Republic = Res Publica = Public Thing, Public Affair. It means the state belongs to the people
Democratic = Demos Kratia= Rule by the people (literally: the power belonging to the people of the community)

Both are correct to describe the USA. Technically speaking, the USA is a Representative Democratic Republic (you can also add "Constitutional" in there, if you like).
You know that piece of paper that starts with "We the people"? That pretty much defined it as a democracy. Maybe you are confusing it with Direct Democracy (as opposed to Representative Democracy), where everything is decided by direct vote by the whole population.

Now, about your arguments. Comparing "Google Glasses" with "slavery or death" is kinda funny, really. But I understand the point you are making. The point, however, is quite different. Requiring 4/5 Majority (or 100% majority) is not feasible, and it is actually not required for most decisions, not should it be. It would ultimately lead to anarchy, following the total collapse of a frozen system.

Your last argument of not being able to vote with your wallet to trump someone else's rights is valid, but based on a faulty assumption. You are working under the assumption that it was already decided it violates other people's rights, and the jury (and the people) is still out on that one. And one of the ways people express their decision regarding that is with their wallets. So what they are ultimately voting is on the question of it violating their rights or not.

Stay in school

Thank you. That is good advice for everyone. They even have some very good books on State Theory that cover all these subjects quite well. You should try one, if you haven't already.

Them let me explain it to you.

My point is that, if people are buying and using it, they are VOTING it is a good thing. It is a characteristic of capitalists societies, and generally referred to as "voting with your wallet". Thus, "the democracy of the wallet".

It is very easy to say "democracy is good" and that you defend it when people agree with your point of view. When they are doing things you don't agree (like violating your privacy), it gets tricky. But if you defend democracy (I'm making an assumption here), you have to accept it, like it or not. You keep voting (elections or shops) against it, but you accept the result of the democratic process.

Thus, when the parent post said it was "to vote out the government", I said it is also possible to vote out products, and the fact people are using them is a sign they are voting FOR it. And, as with a senator (which I used as an example), all it takes is a significant number of people (far from the majority) to make it happen. Still, it is both the economical, social and political system you live in and, if not you, that most of Americans claim to defend and support.

And no, I don't like it either, being overruled by people who lack even the basic common sense. It is the price we pay to have a system that is not as bad as the other alternatives, although it is far from ideal.

Also, I'm sure most people will appreciate if you ask for clarification next time you don't understand something, instead of simply assuming it is a troll.

Cool. Are you also planning on replying to anything I actually wrote in my post?
Because what you wrote would be better located in a threat of its own.

Even if what you wrote on your post was 100% correct (and it is not), it would still have nothing to do with what I wrote. Just because saying "the sky is blue" is correct doesn't mean it is a valid answer to "how fast is your car?"...

If everyone else, or the majority of people, is wearing them, how is that different from voting? It is exactly the same principle.
I'm sure it take more people to make a Google product like this viable than it takes to elect a senator.

It is "the democracy of the wallet".

Notice: for people who will say that your privacy will be violated even if the majority is not using it, read again my second phrase about electing a senator.

That is just saying labour is an integral part of it. That is not the labour theory of value.

Mill, on the other hand, states plainly that the totality of the value of something depends on the labour applied. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here).

But, as I said, I will have to check my reference books tomorrow. Anything else I say on this subject, right now, will be purely based on my recollection, since I exhausted my notes already. And since it is 2:30am right now, it is not only my noted that are exhausted.

You will notice you were the one claiming it was Locke's work, not me. So the fact that Adam Smith lived after Locke doesn't contradict a single line I wrote. I will give I wrote 19th century on my first post when I should have written 18th (Mill and MacCulloch), tho. That was particularly lazy of me.

The fact capitalism existed before Smith is irrelevant, as we both know (interesting to notice since there are other people reading). The point being that the existence of capitalism and one of the economic theories that explain/analyse it was two separate things.

Actually, I think our only point of content is: was Locke the first one to create the labour theory of value? I really don't think so. I checked my notes here (I wrote a paper about it a couple months ago), but I have to confess I don't have my economy books around. My notes point to James MIll and MacCulloch being the first ones to create a pure labour theory of value, after removing capital (David Richard = labour + capital) and land (Adam Smith = labour + capital + land) from the equation.

Saying Locke's theory are the basis is like saying Aristotle's theories are the basis for it all. It is technically correct, but it doesn't mean Aristotle created the labour theory of value either.

But I promise you I will check my reference books again tomorrow, but I do ask you to do the same, since I sincerely believe you are mistaken.

Maybe this is not the best place to talk about this, but...

James MIll and MacCulloch might have had problems with you giving Locke the credit for this theory. Also, it was all an evolution of Adam Smith's work which was, for the time, nothing short of brilliant. That is also not the basis for either capitalism or socialism (which you are incorrectly calling communism). Marx's theory of value is not the labor theory. His theory, Surplus Value or Plus-value, is one of the basis for socialism and, although labor is an integral part of it, it is not the same thing.

Surplus Value would be argued as one of the basis of capitalism, except it is too simplistic. You would have better luck checking (my translation here might be wrong) the theory called Limit-utility or Marginal Value, which is one of the theories that approached the most the capitalist model, since it takes into account marketing fluctuations, offer/demand issues etc.

That is called Labour theory of value, a 19th century theory of value that has been long since disproven.

Things produced by robots might end up being cheaper (mostly because of scale of production), but their price will be far from "close to zero".

http://www.amazon.com/Pirate-Cinema-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765329093

Interestingly enough, it also happens in UK...

You know Leland Yee didn't make the gun and publish the plans, right? And it is about him, the lawmaker, California State Senator Leland Yee I'm talking about?

I wonder if anyone is going to tell him there are cheaper and more efficient ways (for larger numbers) to make homemade guns.

His heart is in the right place, it is just his brain that has a problem...

You think that is bad, try a guild with "shared leadership", or "no leader", or "full democracy", or whatever, meaning there isn't someone calling the shots, and we had to "see what everyone thinks" every step of the way.

THAT is painful.

And there is it, my friends. The time investment is just too huge. Ok, I was playing way past 20 hours/week. 40 minimum, sometimes going past that when new content was released.

Now, instead of playing WoW, this is how I'm using that time:
- Went back to school. Law school.
- I'm reading 5-8 books/month

and I still got time to spare.

I am still in touch with the people I've met while playing, and even consider some of them good friends. I don't regret at all having played, or even playing as much as I did. But I'm happy I moved on.

Pfft. We drank Scotch and ate Parma Ham while raiding.

Most of the people I know simply quit and didn't go anywhere else. Mostly, they play some single player games now and again.
We were all hardcore raiders getting some top 10 US marks, in some top 100 US guilds.

It comes a point where you are just tired of playing, and every other game is enough alike to keep us away.

So, in answer to your 'where to' question, I guess the answer would be: back to real life.