CDZ Isn't smaller governance better?

[dblack]

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

No need to amend the Constittion every time we adapt our governmental functions

We have a Congress to do that. If they violate constitutional power.....we have a court system

Sorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.

 

[rightwinger]

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

No need to amend the Constittion every time we adapt our governmental functions

We have a Congress to do that. If they violate constitutional power.....we have a court system

Sorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.

We the People created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect union

The courts were a major part of that Constitution

 

[dblack]

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

No need to amend the Constittion every time we adapt our governmental functions

We have a Congress to do that. If they violate constitutional power.....we have a court system

Sorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.

We the People created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect union

The courts were a major part of that Constitution

Ok, so you're just trolling again. Keep chanting.

 

[usmbguest5318]

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

And there is the beauty of it
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

Really? When in history has there ever been an "unlimited democracy," let alone several of them, whereby history, in turn, has so shown?

 

[rightwinger]

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

No need to amend the Constittion every time we adapt our governmental functions

We have a Congress to do that. If they violate constitutional power.....we have a court system

Sorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.

We the People created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect union

The courts were a major part of that Constitution

Ok, so you're just trolling again. Keep chanting.

Hardly....our Constitution has worked for hundreds of years

 

[dblack]

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

And there is the beauty of it
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

Really? When in history has there ever been an "unlimited democracy," let alone several of them, whereby history, in turn, has so shown?

I was discussing the role of the Constitution with rw - he seems to think that majority rule is all that matters.

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

No need to amend the Constittion every time we adapt our governmental functions

We have a Congress to do that. If they violate constitutional power.....we have a court system

Sorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.

We the People created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect union

The courts were a major part of that Constitution

Ok, so you're just trolling again. Keep chanting.

Hardly....our Constitution has worked for hundreds of years

Not in the mood for trolling today, rw. Flip-flop on someone else's dime.

 

[rightwinger]

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

And there is the beauty of it
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

Really? When in history has there ever been an "unlimited democracy," let alone several of them, whereby history, in turn, has so shown?

I was discussing the role of the Constitution with rw - he seems to think that majority rule is all that matters.

No need to amend the Constittion every time we adapt our governmental functions

We have a Congress to do that. If they violate constitutional power.....we have a court system

Sorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.

We the People created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect union

The courts were a major part of that Constitution

Ok, so you're just trolling again. Keep chanting.

Hardly....our Constitution has worked for hundreds of years

Not in the mood for trolling today, rw. Flip-flop on someone else's dime.

You have yet to prove your point

Keep struggling....it is fun to watch

 

[usmbguest5318]

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

And there is the beauty of it
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

Really? When in history has there ever been an "unlimited democracy," let alone several of them, whereby history, in turn, has so shown?

I was discussing the role of the Constitution with rw - he seems to think that majority rule is all that matters.

No need to amend the Constittion every time we adapt our governmental functions

We have a Congress to do that. If they violate constitutional power.....we have a court system

Sorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.

We the People created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect union

The courts were a major part of that Constitution

Ok, so you're just trolling again. Keep chanting.

Hardly....our Constitution has worked for hundreds of years

Not in the mood for trolling today, rw. Flip-flop on someone else's dime.

I was discussing the role of the Constitution with rw - he seems to think that majority rule is all that matters.

What you were discussing is what it is -- you could as well have been discussing genetic variation in fruit flies, for all I care -- what you were discussing doesn't obviate the need for your assertion to nonetheless be accurate.

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

 

[Circe]

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

This sure didn't work for me.

I've wanted much smaller government all my life, and I vote.

Whoops, that didn't work.

 

[Circe]

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

I think to compare the United States to small European countries with area and population smaller than any one of many U.S. states is as silly as comparing New York City to Muleshoe TX. And yes, a nation like say Finland with a little over 5 million population, a far more cohesive society sharing a mostly common language and common values and ambitions, and roughly the size of Minnesota, is much more practically managed via a central government than is the U.S.A. with its vast distances, myriad cultures, multiple languages, and clashing values and ambitions.

