For the most part, you are right, but I must point out that "democracy" is just a nice way of saying oligarchic republic, since every form of government is some form of elite rule. In the Roman Republic, just as in the American Republic, democracy means plutocracy: the rule of wealthy elites by means of the media.
It would be nice if real democracy, i.e. the rule of the people, were possible, but it just isn't.
But you're saying true democracy. If you acknowledge that the general population is against grooming, BLM and endless wars, while the political class is close to unanimously in favor, then the general population certainly is less retarded and more democracy is good.
For the most part, you are right, but I must point out that "democracy" is just a nice way of saying oligarchic republic, since every form of government is some form of elite rule.
Absolutely correct, although I've made this same argument and there are some people here who actually believe that modern "democracies" mean that the people rule. I've long believed that Western countries were not democratic at all, because I see that they are totally unresponsive to their populations. I just did not know why, until I read Burnham's Machiavellians, which your comments also sound simialr to.
My point was that Rome was not a 'democracy' even by the quite pitiful standards of modern times.
In the Roman Republic, just as in the American Republic, democracy means plutocracy: the rule of wealthy elites by means of the media.
That certainly is true of the American republic.
It would be nice if real democracy, i.e. the rule of the people, were possible, but it just isn't.
I agree. But there's still ways to be more and less democratic, and the current situation is rather egregious. For example, my country is a member of the EU, and as a result we're even less democratic than we were before, and there's even less accountability.
For the most part, you are right, but I must point out that "democracy" is just a nice way of saying oligarchic republic, since every form of government is some form of elite rule. In the Roman Republic, just as in the American Republic, democracy means plutocracy: the rule of wealthy elites by means of the media.
It would be nice if real democracy, i.e. the rule of the people, were possible, but it just isn't.
Considering how retarded the average person is, true democracy wouldn't be any better
But would we be having grooming in schools, BLM and endless wars?
The average person may not be brilliant, but he has a measure of common sense that the elites and the wealthy lack.
Yes. Because the general population is retarded.
Think about how many people approve of dems right now, and will keep voting for them.
But you're saying true democracy. If you acknowledge that the general population is against grooming, BLM and endless wars, while the political class is close to unanimously in favor, then the general population certainly is less retarded and more democracy is good.
Absolutely correct, although I've made this same argument and there are some people here who actually believe that modern "democracies" mean that the people rule. I've long believed that Western countries were not democratic at all, because I see that they are totally unresponsive to their populations. I just did not know why, until I read Burnham's Machiavellians, which your comments also sound simialr to.
My point was that Rome was not a 'democracy' even by the quite pitiful standards of modern times.
That certainly is true of the American republic.
I agree. But there's still ways to be more and less democratic, and the current situation is rather egregious. For example, my country is a member of the EU, and as a result we're even less democratic than we were before, and there's even less accountability.