True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country. The latter
system,
which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.

On Sep 21, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:

Can you imagine a system that required a public vote on every issue.
This would be anarchy.

In the US the system of governance was derived so as to equally
protect separate groups (states) of people without making that
governance overly cumbersome.

On Sep 21, 12:24 pm, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sep 21, 10:06 am, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:

So, what else is new? I don't know what country you're posting in (or
talking about, for that matter), but here in the United States*** our
form of government is called a *democratic republic.* That means that
we democratically elect officials to represent us and vote on issues.

***Or, that's what we had until Bush and the neocons took over. Not
sure what you would call it now.

On Sep 21, 10:24 am, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

To a great extent, this is the type of government that Switzerland
had, last time I looked. Of course, Switzerland is full of Swiss,
which is probably why it works there.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:06:01 -0700, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:

Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".

On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, David Johnston block.net> wrote:

Leaving aside the question of who "we" is, for the moment, what
exactly is meant in the modern world by "democracy"? Just having
elections can be a purely symbolic exercise by dictators such as
Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Hussein etc. Republics need not be democratic
at all. Having multiple candidates to choose from need not result in
any of them actually representing the desires or interests of the
people who elect them.

On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, David Johnston block.net> wrote:

Allow me to be more precise. I would argue that the term
"parliamentary democracy" and "democratic republic" are actually
contradictions in terms. They represent attempts by the rich and
powerful to justify their power on the basis of popular support, when,
in fact, all they are doing is herding the poor and middle class --
effectively by force -- into supporting them at the ballot box, as
their de facto dictators/rulers. The intention is to convince the
poor and middle class NOT to use force against the rich and powerful,
by arguing that they have been "elected" or "chosen" as rulers. This
is not the case. They have simply conquered, by force, on the
election battleground. They do not represent the popular interest.
They represent their own. As dictators/rulers. Not as democrats.

DeTocqueville had a chapter "How Aristocracy Can Be Created By
Industry" where he accurately warns how industrialists could
reintroduce aristocracy with a back door entrance.

This is exactly what happened a few decades later, the 2nd half of the
19th century, and America has become less democratic ever since.

What we now have is at best some of the superficial forms of democracy
that fool only the ignorant.

Most Americans, however, are bright enough to read _Democracy In
America_ and figure out the Big Lies put out by the _NY Times_ and
other robber baron media:

1. Art. I, Sec. 8 means corp. shills control national economic
policy.

2. The First Amendment is only for "bong hits for Jesus" and naked
nazi flagburner parades, never economic issues.

3. Pat Robertson came over on the Mayflower.

4. Jefferson wasn't a populist.

Ancient Athens only had 25,000 citizens. The other 325,000 were
slaves.

DeTocqueville recommended that people in democratic societies read the
ancient Greeks because it was an aristocracy and _not_ a democracy.

Bret Cahill