Total Democracy?

Originally posted by ralfy Total democracy has hardly existed. Likely, we focus more on forms of representative democracy, with government eventually working for or with the financial elite.

When I first learned about Athenian-style democracy (which, provided the franchise were extended beyond freeborn males, is something close to "total democracy") I was assured by my teacher that it couldn't happen because our modern states are too populous. We can't all gather in the same place to discuss the issues of the day and formulate policy like they could in Athens, a small "fact-to-face" society. Of course advances in technology have swept this objection aside. Thanks to the internet, it's now conceivable that we really could create a society where the "general public" gets to vote on every single policy. Government by referendum, if you like. But I find this a little scary.

I thought I would bring this up, might inspire some folks to join in.  A total or "pure Democracy" doesn't work.  A pure form of either Democracy or Communism doesn't exist.  Total Democracy is usually followed by Total Anarchy, which eventually leads to a new form of government, something that wasn't lost on Mao. 

Not if they can be taxed.

The world changes, people change with it.  Prioritys and principles change appropriate to those changes.  It starts to lead back to that wonderful question that we used to get in Ethics 101.  Is an honest person in a dishonest society, maladjusted?

Democracy is a nothing. Benevolent dictatorship would most likely be a lot better than most democracies at any given time.  You'd think the poor fellow would vote for his interests, alas, he is easily conned.

Absolute Monarchy based on Patriotism and loyalty to the country, and the individual culture of the single nation, that's my political philosophy. There may yet come a day. Today, I suffer the inverse. Democracy & Globalization ...

I do not understand how people who believe it is their job to please me, would ruin my vacation?  However, someone who would not allow me to board public transportation without the proper ID and who could not make an independent decision, surely could ruin a vacation.  

Why the concern for making fast decisions?  Where are we going in such a hurry? 

What does complete democracy mean to you?   To me it doesn't mean no authority, because that would be a problem, but it does mean limited authority.   The janitor does not make dental decisions that a dentist makes, because this is not his field of expertise, but neither does the dentist drag people out of their homes for dental care.   Even in a democracy jobs must be delegated, but a mayor is not given the right to create new taxes when a budget short fall means either increasing revenue or cutting services.  It is great to be a mayor when times are good, but it has to really suck when times a bad.   I don't attend the political meetings I should be attending, and have my doubts about people having voting rights when they do not attend the meetings.   Knowing how few people actually attend the meetings, I don't think too much participation is a real threat to our democracy.    


Edited by Athena - 15-May-2011 at 17:53

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Athena I am overwhelmed by your question.  Have you ever functioned in a large group trying to agree on something?  The more people who participate, the longer it takes to get a decision, and the chances of it being a good decision are increased.   Before we go any further with this, we might ask, where are we going in such a hurry? There's a huge difference between large groups taking a long time deliberating on a point hoping to get a good decision for some aspect to be acted on by others, and monumental numbers of people deliberating on every decision on everything before anything can proceed. Any bad decision for example would become so many times worse because of the protracted methodology needed to act upon it once it has been found to be bad. More over, as a single decision may have knock on effects, those effects would need to be deliberated on and acted upon. The question is, as these procedures are so protracted, which do you spend your precious times deliberating on first, the cause or the effect? If you decide on the cause, will the effect become a cause of further effects...etc...? If you choose the effects first, does the cause further effects? If there are multiple effects, do you find your self in an even more difficult deciding on your priorities?

I hope others get the point I am struggling to make.

I remember when the receptionist knew everything and could answer all the questions, and everything was managed on a more personal level.   That was before developing the Prussian bureaucratic model to the point we have developed it today.   Now the bureaucracy above us crushes individual liberty and power, but this was not always so.   We made personal decisions based on our interaction with human beings and shared values, which contrast sharply with today's amorality and decisions based on what is written in the policy that defines every detail of our jobs.   Until this change in our reality is understood, it is rather futile to discuss democracy.  
 
I am history.    I am old and so are my friends old and we going crazy with the cold, impersonal, "professional" human interactions that reduce us to powerlessness.   No longer is the receptionist  thinking about the person s/he is speaking with.  No, s/he is thinking about the procedure s/he is to follow.  Trying to engage with this person, trying to resolve a problem with this person, could not be worse if this person were a computer.   S/he has nothing like the power of past service providers, and neither do those seeking service.   Everyone is so unaware of the power they have lost, as though human beings were always so powerless.  And it makes me really nuts that we think the US is defending democracy around the world, when those folks have far more personal power than we do. 

Excuse me, you do not have the paper work that is required to proceed from here.   Be sure when you come back you have the proper identification and your paper work is done correctly. 


Edited by Athena - 13-May-2011 at 20:00

Originally posted by PADDYBOY Originally posted by ralfy   Is it the case that only white, male Athenians were allowed to vote? True. Even Spartan women had more say than Athenian women.

Originally posted by eaglecap Ancient Athens, Greece is probably the closet to a pure deomcracy; whereas, the USA is a Republic or representive form of government. I would start by studying the history of ancient Athens but I am not sure about modern examples.