http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com
Re:Yes!
Ovid on 2005-05-16T16:35:10
Why does that matter? No offense, but I've always viewed that as a pedantic point that merely detracts from the argument at hand.
Re:Yes!
sigzero on 2005-05-16T16:47:02
It depends on what the discussion (or argument) is about. Sometimes though there is a big difference between being a "democracy" which the founders were against and a "republic" which they created.Re:Yes!
jdavidb on 2005-05-16T20:42:40
I'm coming from where you're at. The way I see it, government began with the tyranny of conquest and monarchy, neither of which were justifiable. Democracy was invented as a hedge against the possible tyranny of unlimited government. As such, it was a great idea. But it is not an absolute defence against government tyranny, and I am one of a minority of people who wants to point out that "democracy != freedom," and that there may be better ways to do things.
I tend to see representative Republics in the same light. They were another great hedge against the potential tyranny of government, and offer some advantages over pure democracy. But to me they are still not the absolute cure, and "republics != freedom" as well. (The author of the article would probably flay me alive for saying that.) A representative republic stands a chance of being a better hedge against tyranny than a democracy, but the distinction is slight enough that I don't think it's the end of the world if we can't tell the difference. And I think we make a grave mistake if we equate either system with liberty and freedom, or assume that either system is the best mankind can conceive.
Here's a pair of example problems with democracy:
A democracy can vote to prohibit gay marriage.
A democracy can vote to compel the teaching of creationism in schools.
I believe both of these are serious problems with democracy, but morally, democracy teaches that a majority vote makes it right.
Re:Yes!
pudge on 2005-05-16T21:26:47
Why does that matter?
As Madison wrote in Federalist 10, "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."
Basically, he was saying the difference is representation. Of course, today, we mean "representative democracy" when we say "democracy." But are those the only differences?
To some degree, the difference is a matter of emphasis. My favorite example, because I think it illustrates the difference so elegantly: a Democracy might say that Senators should be popularly elected, but a Republic will say no, there are very good reasons Senators are (were) not popularly elected, and despite it detracting slightly from the democratic power of the people, it is important to maintain that separation.
One reason for this was given by Madison in #51: the legislature is more powerful than the executive and judicial branches, and one way to moderate this influence -- and thereby render the people more protected from tyranny -- is to make the legislature work against itself, by having the two houses have different modes of operation and election. There's more, but that's just one example to allow the argument to proceed.
So, in other words, a Republic is free to recognize that the best way to preserve the liberty of the people is sometimes by denying them. A Democracy is more bound to the principle of the voice of the people, instead of the liberty of the people. A Republic still recognizes that the government derives its entire set of powers from the consent of the governed, but it attempts to moderate the influence of the populace for the purposes of stability, preservation of liberty, and so on.
This difference becomes most evident when people say, "this is the will of the people!" -- such as gay marrage (pro or con:-) -- to support the view that something should happen because the people support it, even if it defies republican principles, which should be predominant.
Re:Yes!
Ovid on 2005-05-16T21:37:55
Yeah, as I posted in a follow-up, I was far too hasty in asking that question and I'm rightfully taking my lumps for it. What gets my goat is how often I hear conversation along the following lines:
Person1: we shouldn't have to put up with XXX in a democracy!
Person2: we're a republic, not a democracy.All too often the latter statement is a knee-jerk comment and sidesteps the actual issue rather than a attempt a legitimate discussion. Ironically, my response was a knee-jerk comment in turn.
Re:Yes!
pudge on 2005-05-16T22:35:10
But I am never one to avoid discussion of Republics when given the chance, so I don't care if you DID post a disclaimer, you opened the door and I stepped in!:-) Re:Yes!
sigzero on 2005-05-17T00:52:48
I actually thought that is what you were referring to but thought I would give you an opening to expand on your thought. : )Re:Yes!
jdavidb on 2005-05-17T12:20:59
Yeah, as I posted in a follow-up, I was far too hasty in asking that question and I'm rightfully taking my lumps for it.
I don't think you should take any lumps for it. That question befuddled me for years. As I noted, I finally understand the distinction people were trying to make, though I'm still not satisfied that Republics are the be-all and end-all answer to the preservation of liberty.
Re:Yes!