 

[rightwinger]

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

This sure didn't work for me.

I've wanted much smaller government all my life, and I vote.

Whoops, that didn't work.

You need to do a much better job of convincing people that smaller is somehow better

 

[usmbguest5318]

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

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. It's also not a term all that frequently used, AFAIK, in many well read texts in those disciplines. What one sees is the terms "limited government" and "unlimited government," neither of which corresponds to the core of what "unlimited democracy" means on the rare occasions it pops up. At best the three are tangentially (some might say merely spatially) related.

Hell, the only awareness I have of it comes from a guy named Tibor Machan. Were the other member to have referenced Machan, I'd know what he means by it. That said, in other venues, most notably among my colleagues and others whom I know to be very deeply versed in economics and political philosophy, yes, the reference given by "majoritarian pablum" would trigger me to think of Machan (with Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority" ideas as the antecedent) and intuit aptly what is meant.

Here on USMB, too often I encounter posts from folks who haven't any real clue of what they're talking about, so I want a bit more reliable a "clue" than just that, something that assures me the member hasn't just stumbled upon some odd bit of political philosophy's esoterica....something such as an attestation akin to "I'm referring to Machan's use of the term 'unlimited democracy' " or "I'm referring to Mill's tyranny of the majority ideas" would be sufficient. Hell, even the phrase "tyranny of the majority" would do.

Absent knowing what exactly one refers to, I'm not of a mind to "get into it" with someone who's latched onto one odd snippet and hasn't a broader overall mastery of political philosophy. Better to just ask for clarification/exposition and see what comes back. I'm weary of here engaging in discussions with folks who bark up a tree they are unwilling or unable to climb, so to speak.

In Mill and Machan's view, unlimited democracy is what results when democratic societies, in their quest to curtail the excesses of monarchical tyranny run amok and become tyrannies of the majority, which is something no less tyrannical and despotic than is a similarly composed monarchy, even though unlimited democracies have the "blessing" of "we," rather than that of "she" or "he," or a relatively small number of "they" as might a nation like China (prior to its enactment of the "ruler for life" thing it's of late re-embraced).


A short but interesting essay on the topic is this: Disrupting the Tyranny of the Majority.

 

[Circe]

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

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 charismatic leaders with an agenda, as the Greek demos very likely was. Not swayed by charismatics, and not diluted by republican small-r representatives who are pleased to speak in-the-stead of the demos.

We could do this now. We could do it with pure online voting by (secure) computer voting on propositions put to the electorate. Oh, wow, that would be a new experiment and new experience. Let's do it: that would be so fun.

Mind you --- I want to keep it at local levels, not moosh up cities and farmland. That's no good. Let the cities vote to have open borders and the country ..... vote in ideas more in keeping with my sheep and farmland.

 

[rightwinger]

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

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 charismatic leaders with an agenda, as the Greek demos very likely was. Not swayed by charismatics, and not diluted by republican small-r representatives who are pleased to speak in-the-stead of the demos.

We could do this now. We could do it with pure online voting by (secure) computer voting on propositions put to the electorate. Oh, wow, that would be a new experiment and new experience. Let's do it: that would be so fun.

Mind you --- I want to keep it at local levels, not moosh up cities and farmland. That's no good. Let the cities vote to have open borders and the country ..... vote in ideas more in keeping with my sheep and farmland.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for supper

 

[Camp]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

Stupid analysis based on off the wall speculations and guesses. "But, as far as I can tell" rhetoric finishes off the hack OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I'm not a socialist. Government has no business 'addressing' the distribution of our material needs.

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

We used to. We don't anymore.

 

[rightwinger]

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

We used to. We don't anymore.

Politicians get voted out of office all the time

 

[dblack]

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

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 to 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.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

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.