The way I understand it, Democracy, in its strictest sense, is a govenmental system in which the population votes directly on matters of state.
__________________ For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of the incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it. - John Galt
The way I understand it, Democracy, in its strictest sense, is a governmental system in which the population votes directly on matters of state.
Direct democracy used to only be feasible on a small scale but I wonder with the growth in communication technologies if a more direct form of democracy could work efficiently now?
__________________
+++
"The Devil cunningly induces us- instead of arousing us against himself-to notice our neighbors' sins, to make us spiteful and angry with others, and to awaken our contempt twoard them, thus keeping us in enmity with them, and with the Lord God himself."
+ + +
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. St John of Kronstadt To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Direct democracy used to only be feasible on a small scale but I wonder with the growth in communication technologies if a more direct form of democracy could work efficiently now?
I think it is feasible, but is it desirable?
There was a real fear of mob rule by America's founders. They need only have looked to the French Revolution to substantiate those fears.
__________________ For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of the incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it. - John Galt
A democracy is where the people, not the government, decide what happens. Merely voting for who you want in power does not constitute ruling a country, but what you find in democracies is that popular opinion usually prevails in government policy. In short, democracy is where the government is afraid of its people, as opposed to people being afraid of their government.
__________________ Is not that which pleases the King, the law?- Thomas Cromwell, Secretary of Henry VIII
... which is why a viable democracy, (more often actually a republic or federated republic,) requires not just a constitution but an effective guarantee of minority rights.
Direct democracy used to only be feasible on a small scale but I wonder with the growth in communication technologies if a more direct form of democracy could work efficiently now?
Rousseau believed democracy could only work in small, homogenous communities. Most theorists of political philosophy agree that democracy is totally incompatible with human nature. It's always about excluding the people, whose instincts are always hostile to those of the official 'representatives' of the people.
Last edited by marlowe007; 1st November 2009 at 01:24 PM.
A democracy is where the people, not the government, decide what happens. Merely voting for who you want in power does not constitute ruling a country, but what you find in democracies is that popular opinion usually prevails in government policy. In short, democracy is where the government is afraid of its people, as opposed to people being afraid of their government.
Why base everything on fear like this? Seems medieval to me. I'd rather hava an inclination towards what Aristotle said:
I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.
I disagree with Supreme on a fundamental level. If someone fears someone else there is a tension there which might burst. Better if there need be no reason to fear, but plenty of reason to trust. Where fear inspires withdrawal and animosity, trust inspires openness and transparency. Sure you might make the government afraid of the people. Easy enough. But what's to stop the government should it be too afraid, from lashing out. Or gradually subverting the people's power?
Is it not better to have an openness, and trust? Is it not important to have a system where the government isn't afraid of the people but consists of the people? In fact, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about? To let the people rule as opposed to some social elite as was the case in the monarchies?
I, for one, don't want fear. I want accountability, yes. But accountability is not the same as fear.
__________________
Originally Posted by Helle Gannestad (Utøya massacre survivor)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
“When one man could cause so much evil - think about how much love we can create together.”
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