Ovid on 2005-05-16T16:49:04
And in reading the Web site, I see that they raise this piont, too. In fact, it's the entire point of the site, so your comment is particularly ill-placed. They do attempt to address my question and raise some interesting points, but much of the site is a collection of lies and half-truths. Much of it's pretty offensive.
And to be clear: I do think the distinction between democracy and republic is important, but most of the time people issue that correction, it seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. That's something I should have made clearer.
Re:Yes!
jdavidb on 2005-05-16T17:24:14
Much of it's pretty offensive.
Huh? I can understand disagreeing with the content, but being offended by it? What, exactly, offended you? Sounds to me like you get offended too easily.
I'm regularly subjected to content I disagree with, and I believe I benefit from the exposure. You generally have to try hard to offend me.
Re:Yes!
Ovid on 2005-05-16T18:25:42
I found the writing offensive because I find lies that promote bigotry and intolerance to be offensive. For example, their argument against multiculturalism is that if the concept was valid "there wouldn’t be such a tremendous number of people worldwide wanting to take up residency in the United States..." This "rebuttal" to multiculturalism is typical of people who pervert the argument, whether knowingly or not. Many of the people trying to get over to the United States are doing so for money or to escape violence. Having a fat wallet and a relatively peaceful society is only a small, small part of a culture. There are problems associated with multiculturalism, but "we're right and you're wrong" is not one of them.
The author further goes on to write:
But no—people aren’t flocking to Mexico, to India, or to any of the Islamo-Facist nations of the Middle East, and in fact precisely the opposite is happening... Because Western culture ... is still correctly perceived to offer greater liberty and opportunity than most any other place on earth. I just point that out to make clear that I'm not taking the author's words out of context. Taking two positive facets of our society and putting them forward as a justification for most of our culture is stupid. Naturally, I wasn't surprised when I discovered the author further went on to call for limiting immigration.
And let's consider the author's take on freedom of religion:
The concept of freedom from religion has emerged in recent decades to turn the 1st Amendment on its head, all but outlawing Christianity and rendering the biblical Christian worldview illegal “hate” speech for adhering to a set of immutable moral standards and postulating absolute truth.Outlawing Christianity? Calling the worldview "illegal hate speech?" This is the sort of propoganda the religious right peddles in an attempt to scare people. It's ridiculous. No one's calling for outlawing Christianity or labeling the Christian worldview "illegal hate speech" (though Christianity is sometimes used as a justification of thinly veiled hate speech, the objection is to hate speech, not Christianity, but I doubt our author would be bright enough to realize that.) Government should stay out of religion. It should neither endorse it nor suppress it. Money shouldn't be spent on those things. You want a nativity scene? Have you or your church put one up. Don't spend my tax dollars on it. You want prayer in school? Send your kids to a private school. Don't spend my tax dollars on it. And why are we spending my tax dollars on House and Senate Chaplains? If people want religion, why are they demanding the government fund it? It's a waste of my money.
What's frustrating in reading through this site is that the author raises valid points, but when I get to the author's recommended articles page, the truth starts to become clear. Many of those articles point to the Lew Rockwell site. This is an interesting bunch. Aside from following the Austrian School of Economics (which has flaws that I won't go into now because there's not enough room in the margin), they also like the idea of the South seceding from the union. I like that thought, too, frankly. I never met a nicer bunch of racists than those I grew up with in Texas. Let them have their little anti-immigration Christian nation down there and more power to 'em!
Re:Yes!
jdavidb on 2005-05-16T20:02:28
I found the writing offensive because I find lies that promote bigotry and intolerance to be offensive.
Amazing. I still think I'm not bigotted or intolerant, despite having read the site. It can't be promoting bigotry or intolerance that well, then.
I think perhaps you read more into the site than it actually said.
their argument against multiculturalism
I didn't see an argument against multiculturalism. I saw an argument against compulsory multiculturalism.
Real multiculturalism is when you simply take your hands off of other peoples' culture and let them develop on their own. You'll get a much better blend of flavors in the melting pot that way.
For the record, I'm often heard to remark that I wish people would quit going on about making English the "official language" so that we can just let society and culture sort it out. I'm looking forward to grandchildren who switch smoothly between English and Spanish (and who knows what) without even noticing.
Naturally, I wasn't surprised when I discovered the author further went on to call for limiting immigration.
