[ren]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary People are well educated, invested in the country, and understand the underpinnings of a republic, while the politicians aren't too corrupt.

Doesn't give me much in the way of a definition to work with.

What about the "rule of law"? How about then the definitions of the rules in the rule of law? Once defined, how is it determined they should be interpreted? Is there a single legal theory that would be the perfect one for the task? We have all sorts of legal theories in play right now, is one of them the "perfect" one for the "perfect" democracy?

How does this "perfect" democracy deal with the paradox of individual rights and group rights when put to a test?

Then the original point, and why I asked: how does the "tyranny" of the majority come to play a role, is a tyranny of a majority actually necessary in a democracy? Or is it a structural assumption? That's why I want to know what "perfect" means.

On another thread, de Tocqueville's Democracy in America was invoked. He himself struggled with this paradox of individual rights and group association in his effort to describe the American version of democracy he observed as an early Aristotelian inspired detached social scientist:

A critic of individualism, Tocqueville thought that association, the coming together of people for common purpose, would bind Americans to an idea of nation larger than selfish desires, thus making a civil society which wasn't exclusively dependent on the state. -----> More than just imploding any traces of old-world aristocracy, ordinary Americans also refused to defer to those possessing, as Tocqueville put it, superior talent and intelligence. These natural elites, who Tocqueville asserted were the lone virtuous members of American society, could not enjoy much share in the political sphere as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity. Those who possessed true virtue and talent would be left with limited choices, choices which many have suggested shed light on American society today. Those with the most education and intelligence would either, Tocqueville prognosticated, join limited intellectual circles to explore the weighty and complex problems facing society which have today become the academic or contemplative realms, or use their superior talents to take advantage of America's growing obsession with money-making and amass vast fortunes in the private sector

Somehow, I don't think it's quite worked out the way he anticipated. It seems that money now defines elite, and elite is what composes the upper levels of government decision makers. A kind of polyarchy of rulership if you will, which seems to predominate through most . Would that be part of a perfect democracy?

This form of government was first implemented in the United States and was gradually adopted by many other countries. According to Dahl, the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his or her interests be given equal consideration. A polyarchy is a nation-state that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle.