First, we were talking about *murder* rates, not "violent crimes."
Second, if you provide the citations, I can comment further, but with a vague reference to "cites" it's hard for me to have any idea which studies you might be referring to. Please cite only published journal articles -- not, "Professor Olson came up with the following statistics..." We all know how unreliable that can be.
Third, we were talking about murder rates among *voters* -- not self reports of prisoners as to whether they are Republican or Democrat.
For a variety of reasons, blacks are about 4 times more likely to identify themselves as Democrats (e.g., the GOP's opposition to affirmative action as well as the *perception* of racism... Strom Thurmond? Trent Lott? David Duke?). Most other demographic groups split nearly 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, but blacks quite clearly prefer the Democrats. Given the disproportionate number of black males in prison, I wouldn't be at all surprised if self-reports among prisoners showed a higher fraction of Democrats than Republicans. But, again, "prisoners" (especially "violent-crime prisoners") is a completely different population than "voters."
-Mike P.
p.s.: The reasons there are a disproportionate fraction of black males in prison is a completely separate topic... and I doubt we'd come to any sort of agreement as to what these reasons are.
There is no "technically," Tom. That's a reductionist definition you'd find in a dictionary, and it's not very useful, at that.
The word has been in evolution since ancient Rome's "res publica" ("the public thing," or "the public wealth"). It's a term that has no uniform definition, although it does have a uniform element, which is that a republic has always been a government that governs for the public welfare. In fact, several doctrines of republicanism have emerged over the centuries, of which the US government is based on a particular one: the Hamiltonian. It's only one of the contemporary definitions, the cases of the USSR, and of Cuba, being accepted by virtually all authorities as "republics," however cynical and false they may be in their expressed intentions.
Dictionaries only confuse the issue by absurd reductionism. Encyclopedias are little better. This is a subject that has to be studied seriously.
BTW, you can skip Plato's _Republic_.
You'd do better to skip the dictionaries for this one and move up at least to an encyclopedia. Here's Britannica:
"Government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes."
The definition you've given is closer to the one for aristocracy. In fact, oligarchy is a pejorative term for a debased aristocracy. Britannica again:
"Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. In this sense, oligarchy is a debased form of aristocracy, which denotes government by the few in which power is vested in the best individuals. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling caste-a hereditary social grouping that is set apart from the rest of society by religion, kinship, economic status, prestige, or even language. Such elites tend to exercise power in the interests of their own class."
"Ostensibly" is the key word. Republics are defined first on intent: "the public thing" or "the public wealth." In other words, the public welfare. Then we judge them on their success: not as to whether or not the public welfare is their expressed purpose, but as to whether they're successful at achieving it. That's what Franklin was talking about in his famous quip.
The "technical" definition you gave for a republic is structural. But the uniform thread that runs through the historical evolution of "republic" is not structural. It's functional, and the res publica is an expression of intended function, not of government structure.
So a republic is, if nothing else, a government intended to serve the public welfare. The reductionist definition of "oligarchy" that you provided, on the other hand, skipped over the entire point of the term, the one that distinguishes it from an aristocracy. It is, as Aristotle says, the rule of a few for their own selfish welfare.
It would be wise if you re-opened it. I could recommend a reading of the three-volume _Republics Ancient and Modern_ by Paul A. Rahe. Historians praise the heck out of it. I've read only the first, but I intend to get around to the other two some day.
I guess every group has its lunatic fringe element. The Conservatives have Rush Limbaugh, the Liberals have Bill Maher, and metalworkers have Al Babin. Its a mistake to judge a group by its loons, but they are always so loud, so shrill, and so extreme that they tend to drown out the more sane and reasonable members of the groups that they appear to represent. This is why I was only half-joking when I said that the often decried 'liberal- controlled media' sponsors conservative talk radio in order to discredit conservatives.
I suspect very strongly that if someone were to do an unbiased study, it would be found that the incidences of corruption and deception among politicians throughout this country's history would be largely evenly distributed across every party. The same would be true of the amount of bullshit spewed by every group's lunatic fringe. Of course, the lunatic fringe would have none of that, and would immediately descend into nit- picking arguments over *which kinds* of corruption and deception are worse than others (and naturally the other side's indiscretions would always be more egregious than their own side's).
Depends on which party will get them out faster, or give them and their family more "intitlements", doesnt it?
Hummmm?
Chuckle
Gunner
"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas
Hee hee. Was that a petard I just heard being hoisted, or whatever they do...?
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
No, this has been discussed at length by others in another thread. The individual's conclusion was that they're
*evil* because they're democrats. Or maybe they're democrats because they're evil.