I've got to admit I'm not in favor of limited immigration, either, but I know many people who seem to feel that way. But then, I'm also not in favor of restricting jobs from moving out of the country.
For me the only two concerns making me want limits on immigration for the present are the socialism in the United States and some security concerns that I expect to resolve themselves in a few years.
And let's consider the author's take on freedom of religion:
All I read is that the author wants absolute freedom of religion, which would allow all kinds of things that I presume you think he is "intolerant" of.
Outlawing Christianity? Calling the worldview "illegal hate speech?"
Honestly, there are those who feel that way and want laws passed. There are those who would try to interfere with persons who practice completely legal Christianity passing on those completely legal beliefs and practices to their children because they are "intolerant." Thankfully they are not too numerous and not presently in power. But one reason I don't like democracy is it means that if people of any oppressive stripe get to be too numerous, they automatically win. That means pro-religious zealots as well as anti-religious zealots. Hoping that neither of those groups grow numerous enough to cause a problem doesn't solve this security hole in democracy.
Government should stay out of religion. It should neither endorse it nor suppress it.
I think you and the author are in (virtually) complete agreement on this.
You want a nativity scene? Have you or your church put one up. Don't spend my tax dollars on it.
I don't know if the author agrees with you on that, but I sincerely hope so. I know I agree with you, especially since as a Christian I do not observe a religious holiday called "Christmas" nor support making displays of religious characters.
You want prayer in school? Send your kids to a private school.
I agree. In fact, I feel this way. But if we are not going to go that far, we should still forbid government-led prayer.
(Of course, that's completely different from the issue of student prayer, which is still allowed and should be. Since attendance in school is more or less compulsory, forbidding students from practicing prayer would be a violation of their First Amendment religious liberties. But that needn't concern anybody who doesn't want to be involved.)
And why are we spending my tax dollars on House and Senate Chaplains [c-span.org]?
I agree. I wish my city would stop having invocations for city council meetings, even though I don't think a cent is paid for it.
But I don't know too many people who feel that way, alas.
:( The author probably doesn't agree with you there. But then I don't view it as a character failing but as a failure to progress beyond the ideals of previous generations. For all their enlightenment about religious freedom, the founders of the nation still had invocations and chaplains. I have trouble finding much fault with someone for not surpassing the founders, though I do agree that we need to move on and progress. I never met a nicer bunch of racists than those I grew up with in Texas. Let them have their little anti-immigration Christian nation down there and more power to 'em!
I think any group of people should be given the freedom to secede from any governing body that they did not personally join for life. It's called the right of self-determination. It belongs to each generation, or else they will permanently be locked in to the decisions of their forbears. It belongs to formerly-Soviet-dominated states like Georgia. (Not GA, USA.) And it should belong to each of us, too, at the individual, municipal, state, and federal level. Now I can see that you might not agree with the idea, but it has zero to do with racism. I guess I could get "offended" that you've assumed you can associate me with racism simply because I believe people should have freedom, but I'm going to be bigger than that.
Re:Yes!
Ovid on 2005-05-16T20:37:58
I guess I could get "offended" that you've assumed you can associate me with racism simply because I believe people should have freedom, but I'm going to be bigger than that.I apologize. What I wrote apparently came out differently from what I intended. Having been born and mostly raised in Texas, I was horrified by the amount of racial and religious bigotry that I encountered there. That's not to say that everyone there is a bigot and I didn't mean to imply that, but I see how it can be read that way.
Re:Yes!
pudge on 2005-05-16T22:03:06
I didn't read the article, but when parts of the Bible put on a bumper sticker *are* prosecuted as hate speech in Canada, then it *is* scary.
Granted, one could note that with the incident in question, the offender was, in the view of many, making a de facto threat against homosexuals (I don't recall the specific slogan, but it basically said something about gays being killed, and had a biblical reference to support it).
However, just as many people cannot understand the distinction I just offfered, many others cannot tell the difference between quoting the Bible and actually proposing gays be put to death. And that is the part that scares me.
As to the broader issue of religion: it is nonsense to say "Government should stay out of religion." That is a meaningless aphorism, first and foremost because the Framers never intended it as absolutely as you describe it, and secondly because we can't define "religion" well enough to enact the idea. To me, humanism and atheism are religions, yet I can't recall seeing the ACLU up in arms about Hume being taught in school, or a jury refusing to provide for the death penalty because they believe in no afterlife.
