The Russian president views the prospect of an army returning en masse as a potential risk he wants carefully managed to avoid destabilising society, three sources close to the Kremlin said.
Not really. Actual democracies have incentives to make things better for the majority of people. And the easiest way to do that is to break up monopolies (especially in media), tax the rich, and then invest heavily in education.
Coincidentally, the way to kill a democracy is to do the exact opposite.
Yes, states end up authoritarian when the people give up on democracy. You seem to be using this as an argument to encourage people to give up, but that’s just self fulfilling prophecy.
So your example is coalation of 50 tripes with council who decites major decitions? Wow. That really sound ground breaking and unique way to govern people.
Didint their end beging when they could not agree how to respond to British Crown request of aid during the American Revolution?
No. I asked you to prove your point and like i tought you just wanted to bash common modern ways of ruling without offering any concrete alternative.
The only example you produced was failed coalation of tribes, that was not unique in the eyes of history or especially well functioning alternative to modern goverments.
You just earlier argued that in any state where somebody has power they will use it wrong. How their system was immune to that?
while the Grand Council served an important ceremonial role, it was not a government in the sense that Morgan thought.[40][41][42] According to this view, Iroquois political and diplomatic decisions are made on the local level and are based on assessments of community consensus. A central government that develops policy and implements it for the people at large is not the Iroquois model of government.
Per your source. Also important to note that those that were allowed to sit on the “grand council” were determined through hereditary succession. So if this government had power it would be essentially a confederacy ruled by nobles.
I won’t disagree that a nice decentralized democratic society would be pretty awesome, but it’s also a lot harder to do with 7 billion people.
In your example each clan would have been no larger than a small town. Less than 1,000 people. Of course, there were towns that used to exist in the Americas that were much larger, but for many we don’t know how those were governed. Particularly those in North America. By thr time Europeans began asking the large cities had collapsed due to disease
Not really. Actual democracies have incentives to make things better for the majority of people. And the easiest way to do that is to break up monopolies (especially in media), tax the rich, and then invest heavily in education.
Coincidentally, the way to kill a democracy is to do the exact opposite.
Show me a state that has done any of this to great sucess? Even democracies don’t seem to have much stay past two hundred and fifty years.
A state always ends as authoritarian tool used against the people it persecutes the most. Very snow ball effect like.
Yes, states end up authoritarian when the people give up on democracy. You seem to be using this as an argument to encourage people to give up, but that’s just self fulfilling prophecy.
Uh? Na-ah. You show me working alterternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
So your example is coalation of 50 tripes with council who decites major decitions? Wow. That really sound ground breaking and unique way to govern people.
Didint their end beging when they could not agree how to respond to British Crown request of aid during the American Revolution?
You act like any state did any better for the people it ruled at the time.
No. I asked you an example of a better system and you did not deliver.
And you failed to show it is at not better? Because of one mistake? While fighting colonialism?
No. I asked you to prove your point and like i tought you just wanted to bash common modern ways of ruling without offering any concrete alternative.
The only example you produced was failed coalation of tribes, that was not unique in the eyes of history or especially well functioning alternative to modern goverments.
You just earlier argued that in any state where somebody has power they will use it wrong. How their system was immune to that?
Per your source. Also important to note that those that were allowed to sit on the “grand council” were determined through hereditary succession. So if this government had power it would be essentially a confederacy ruled by nobles.
I won’t disagree that a nice decentralized democratic society would be pretty awesome, but it’s also a lot harder to do with 7 billion people.
In your example each clan would have been no larger than a small town. Less than 1,000 people. Of course, there were towns that used to exist in the Americas that were much larger, but for many we don’t know how those were governed. Particularly those in North America. By thr time Europeans began asking the large cities had collapsed due to disease