Anyway the criminal part follows from the nature of evil I think.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
Me, too. I deal with a lot of these people in my job and the ones I have asked aren't interested in politics at all. Don't know anything about what's going on and don't vote. Admittedly a very limited survey. Sue
is too blatant. A republic and an oligarchy are exact opposites.
a monarch.
a dictionary, and it's not very useful, at that...
On the contrary, there bloody well is a "technically" when it comes to defining forms of government and forms governmets are defined by structure, not intent. Accuracy counts: your aunt differs from your uncle, although both are kinsmen.
While your version of the word's etymology is fascinating, the salient point it that a republican form of government is simply one that has a head of state who is NOT a monarch. Any reference to concern for the "public welfare" is irrelevant and not related to the definition as innumerable states have had a republican form of government that were most assuredly NOT concerned with the public welfare.
an encyclopedia. Here's Britannica:
privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes."...
Argumentum ad lexicon? Read your quoted material, paying careful attention to that portion which precedes the qualifying clause and is true for all oligarchies: "Government by the few..." The qualifying clause following the comma is true for some oligarchies, but not all oligarchies. The devil is in the details.
wealth." In other words, the public welfare...
Nonsense, a republican form of government - any form of government - is defined by structure, not intent.
achieving it...
We? Who the hell is we? Unless you are afflicted with vermin, please use the first person singular. If you are so afflicted, you have both my apology and my sympathy.
uniform thread that runs through the historical evolution of
Silly me, defining a form of government by its unique structure instead of by a claimed function common to many.
Nonsense. Several forms of government are intended to serve the "public welfare," but their structures vary greatly.
An aristocracy is but one of many oligarchic forms of government: Did you wish to argue otherwise?
The Dead Greek Card? You're kidding, right?
I'll be glad to: What part was beyond your comprehension?
Aha. Well, this causes some confusion in light of your earlier messages, in which you said the US is not a true democracy but that, "technically, the US is a republic"...but a true democracy is not a monarchy, so a true democracy would be a republic by your definition...but you contrasted a true democracy with a republic in defining what the US government is...hmmm...
Is there a way off this roundabout? Would you care to refine your definition?
Ok, let's see if we have your definition straight. A republican form of government is simply on that has a head of state who is NOT a monarch, and you define your forms of government by their unique structures. Correct so far?
So a pure democracy is a republic; a military dictatorship is a republic; a representative democracy is a republic; and a tribal oligarchy is a republic. Now, what about that "unique structure" business? If these are all republics because they don't have monarchs, and if a republic is defined by its unique structure, how do you reconcile, for example, the "unique structure" of a representative democracy with that of a military dictatorship?
That's the trouble with reductive definitions. You're probably using the one from Webster's, which is worded almost exactly as you have worded yours. But, obviously, it doesn't work.
You're a clever fellow, Tom, but the most you're going to do with this line of argument is start a run for the authoritative references. The thorough ones explain that the definition of "republic" is neither simple nor uniform, that it can be based on the structure of a democracy or of a form of aristocracy, and you'll sooner or later encounter the fact that the Madisonian or Hamiltonian (it's been called both; I think that Madisonian is more accurate) definition, which is the one you seem to be adhering to, is only one of several.
In fact, although "Encarta" is not my favorite reference, they make a clear point of it:
"In the theoretical republican state, where the government expresses the will of the people who have chosen it, republic and democracy may be identical (there are also democratic monarchies). Historical republics, however, have never conformed to a theoretical model, and in the 20th century the term republic is freely used by dictatorships, one-party states, and democracies alike."
No uniform model. No "unique structure." Only a complex history with one common thread, that is "a form of state based on the concept that sovereignty resides in the people." (Encarta again). One concept, many structures.
Ah, yeah, that's exactly what I said. I thought you were saying that a republic is a unique structure? But then you said a republic was "simply one that has a head of state who is NOT a monarch," and that opened up your definition to all sorts of...ah, "unique structures," eh?
Well, you're using a lot of Dead Greek words here, and it's worth giving the Dead Greeks a chance to tell us what they meant when they coined those words, right? Or are you a Red Queen kind of etymologist, who says that a word means exactly what you say it means?
The part where an intelligent man can, in one conversation, contradict himself so blatantly as with your "not monarch"/"unique structure" assertion, and not realize he just met himself going around in a circle.
The whole question does make me wonder about *white collar* criminals though. I'm willing to bet that *they* are interested enough in politics to be affiliated with one party or another. I wonder what the ratio of Republicans to Democrats is for those incarcerated for crimes such as embezzlement, and insider trading, etc.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.