JasonZavoda wrote:
At what point in history has there ever been a democracy?

In Greece and the surrounding region of the Mediterranean in the classical period (say, 6th through 4th centuries BC), you had a lot of independent city states which tried different types of government -- many of which had a democracy at one stage or another.  When Aristotle surveyed Greek constitutions in the 4th century BC, he divided constitutions into six broad categories and had democracy, what we would call direct democracy (not a representative democracy), as one.  He didn't think it the most superior in all respects.  The most famous is Athens, which had a democracy during several periods I think.  Note that we are talking all male citizens entitled to vote; not women, slaves, and non-citizen residents. In many cases in cities, this was a relatively small number.  

Actually, I don't think that a direct democracy would necessarily be disastrous in a small territory or population, given certain safeguards in place.  What it would be is a pain in the ass -- and you do find commentary to that effect in some contemporary texts -- where people actually don't want to be voting all the time, but are happy to allow many decisions to be left to a smaller group of citizens.

red_bus wrote:
In Greece and the surrounding region of the Mediterranean in the classical period (say, 6th through 4th centuries BC), you had a lot of independent city states which tried different types of government -- many of which had a democracy at one stage or another.  When Aristotle surveyed Greek constitutions in the 4th century BC, he divided constitutions into six broad categories and had democracy, what we would call direct democracy (not a representative democracy), as one.  He didn't think it the most superior in all respects.  The most famous is Athens, which had a democracy during several periods I think.  Note that we are talking all male citizens entitled to vote; not women, slaves, and non-citizen residents. In many cases in cities, this was a relatively small number.  

Actually, I don't think that a direct democracy would necessarily be disastrous in a small territory or population, given certain safeguards in place.  What it would be is a pain in the ass -- and you do find commentary to that effect in some contemporary texts -- where people actually don't want to be voting all the time, but are happy to allow many decisions to be left to a smaller group of citizens.

Athens and the greek city states were not democracies for exactly the reasons given that limted the entitlement to the vote. Either every adult in a society has a vote or you don't have a democracy.

serleran wrote:You do if you don't consider someone capable of contributing to a society. Besides, anarchy is the only government that works. Oh, flame. Heh.

Anarchy is with us always, like the poor. A functioning, living society needs a certain amount of anarchy, freedom, chaos, imagination, or it becomes a static, repressive society and dooms itself.

Democracy will not work with a nation of sheep, but democracy will grow, tear at itself, transform, split apart and reform with a nation of lions. What is most prevelent is a nation of sheep ruled by lions or wolves.

In the USA the current call on the right is for a meritocracy, and capitalist resurgence that gives the less meritous the right to starve if they cannot measure up. Yet who will decide who is meritous and who is a non-contributor? The person with the most money, influence, toys? That isn't anything new, just the old golden rule, whoever has the gold (and the guns to keep it) makes the rules.

On the left it seems to be a call for a nation of sheep kept by sheperds, but who chooses the sheperds and how much say will the sheep have when it comes time for the shearing or for dinner?

I find neither appealing, but I also do not believe that any fair and noncorrupt government over hundreds of millions of humans is possible, in the same way that I do not believe the current (and growing) world population is sustainable. The earth is simply easter island grown bigger and society is busy building big headed statues, until suddenly, one day, we won't be able to build them anymore (someday soon with exponential population growth).

My answer is that every individual on this earth needs to decide to follow the path of a sheep or the path of a lion. Quite possibly neither path will lead to anything but mass extinction shortly down the road. Personally I'd rather live and die in a democracy of lions instead of a republic of sheep.

JasonZavoda wrote:I find neither appealing, but I also do not believe that any fair and noncorrupt government over hundreds of millions of humans is possible, in the same way that I do not believe the current (and growing) world population is sustainable. The earth is simply easter island grown bigger and society is busy building big headed statues, until suddenly, one day, we won't be able to build them anymore (someday soon with exponential population growth).

The link below has an interesting counter-argument to the standard view above on overpopulation:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/04/19/population_crash_ext2010

Most impressive:

http://madshobbithole.wordpress.com/201 ... the-rings/

Kingofpain89 wrote:Most impressive:

http://madshobbithole.wordpress.com/201 ... the-rings/

WOW!!!      

Shatner's at it again ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_zYD3ae ... tube_gdata

Hope none of you guys over there are getting caught up in the Mississippi Tornado. Just seen that its been over 150mph winds and 1 mile across at times!!  

Stay safe, those in the area..

misterspock wrote:Shatner's at it again ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_zYD3ae ... tube_gdata

Oh, Spock, you're just jealous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04