You're right, there aren't any. Even the French Revolution after the franchise went even to the Paris mob, 1793....actually, that one was maybe as close as it ever came. And talk about an unlimited disaster!! Yow.
I'm tempted by it, things are so bad. LOCAL unlimited democracy --- city for city, counties for counties, like that. None of this minority protection stuff, just let people vote, online, with strong protection against hacking. If cities want no police, fine, let them vote it in. If counties want certain types of people excluded, fine, let them vote it in.
That would be a very interesting political experiment, and one we never have tried.
I don't know what precisely that member means by the term "unlimited democracy" is; that term doesn't have a formal definition in any history, political science or economic texts, papers, lectures, etc. that I've ever been exposed to.
Oh, well, it's obvious, surely. It means nonrepresentative democracy, "pure" democracy as with the Greek demos was, at least theoretically. And it means democracy not corrupted by ....
Not as obvious as all that, I guess. You're talking direct vs representational democracy. Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution). Under such a government, minorities are completely at the mercy of the majority.
Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution).
Which brings me right back to the question I first asked you...In light of your having asserted that...
History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.
[Please] identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.
I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history. So maybe there is no proof, whatsoever, that it would be a disaster. Maybe it would be awesome.
Is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations? Do you think that would be a good idea?
I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history.
Thank you.
John Stuart Mill, not history, explained to us the ills and ethical inadequacy of majoritarian rule.
Maybe it would be awesome.
I suspect it would not be awesome for many folks. It would be awesome for individuals whose ideology aligns with those of the majority. So if the majority is but ~50%+1 one, it'd suck for about half the population, which would be a lot of people relative to the size of the population; however, if the majority is a 98% one, it'd be awesome for almost everyone. Such is tyranny of the majority.
is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations?
No. I wasn't advocating for anything. I simply wanted to know whether you were aware of some historical events that had escaped me. I'm no historian, but I did take a few history classes back in the day. Something like what you described wouldn't have escaped me unless it was simply never mentioned.
Ascribing to any form of governance necessarily forces one to embrace an argument based ultimately on the reasoning of relative privation. It just so happens that I embrace democracy, yet it's nonetheless clear to me that, for myself, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. That said, in other societies, the exception I've noted need not apply.
Consider 20th century China with its billion uneducated, inexperienced and poorly informed citizens. Democracy in such a society would amount to the "blind" having governing control over both the "blind" and the "sighted." That would have been disastrous for China, so it's no surprise that Mao and the rest of China's educated elite didn't cotton to democracy. China could have implemented flat-out fascism, but what it actually implemented was something that was basically a a Renaissance monarchy that had elements of a republic that were supposed to guard against the excesses of monarchy. It didn't exactly work out as planned, but, for their situation and the nation's overall fortunes, it was nonetheless better than would have been democracy.
One need only compare and contrast the current economic status of India and China, both of which, at the time, had huge quantities of uneducated citizens. India adopted democracy at the same time (~1950) China commenced its journey toward Communism by adopting its republican-monarchy form of socialism, socialism being something Marx identified as a pragmatic intermediate step on the path to Communism. I think we can all say that China's approach, vis a vis the bar of economic achievement, even after adjusting for the variance in population size, has proven the more efficacious of the two.
Now as for the "limits" part of your question, well, any system of governance needs to have limits, be they constitutional or some other form. To be sure, for instance, even the monarchs from Rome to the Renaissance governed with limits, those limits were provided by the rest of the nobility, and on occasion by the citizenry as a whole. Kings were quite powerful, yet, their power nonetheless depended on the support of their nobles and at least the acquiescence of the common citizenry. A king that angered enough of his nobles was a king who was not long for this world. Assassination isn't the sort of limit one cares to air or espouse, but it is yet a limit, and until about the mid to late 20th century, it was essentially the only viable one available to abate the dissatisfaction issuing from a monarch's excesses.
Democracy too must have limits, ideally built-in ones rather than arbitrary ones such as assassination. It has to have them because democracy and its notion of self-determination inherently, in the name of freedom, forbears a host of vices. Thus the limits of democracy align around elements of character, around ethical values. The problem is that an electorate that is preponderantly and sufficiently ill informed and ill educated -- that is, with regard to the body of information available at any given point in the democracy's duration -- can easily devolve into a turpitudinous society comprised of a majority of overbearing individuals, and yet be democratic.
As and when that evolution occurs, the challenge democracies face is that of reversing the trend. That's a real problem for democracies because concomitant with democracy is the notion that individuals, for the most part, be free to do as they see fit. Unfortunately for democracies' solvency, that freedom includes the freedom to be ignorant -- democracies do not, for instance, force one to master the content taught in school [1] -- despite the fact that one of the great responsibility that accompanies the great freedom democracy affords is the responsibility to be not ignorant but instead be very well informed about the world in which one lives.
Note:
- I have long felt that perhaps the biggest flaw in our K-12 educational system is the way students are graded. I have long thought that there should be, as are for PhD candidates, two grades: pass or fail. The short of that model is that one either mastered the material or one didn't. The notion that mastering some of the material begs one to ask "why is all of it taught (at whatever grade level) if it's not essential for one to master all of it?"
The grading system we use now is fine for indicating how much of the content one has mastered, but as these times are showing us, mastering most of the content, concepts and skills taught in school is clearly not enough to produce citizens who can aptly suss their way through the increasing complexities and quantity of modern public policy considerations. That wouldn't, of course, be a problem were it not also the case that folks who've not fully mastered the content, concepts and skills taught in K-12 school are yet permitted to have a say, and indeed exercise it, in the increasingly complex matters of public policy.
Think about that...however bright your kids are, would you let them -- were they bereft of experience, strong critical thinking skill, deep knowledge of subject matter and the will and ability to independently obtain and analyze whatever additional information may be needed to fully understand a given topic -- make a major policy (or "policy") decision that will have a material impact on your life and/or livelihood?
I damn sure wouldn't, and I say that having four straight-A student kids. I wouldn't because even though they have most of the noted qualities, they lack the experience of actually applying them to resolve practical challenges. My oldest is at the point that I don't mind that he can vote, even though he may disagree with me. I know he's got the skills, knowledge and will to not "rush in" when making important decisions; I know he's a responsible person, citizen.
By the same token, I have some cousins who are about 10-15 years my oldest's seniors. I wouldn't, and nobody should, give them a say in what food to buy for a caged bird. They know plenty of stuff; they just don't aptly use their knowledge, and they're intellectually/cognitively lazy. But you can be sure they vote. You and everyone else should thank your lucky stars they only have one vote each.
Do you think that would be a good idea?
From the essay above, I think you can tell my answer to this question is, "no."
