freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2008 at 9:53pm:


Show me where I have suggested an undemocratic or less democratic system of government? You seem not to have read much about any political system nor have you comprehended what is posted here. You cannot show any example where any republican has suggested a less democratic system of government. You cannot seem to understand that complete separation from the British crown is (at the very least nominally) more democratic. You cannot seem to comprehend the difference between a Head of Government and a Head of State and you contradict yourself.

That's what a republic is. If not, we would have made the change already.

Would you please desist in making these ludicrous assertions about what a republic is. Please read something about systems of government first. Do you think that by repeating this garbage (that republics are necessarily undemocratic or less democratic than a constitutional monarchy) that somehow it will just be true?

Australia voted against a republic.

If you are referring to the referendum, then the only outcome you can be sure of is that Australians voted against a republic where the head of state was elected by politicians.  As two issues were fused there can be no unequivocal assertion from either side about the will of the people towards a republic per se.

the founding fathers of America designed their republic around fear and distrust of the will of the people?

The founding fathers designed their republic around fear and mistrust of European monarchs particularly the English monarch. They mistrusted all aristocrats and they prohibited titled citizens from holding Federal public office. Read the declaration of independence, the United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, They were all written to defend the people against not only unelected aristocrats but from government itself. The Bill of Rights specifically guarantees every citizen inalienable rights that cannot be legislated away.

Thomas Jefferson : “I have no fear, but that the result of our experiment will be, that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master”.

The experiment he was referring to was democracy which was unknown in Europe at the time. The master he was referring to was a monarch or unelected Head of State and Government or a feudal lord.

Why don't you tell us what it is then? If a republic is so much better, why the lack of details? Is it that you can't actually think of a republican model that is better than the one we currently have?

You mean you can’t even source the most basic information on what a republic is? Check out the structure of a Presidential Republic or a Parliamentary Republic. You do know how to source documents don’t you?

Australians aren't interested in unequivocal assertions about republics or monarchies. Only the ideologues are. Australians are interested in the specifics of how our democracy works and don't care what label the ideologues give it.

You arrogate too much to yourself. You don’t speak for Australians. Referenda and elections are the only sound indications of the will of the people. A question in referendum if properly defined will result in an unequivocal statement of will. Two issues were fused and the NO vote did not result in an inarguable statement of will.

They also mistrusted the will of the people and designed their republic around that fear. There is far more to being a republic than being 'not a monarchy'. For someone so keen to accuse others of ignorance of other democracies, you don't seem to know much about this issue. Then again, you seem to think all democracies are the same and that being a republic is more important.

You’re just making this up on the fly. Show me an instance of where the founding fathers architected the US Constitution out of fear of the people.

The Bill of Rights specifically guarantees every citizen inalienable rights that cannot be legislated away.

That's really nice, but irrelevant.

Irrelevant? How is it irrelevant? Again, you’re just making it up as you go along. No administration can deny any citizen the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Again, show me an instance where the Bill of Rights is irrelevant in this regard.   

So far I have not seen a single quote from any reliable source or reference to any reliable document from you that supports either your theories on republics and their relationship to democracy or your assertion that the US Constitution was architected out of fear of the people. 

Based on my knowledge of republics, we are better of with our system.

There is no necessary mutual exclusion with a republican system of government and democracy. A monarchy is by definition an undemocratic system of government in that the head of state is not elected by the people or the people's representatives.

You might as well have a referendum asking whether we should be nicer to each other.

No, we might as well have a referendum on whether Australia should be a republic.

You are the only Australian I have ever heard of who was unaware that republics and democracy were not mutually exclusive.

Is Australia a democracy? Is Australia a monarchy? This is the sort of stupid claim that makes Australians distrust the republican ideologues.

The Australian system of government is a Constitutional monarchy.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 2:40pm:


Of course and our Head of State is currently an unelected foreigner.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 2:46pm:


You mean monarchists not Australians.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:


The reality of the situation is that Australians expect of immigrants that they become Australian citizens. In a future Australia, the system of government will lead by example and demand of the unqualified head of state that he or she be a citizen of Australia.

An Australian first and only.