And then there's taxation of religious groups. If a government cannot cannot fund religious activities, how can religious activities fund the government, and worse, since taxation equals control, it amounts to nothing less than government control of religion.
I am for a more traditional view of the First Amendment, that predates our current anti-religious hysteria: government should be essentially blind to religion. Don't exclude it (such as excluding them from taxation, or from receiving funds for welfare programs), and don't specially include it.
In other words, "what part of 'no law' do you not understand?" Restricting religious groups from government funds is explicitly forbidden by the First Amendment. So would be exempting them from taxation (except as one of many types of nonprofit organizations). No law means no law.
The difficult part is where such government activity might be seen as endorsement or persecution, as neither can be allowed. It's nonsense to say that funding a religious organization's charity work constitutes endorsement, any more than taxing them just like every other group constitutes persecution. You can't have it both ways. The problem today is that the mainstream left's position on religion in government is conflicted in a way that is punitive to religion, as clearly shown by those two examples.
So what is endorsement? Is allowing a local community to allow prayer before football games endorsement of religion? Is there a difference here between a taxpayer-funded nativity scene on public property, and a privately funded one? Is having a monotheistic slogan on our money acceptable? Prayer before Congress and Court sessions? These are not simple questions to solve, but it doesn't help to take a thoroughly anti-religious (and as such, unconstitutional) position to make the solutions simpler.
All that said, I do agree with you that the author was over the top in what you quoted.:-)
As to racism, I've spent quite a bit of time in Houston, Boston, LA, SF, Seattle, and Philly. By far, the greatest racism I experienced was anti-white racism by blacks in LA, and Irish-Italian racism in Boston, followed closely by anti-Hispanic racism by whites in LA (although by now, that may have surpassed both; I've not lived there since '95).
I didn't grow up in Texas -- and I realize it's a big place -- but I did spend several months in Houston, working in the inner city, and it was one of the least racist places I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing in any significant amount, after Seattle.
Also, I don't see how limiting immigration can be equated to racism. It's more about the economy than anything else -- over $10b annually in California alone in services paid to support illegal immigrants -- and secondarily about culture, not race. Yes, this culture clash often translates to racism; as I described above, I see a lot of anti-Hispanic racism coming from SoCal. But this racism is misapplication of the emotions stirred up by the negative economic and cultural impact of illegal immigration.
That is to say, it's a given that illegal immigrants who cost less to support and who more readily integrate into our culture are not nearly as objectionable as those who cost more and integrate less, regardless of their race. And just because someone is against illegal immigration because of the significant negative impact, that says nothing about whether they are racist.
Re:Yes!
rafael on 2005-05-17T07:59:56
Well, atheism is certainly not a religion. Atheism rejects the idea that a civilisation, a century, or the whole humanity can be the center of the universe, because there is no such center. The very whole purpose of religion is to propose and build such a center, by a process which is psychotic in nature.Re:Yes!
pudge on 2005-05-17T14:44:45
Well, atheism is certainly not a religion.
No, it certainly is a religion.
Atheism rejects the idea that a civilisation, a century, or the whole humanity can be the center of the universe, because there is no such center. The very whole purpose of religion is to propose and build such a center, by a process which is psychotic in nature.
Your definition of religion is flawed. Defining it in terms of psychosis is nonsense, and many religions don't propose a center at all, such as Hinduism. Further, I can't speak for most religions, but it is a severe mischaracterization to say that Christianity's "purpose" is to propose that anything but God himself is the center of the universe.
But worse, it really ignores the context of the discussion. The operative thing in that context is to define religion in terms of how the Framers intended it. Did they mean only belief systems which recognized a higher power, or center, or did they mean any set of scientifically unprovable beliefs, a faith, about how the world and universe work together, that are likely to cause rifts between people of different faiths, that should therefore not be legislated for or against?
The Framers didn't care about the nature of the faith, only that it is a faith, one that should not be legislated for or against, one that would cause problems for the country if it were. It seems pretty clear to me that this is what they intended, and that atheism necessarily fits that definition: it is obviously scientifically unprovable and requires a belief, a faith, in these unprovable tenets.
