rfenst wrote:Perhaps you are getting too critical with the definitions of "democracy" and "representative republic" for the conversation, unless Hoyo is on board with your definitions. As to a representative republic, I don't think that the rights of the minority are any safer because we are a "representative" as opposed to "direct" democracy. The represented majority can do the exact same things at will. Take a look at the civil rights era when the representative majority oppressed the black Americans; the women's' sufferage movement when the representatvive majority made sure women weren't allowed to vote; the early founding years of our country when one had to be a white, male land-owner to vote; etc, etc. What ever you want to call what we have, whether in strict political science terms or common parlence, don't think there is any guaraantyor even assurance of inherent minority rights as a result of the political system we have devised and live in. It's a hell of a lot more here that gives minority rights.
Oh, that gets tricky, especially considering that the rights of the minorities have been winning out against the will of the majority under the republic. You could argue that a democracy (by definition) would have trended this way also, but how can we prove it, and at what rate would it have happened?
Either way, the definition of minority in dp's argument probably isn't the same definition of minority in the modern sense, but rather, the group of voters whose opinions are in the minority. A republic can help defend those, even if in retrospect, they are not moral (white slave owners, for instance). This is probably a bad example of why a republic is better of course, as it allowed one minority group to infringe on the human rights of another, but I wanted to clarify the distinction.
