@HeavenlyPossum You're oversimplifying a lot by lumping all non-modern-democratic ideas into the same basket.

There is a distinction between the democracy of the landed gentry, with all of its flaws and inequities, and out and out oligarchy.

And it's right to point out that their acceptance of slavery and their exploitative attitude towards 'the mob' is in contradiction of their stated ideals.

The US founding fathers were hypocrites, not oligarchs (also worshipping them is weird, America).

@BoysenberryCider

If “landed and slave owning elites who monopolized political and economic power for themselves as a class” don’t constitute an oligarchy, I don’t know what would.

Aristocrats taking turns ruling over a subject population is not “democracy of the landed gentry” because it is not democracy at all.

@HeavenlyPossum Your definition of 'democracy' is unhistorically narrow, and 'aristocrat' too wide. Democracy is a system, not a synonym for 'equal, righteous goverment'.

'Demos' + 'kratia' = rule by the people. 'The people' meant 'our kind of people', and excluded many. The franchise has since expanded, which is good.

'Oligos' + 'arkia' = rule by the few, fossilised concentration of power in the hands of a group.

There can be overlap, but you're bending the words to make your point.

@BoysenberryCider

No, I am using these words carefully and precisely. The concept of “rule by the people” is incompatible with “rule by some of the people.”

And casting periodic ballots for aristocrats competing in a popularity contest can, in no way, be said to constitute *rule* by the community of ballot casters, regardless of how expansive the franchise is.

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

Do you really imagine that periodically casting ballots for elites competing to rule you for various periods of time meaningfully constitutes democracy, in the sense of “people ruling themselves”?

I am also unaware of any polity that permits everyone living within its borders to vote in elections in that polity.

@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider If only members of the “elites” are possible to vote for, then that is a very valid criticism. But it’s unhelpful if even one person not being able to vote is disqualifying all other efforts to make democracy happen.

In Swedish local elections “everyone” is eventually able to vote. The reason for the quotes is that you might get thrown out before that or become undocumented. But it is still not everyone (because of the caveats above, and because it takes time).

@BoysenberryCider @ahltorp

I have a strong hunch that not everyone can vote in Swedish local elections. Children? Non-citizens?

But again: being able to periodically cast a vote for someone else to make decisions for you does not constitute “people ruling themselves,” any more than US or Roman or Venetian aristocrats are or were “democratic” because some of them held office through elections.

The Holy Roman Emperor was an elected position. We would not consider the Holy Roman Empire a democracy, even though it held periodic elections, and this would not have changed through a gradual expansion of the number of prince-electors.

@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider Children are included in the “eventually”. Non-citizens can vote in local and regional elections after a fixed number of years (unless they are deported before that, which is an increasing problem with the current government situation).

National elections are only open for citizens, which is a big problem when you have a government that opposes non-hereditary citizenship and naturalisation.

And as you are saying, being able to vote is not enough for democracy.

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

So not everyone can vote, and voting doesn’t constitute democracy. Glad we could agree!

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp
1. I just say the words, you take them how you will.

2. Okay, do you see a difference between preventing tyranny of the majority and ensuring elite rule? As I mentioned, Montesquieu wasn't thinking of elite privelege when he came up with Separation of Powers.

3. Yes, since it's so obvious, please point out a few offending sections. I'm a simple man, and know not of what I speak.

@BoysenberryCider @ahltorp

There has never been a “tyranny of the majority.” It has never once operationally exists. It does, however, serve as an excellent bogeyman for justifying elite rule to people like you, as a bulwark against this alleged threat.

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Boogeyman or not, it was a primary concern of the architects of modern democracy when they were conceiving of post-feudal structures.

Also, no such thing as tyranny of the majority? Take the way LGBTQ people have been treated from the conception of our countries until now, that is the definition of tyranny of the majority.

The majority, through ignorance, supported homophobia and it was encoded deeply in law.

The majority are no more pure than any individual is.