Quote:
|
If only democracy existed, there would be nothing to compare it to.
|
I see where you're going, but I'm not convinced.
Democracy implies plural, in my mind. That is, more than one person. The will of the people, plural. Unless all those people agree on all points, your argument doesn't hold water - and if they do agree on all points, I'd argue that that's not in fact a democracy at all. In fact, it's pretty much a totalitarian ideal; the autocratic existence of a society with no dissenting bodies.
I think a democracy can only exist where there's some form of conflict; it is by its very nature a means of compromise, rather than an entity which may independently exist.
However... I'd also contend that an actual democracy is impossible. In the UK, we have an oligarchy elected by the people. In the US, they don't even have that - they've got an elected body which then elects an oligarchy. A system where a body of people is elected by the populace and is then free to do whatever it likes for 4 years is not, to my mind, a government of the people. And, for the record, I think the 2nd Amendment had its metaphoric teeth removed about the time the US Government formed an set of armed forces large enough to overthrow the majority of the rest of the world, let alone "a well regulated militia" swaggering around with shotguns and bibles
Kev