[zynner]

Athena,

"Democracy" was an attempt to have the people rule themselves rather than a king rule the people. Is that what you are getting at?

Here's the question when it comes to a democracy: How do we the people go about making decisions? Ultimately, we MUST make decisions, right? That is what it's all about.

Rather than a king deciding for everyone, we the people will do it. Right?

So, HOW do we actually implement that in the real world? We must vote in some way. We can each vote directly (California has issues put forth during elections whereby each voter gets one vote, such as bond issues for new schools). Or, we can elect representatives who will then make decisions, but they have to vote, too (California, of course, also has a legislature which does this).

Now, HOW do we vote? It will always come down to majority rule. If only one person got to vote, then it would not be a democracy. So, lots of people vote and then the decision is made by however the majority decides (whichever side gets the most votes).

Going way back in history, humans were in nomadic tribes that followed the animals they hunted. With the invention/discovery of agriculture, humans settled into villages, towns, and then cities. Humans had land and crops to sustain them. Some humans invaded and raped and pillaged. So, humans figured out how to defend against this and eventually certain individuals formed defensive groups to ward off the invading gangs. That was the start of modern governments.

These early "protectors" eventually evolved into kingdoms. The so-called protectors, however, were often even more abusive than the invaders. So, some humans thought it would be better to eliminate the kings and just have all decisions within the community decided "by the people" and democracy was born.

However, how do we vote? It always comes down to majority rule. And whenever the majority votes to violate the rights of the minority, then the democractic government dies.

It happens slowly over time, but it always happens. Sooner or later, the have-nots realize they can steal from the haves and it's all over. Or, the majority race realize they can enslave the minority race. However it comes down, there is always a majority and a minority on some issue.

The USA was an attempt to protect the rights of all, especially the minority, as a way to overcome the problems with democracy.

(Again, "minority" does not necessarily mean racial minority, it can mean anything, such as the majority poor and minority rich, for example. But regarding slavery, it was something that already existed and was negotiated during the 1787 convention, protected for a period of 21 years -- the age of adulthood for anyone born at that time -- and then it would no longer be protected by the Constitution).

So, what the USA was all about was an experiment in liberty. Yes, there was a democratic component to it because there must be some sort of voting process. But the system was much more complex than, say, the democracy of ancient Greece.

The people voted for members of the House of Representatives, members of their own state legislatures, and members of the Electoral College. The state legislators voted for Senators and the Electoral College members voted for President. Furthermore, the Constitution was written in such a way that the powers of the federal government were clearly defined and the Bill of Rights further clarified and restricted those powers.

This was a system of LIBERTY, not democracy, per se.

MOST people today -- including most Americans and especially including most American politicans, George Bush being a prime example -- have NO CLUE what this system of liberty is all about.

The people of the Middle East have no clue what it is all about because they have no such history to draw from to get these kinds of ideas. To them, "democracy" is pure majority rule and the majority will just vote to steal the oil from the minority and kill them. To them, there is no such thing as liberty. They don't understand it.

George Bush also does not understand it and does not care for it. He has pulled the wool over the eyes of millions of people. He and other politicians spout a lot of hot air about bringing democracy to the world. Why? Two reasons. One, most of them don't know what the hell they're talking about, don't understand the system of liberty, and don't really care since their objective is power rather than participating in the system of liberty. The other reason is, some (not all) politicians are actually hostile to the concept of liberty and use "democracy" rhetoric to confuse the issue and redirect thinking away from liberty. George Bush is such a person.

Liberty is the system that the founders of the USA were strving to acheive. They wrote a lot of bad things about "democracy," and were heavily influenced by John Locke. Locke and others got their ideas from philosophers, going back to Aristotle. So, yes, it is rooted in philosophy, of which politics is a branch.

Of course "the founders" is a term that's misleading since not all of them agreed -- Hamilton wanted a monarchy. But most of them were trying to figure out how to implement some sort of liberty.

~ zynner