.

So it appears either you're applying a double-standard, it's OK for U.S., but not for them, OR
you undermine the legitimacy, the right of sovereignty of the Peoples of the United States.

Self-determination is not the basis of any republic in my opinion.
The premise for US sovereignty was defense from the violation of rights, like taxation without representation.
What if the majority of WWII Germans believed in the Holocaust?
It would still be illegal in my opinion.
The ethnic Polish in the Ukraine should be grateful they were not kicked out or murdered when their invasion attempt failed in 1700.
They should also be grateful they were not punished for running Hitler's death camps during WWII.
The movie, "Tarus Bulba" shows some of the historic conflicts between the Polish and Russian Cossacks.
 
"Self-determination is not the basis of any republic in my opinion." R5 #404
Founder Thomas Jefferson was explicitly clear in his Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed ..." TJ / DOI


"The premise for US sovereignty was defense from the violation of rights, like taxation without representation." R5 #404
That's self-determination.
 
Founder Thomas Jefferson was explicitly clear in his Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed ..." TJ / DOI



That's self-determination.

I think you are over simplifying.
A republic is the defense of inherent individual rights.
If the majority want to do something like slavery of a minority, that is "self-determination", but not legal in a republic.
Majority rule can be a lynch mob sometimes, so requires codified safeguards and judiciary to protect the rights of individuals from an abusive majority.
The majority of the Ukrainians want to murder all the ethnic Russian in the Ukraine.
But the ethnic Russians were there first and have treaty rights as well.

I don't have proof, but I think it actually is much worse than that.
I think the millions Hunter Biden got from Burisma Holdings were kickbacks from much large bribes the US sent to the Ukraine secretly.
So I think the whole Maidan Coup of 2014 was an illegal plot by the US.
I do not thing the ethnic Polish generals in Kyiv would have alienated Moscow unless the US had already started delivering weapons.
 
"I think you are over simplifying." R5 #406
For brevity perhaps, not to misstate or mislead.

"A republic is the defense of inherent individual rights." R5 #406
The first definition is from AHD. The second, Webster.

re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭblĭk)
n. 1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2.a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
[French république, from Old French, from Latin rēspūblica : rēs, thing; see rē- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots + pūblica, feminine of pūblicus, of the people; see PUBLIC.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.


republic
noun
1a : a form of government in which the power belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by the leaders and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law


Please note the term "individual rights" does not appear in either definition.
 
For brevity perhaps, not to misstate or mislead.


The first definition is from AHD. The second, Webster.

re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭblĭk)
n. 1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2.a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
[French république, from Old French, from Latin rēspūblica : rēs, thing; see rē- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots + pūblica, feminine of pūblicus, of the people; see PUBLIC.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.


republic
noun
1a : a form of government in which the power belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by the leaders and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law


Please note the term "individual rights" does not appear in either definition.

Those definitions are obviously wrong, since those are the definitions of a democracy, based on majority rule.
Majority rule is often ridiculed by the term "mob rule".
It is not at all similar to a real republic.

{...
Democracy and republic, while often used interchangeably, have distinct meanings, origins, and implications. Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the “people,” a group historically constituted by only a minority of the population (e.g., all free adult males in ancient Athens or all sufficiently propertied adult males in 19th-century Britain) but generally understood since the mid-20th century to include all (or nearly all) adult citizens. In contrast, a republic is a form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body.

The terms also differ in etymology. The word democracy has Greek roots and is derived from dēmokratia, which means “rule by the people,” while republic has Latin roots and is derived from the expression res publica, which means “public good” or “public affair.” In ancient Greece democracy originally referred to direct democracy, a system in which people voted on laws and decisions themselves. In ancient Rome republic simply meant a state or country and described a system where leaders were elected to represent the people.

In a “pure democracy” sovereignty is directly exercised by the people, either through direct voting or through mechanisms that allow for public participation in decision-making. In a republic, sovereignty rests with the people, but it is exercised through elected representatives.
...}

It is more complex than that really, in that a republic requires a Constitution or other codified protections of individual rights.
But this was the first response.
 
Excellent.
Please quote with link a dictionary of your alternate preference which provides a definition more to your liking.

This is an abstraction on inherent international law on human rights.
Which is pretty much the most recent definition of a republic.


We don't need a link to define a democracy since that has not changes, and is still just majority rule.
 
Back
Top