The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

Most modern nations are democratic republics with a constitution, which can be amended by a popularly elected government. This comparison therefore contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a "pure democracy", mainly to highlight the features of a republic.

@radeon Also, you realize that in a stratocracy, career politicians wouldn't really exist

If everyone were just slaves to the state, no problems would exist

apart from the fact everyone would be a slave

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

@NightOwl That's subjective.

so?

this has some good explanations but i do not totally agree

That's a really minor advantage versus the enormous disadvantage of denying rights to millions of people

The American constitution can have its amendments changed with enough votes, no?

what is with the strawmaning? @Deleted User

in the words of stratocracy "indentured servitude isn't morally wrong"

wut

@radeon Who says they want those rights?

And which don't they have?

@Deleted User how is that a strawman?

Yea you just confirmed you don't understand what rights are

the amendments by definition are changes to the constituion

Because you still act like they are granted to you and not intrinsic

@radeon implying a neocon knows what rights are

None of us are advocating for stripping natural rights from people

You guys are arguing over semantics

No, just legal rights, which is still illiberal and moronic

@radeon How about you go educate yourself on 'citizenship' and 'citizens duties'

I'm sayig "Let people opt out"

How about we violate nobody's rights except those who have individually forfeited them?

No one's rights are being violated

citizens benefit from being a part of the state, non citizens don't. the argument here is what constitutes citizenship.

even non citizens benifit

from the relative peace of having a state system

Everyone gets RIGHTS

Only citizens get PRIVLEGES.

^

And privelges come with a cost

this is according to ideology not what is actually being practiced.

correct

except for green card holders

Why give anyone rights when you give no one rights and give the ruling class privleges?

permanent residents have to contribute or they can lose that status

I would argue that they contribute by paying taxes

Actually, this might solve the open borders issue as well

Again you are basing this on your opinion. I sound like a broken record. You have nothing concrete to show us evidence for any one of your numerous assumption-based policies. You know none of this. You don't have an argument as to why people who don't "serve" shouldn't be allowed to have their say about the state that they have to live in. You don't know that creating an aristrocratic citizen class will improve anything. This is just opinions, bad ones at that.