: My 'beef' with democracy is that its wrong in principle. Unlimited democracy is simply rule by force of the strongest mob (ie the most numbers). A dictatorship by majorities if you will. I see no 'good' in that.Right, some basic facts:
1:All human beings live as part of a total social system (with teh exception of hermits).
2:That social system is always subject to some form of control.
3:All such control is a form of democracy:
Fuedalism: 1 monarch, one vote. All votes are passed by a majority of one, since no-one else can vote, all votes are binding uppojn the entire social system.
Plutocracy: £1 one vote. Thus a multi-billionaire has a multi-billion votes, and a poor person might have non, 10% of the population has 80% of the votes, etc.
Democracy: One person one vote.
As a basic idea, democracy should entail all who are effected by a specific action, preferably, as a principle, them as vote should carry out the messure (i.e. it should only be a positive thing, a vote to do, not a vote against, a vote to prohibit, or to force). Now, imagine there is a field,a king wants to use fertilizers that may damage the water table, he has one vote, and uses it to do so, likewise a plutocrat uses their million votes to pass the idea. In a democracy, everyone who might be affected by poisoning the water tables can vote not to do it. Simply put, democracy is good manners.
Now, under a direct democracy, them as vote should carry the vote out, i.e. they are not voting for other people to do things, and any 'free' democracy, that recognises teh right tf free association, would recognise the right of folks to vote with their feet by not carrying teh vote out.
A democracy is not a system of votes, it is a culture, , the only alternatve to which is autocracy, and oligarchies, because all humans are inevitably social.
