It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ragman
If you applied direct democracy to half the African countries out there you'd see a resolution along these lines:
"Kill anyone who has skinny noses, and is taller than average...you know the guys in that one tribe we don't like who have all the money and nicer huts than us"
Since only 20% of the population is part of that tribe, it looks like direct democracy will work great. (for those are in the majority)
Originally posted by peskyhumans
I think its the republic that's the problem. Ancient Greece lasted until the Romans invaded it, and the Roman Empire eventually collapsed because of corruption. Which society was more stable? I think the Greeks could have gone a lot longer if they weren't invaded by the Empire. I see the same reasons the Roman Empire fell in our society today. Corrupt bureaucrats looking out for themselves. You keep saying that the people can't decide whats best for themselves, I don't think so. There might be some trial-and-error at first, but the greatest thing about an absolute democracy is its ability to change so fast. Once the people realize something they passed turned out bad, they would simply vote to change the system. Laws can pop in and out so much faster than in our bureaucratic paper-pushing nightmare. You don't have to wait until the next administration or group of career legal-mongers to get in office. What if halfway through Bush's administration we decided we didn't like spending oodles of money on a stupid war? Or maybe we would have voted not to invade Iraq at all, or maybe we wouldn't have voted for him in 2004 when he ran a second time?
Actually, the people didn't vote for him in 2004. The electoral college did. Your professional politicians at work.