Re:Yes!
rafael on 2005-05-17T15:02:27
Your misguided claim that atheism is scientifically unprovable shows that you don't understand it. But that's normal, since you're a theist. Please just stop to try to characterize something that's beyond you.Re:Yes!
pudge on 2005-05-17T15:22:28
Your misguided claim that atheism is scientifically unprovable shows that you don't understand it.
You cannot through science prove that God does not exist, which is what atheism claims.
Please just stop to try to characterize something that's beyond you.
rgs, what crawled up your ass? You completely mischaracterize Christianity, and then bitch to me about mischaracterizing atheism?
Of course, I didn't mischaracterize atheism. But even if I had, you have no right to sit on a high horse about it, after claiming those silly things you did about other religions.
If you can't have a rational discussion without getting nasty, perhaps you should go elsewhere.
Re:Yes!
rafael on 2005-05-17T17:25:46
You cannot through science prove that God does not exist -- of course you can : history of religions, ethnology, anthropology, neurobiology, psychology, all give extremely powerful arguments.Re:Yes!
pudge on 2005-05-17T18:29:29
You cannot through science prove that God does not exist
of course you can : history of religions, ethnology, anthropology, neurobiology, psychology, all give extremely powerful arguments.
No, they do not. None of them give any arguments, whatsoever, of any kind, that point to the nonexistence of God. You're making stuff up.
I challenge you to present one, just one, argument that even begins to point to the nonexistence of God. As none exists, I expect no reply, but if you do reply, I shall have no difficulty in showing how it does not show what you think it shows.
Re:Yes!
pudge on 2005-05-17T18:32:24
I challenge you to present one, just one, argument that even begins to point to the nonexistence of God
I mean, of course, a scientific argument.
Hell, I'd like to even see an experiment postulated that could possibly, even if the test is not necessarily feasible, prove that God does not exist. That is to say: I am doubting that you can even come up with a theoretical method by which science could prove God does not exist. I've never seen one.
Prove a negative
gizmo_mathboy on 2005-05-18T21:28:20
Isn't there something about not being able to prove a negative?
I would say that atheism, in the context of the First Amendment, is a religion. In fact, a few years ago a case was decided against a teacher/school that didn't allow a child to do a book report on what a bible story turned into a children's book.
The decision boiled down to the state can't promote non-religion or anti-religion or however you want to look at it.
The state should be neutral regarding religion.Re:Yes!
jdavidb on 2005-05-17T17:25:21
Hey, cool it.
Regardless of how anyone feels about atheism, the fact in the context of this journal entry and this article is that each person is entitled to whatever beliefs he wants, right or wrong, faith-related or not. Part of pudge's point, which I believe you missed in your haste to apply corrective action, was that we cannot and should not legally distinguish between beliefs as being "religious" or "non-religious." You want to believe something and make choices and have whatever rational or irrational practices you want based on that belief, you should be utterly allowed to as long as you are not infringing on anyone else's rights.
And pudge is right that you totally missed the point of religion, at least as far as Christianity goes. As he said, if you have the idea that Christianity proposes any center for the universe other than God, you've misheard or misunderstood.
Re:Yes!
rafael on 2005-05-17T17:51:49
we cannot and should not legally distinguish between beliefs as being "religious" or "non-religious." That's a very sane statement.That said, understand also that's it's offensive for an atheist, who defines him/herself as out of any religious system, to be equated precisely to what he wants to evade. Just tell a GNU advocate that free software is just one special kind of commercial software, and you'll see how he responds. (Reformulated in software terms, it's now obvious that this was a troll. I must apologize to have fallen into it.)
Re:Yes!
jdavidb on 2005-05-17T18:58:21
That said, understand also that's it's offensive for an atheist, who defines him/herself as out of any religious system, to be equated precisely to what he wants to evade.
Okay, but I think some people here keep getting offended too easily. I could get offended by the fact that you implied the cause of all religion is psychosis, but I'm going to be bigger than that. I could further be offended by the fact that you mistakenly identified the purpose of religion as being to propose a particular race or century as being the center of the universe while simultaneously snarling at pudge not to characterize things he didn't understand, but I'm going to be bigger than that. (And unless I'm mistaken, you've previously gone on the record as stating you don't understand the religious viewpoint.)
