3 ms·
I would absolutely not call democratic a power system where the common has absolutely no legitimate say in deciding whether or not his polity is going to be at
by dekervin 6y ago
I would absolutely not call democratic a power system where
the common has absolutely no legitimate say in deciding whether or not his polity is going to be at war with another ( with the consequences of having their crops, family,etc... wiped off the surface of the earth )
- kiliantics 6y agoWhich is why I would not call the current power system democratic either. But at least they had say over shares in harvest and communal land and the likes, whereas I have no such things today.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y agoby that definition which country in the world is then a democracy today? I'm not being flippant and think your point is really important because it touches on the definition of what we even mean by "democracy", and using your yardstick beautifully illustrates that the only democracy possible would be a hypocrite one. To use an example of our time: we hide our crimes in the complexity of global supply chains and by compartmentalizing ...
- dekervin 6y agoI was objecting to the extreme situation in the middle age where in theory, war was a god given right that flowed from the top. I tend to think that democracies live on a spectrum. What you would call hypocrisy, I would call it finding ways to deal with the current contradictions of people aspirations. It's always the first stepping stone. One advantage of a political system accepting hypocrisy and compartimentalization as statecraft tools is that at some point in the future, it will have to reconcile parts of its actions with its stated values.