As far as being offended, recognize that pudge believing that atheism is a religion doesn't actually hurt you. Now, if pudge starts attempting to infringe your rights and compel your participation in his religion, let me know, because I will be on your side.
Just tell a GNU advocate that free software is just one special kind of commercial software, and you'll see how he responds.
Actually, GNU folks have no problem with commercial software, but with proprietary software. See their article, "Selling Free Software Can Be Okay," and their "Terms to Avoid."
Re:Yes!
pudge on 2005-05-17T19:41:48
understand also that's it's offensive for an atheist, who defines him/herself as out of any religious system, to be equated precisely to what he wants to evade
You have a faith, an unprovable and unscientific set of beliefs, that says God does not exist.
Either that, or you are not what most people call an "atheist." This is the essential component of atheism as popularly understood, as the term is popularly used, by an overwhelming majority of the people who use the word, and adhere to the system of belief.
Whether or not it is a religion is an important point, because people try to define "religion" so narrowly so as to include belief systems they dislike, but exclude those they like, and that is inherently unreasonable. But worse, no such definitions exist, that I have ever seen, that include everything we all believe are religions, exclude everything we all believe are not religions, are internally consistent, and exclude atheism. Those three requirements, in my experience, always necessarily require the inclusion of atheism.
If that offends you, so be it, but there's no sense in getting nasty about it, and even less sense in going off and claiming you can scientifically prove the nonexistence of God.
Re:Yes!
sigzero on 2005-05-17T20:52:35
Atheism is the religion of no religion. And you are absolutely right in stating that it is a religion.Re:Yes!
Aristotle on 2005-05-21T07:44:58
That said, understand also that’s it’s offensive for an atheist, who defines him/herself as out of any religious system, to be equated precisely to what he wants to evade.
Atheism is a religion. The existence of God cannot be proven and neither can it be disproven, therefore to believe that no God exists is a faith. Agnosticism, not atheism, elides the issue of faith.
Re:Yes!
rafael on 2005-05-27T15:25:47
"Atheism is a religion." War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.Re:Yes!
Aristotle on 2005-05-21T07:34:15
Your misguided claim that atheism is scientifically unprovable shows that you don’t understand it.
Mu.
The question of whether God exists is outside the very scope of science.
If our understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity is correct, then there are physical limits to how much insight we can gain about the Universe; because they impose limits on how much of the Universe we can subject to the scientific method of theoretic prediction and observational review. This means we will never be able to extract an objective answer to questions like why the Universe exists, whether there are others like it, what is ”outside”/”before”/”after” it, or even just what happens inside of a black hole.
[FWIW, I am agnostic; and shall be until such time that the existence of God can be proven or disproven, ie, for all intents and purposes, indefinitely. In the meantime, I am strongly opposed to a conflation of politics and religion and fully in support of the freedom to practice religion on one’s personal terms.]
On my less cynical days, I am happy to be in the United States, but find myself wishing for a more ideal government. On my more cynical days, I keep thinking that democratic processes do not actually produce better choices; they just shut up more of the populace if the populace is an ornery sort.
Re:Apoliticist
jdavidb on 2005-05-17T19:15:24
I think I pretty much agree with you. According to Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, government is merely an institution designed to secure rights, i.e., freedom. Freedom is not granted by government; government is just a bunch of armed men organized supposedly with a view toward protecting freedom. Unfortunately that organization, pooling of resources, and arming results in a very powerful force that can be subverted to other ends, resulting in a loss of freedom.
Re:Apoliticist
sigzero on 2005-05-17T20:56:38
"I have to say that no form of government equals freedom"
I actually do not think it would work that way in practice. Although I understand the sentiment.
Re:Apoliticist
chaoticset on 2005-05-17T22:37:30
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.:)
Re:future of freedom
jdavidb on 2005-05-20T13:25:03
Helluva post there jdavidb.
:-) Heh; thanks.
:) I constantly say that democracy is not freedom. Zimbabwe is a democracy but I wouldn't say the people there have any sort of freedom. Same goes for just about every "bad" country in the world
I remember being dumbstruck in school when I learned that nearly all Communist countries had "democratic" in their names. "The People's Democratic Republic of China," etc.
