Talk:Pure democracy

Nikodemos, "There is no evidence that pure democracy ever existed, or that anyone ever supported such a form of government. Ancient Athens did have a system of laws." Athens did not have a constitution that protected individual liberty. The will of the majority ruled without limit. That's what pure democracy is. RJII 05:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is historically inaccurate. Athens had several laws and rules of procedure. See here. -- Nikodemos 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure they had laws, but that had no "bill of rights." There were no inviolable individual liberties. If the majority wanted to dominate a minority it could do that by majority vote. RJII 05:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments against pure democracy have gone on for thousands of years, starting with Plato. Here's a recent one in the context of Romania:


 * The acceptance of left, right and centre groups as a whole, and the political diversity of the ruling coalition are in accordance with democracy. But to what extent should democracy extend in politics? Can a political party be called democratic if it openly calls for a period of authoritarian rule? If Romania wishes to transform itself into a democracy, it must first define what it means democracy to be. At present, the country is basing its development on the experience of other nations, and this has largely resulted in confusion. The diverse multiparty system that has developed in the last ten years is certainly something to be proud of; however, the extremism of certain groups is threatening the human rights of others. This may be some kind of "purest form" of democracy, but democracy cannot exist in its purest form; there is a necessary trade-off between democratic values and a rule of law. Romania has not yet found this balance The Failure of Pure Democracy RJII 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Plato argued against all types of democracy in favour of elite rule. The above quote is from what amounts to a blog entry (and a 7 year old one, no less). And a political ideology cannot exist without supporters. Show me support for "pure democracy" - or, for that matter, show many any opposition that refers to "pure democracy" as a distinct school of thought rather than some vague idea. -- Nikodemos 05:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. So what if it's a 7 year old article. Why should there be support for pure democracy? There doesn't have to be support for a concept for the concept to exist. Obviously, pure democracy was supported in Athens. RJII 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to advise you to educate yourself about the Athenian system? There has to be support for a theory in order for it to be notable. -- Nikodemos 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "In ancient Greece it was literally true that citizens (free-born males over the age of 30, which was about a quarter of the resident population in 5th-century Athens) ruled: they were appointed to public offices by lot, public policy was made in meetings of the assembly which all citizens were expected to attend, and elected officials were subject to vigorous popular scrutiny. There was no separation of powers and no constraints on popular sovereignty. This version of democracy was most famously propounded in the 18th century by the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, although he defended what he called republican rather than democratic government. The critics of direct democracy in the ancient world, including Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, had condemned pure democracy as dangerous and advocated a mixed constitution, combining elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy." RJII 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice that they were appointed to public offices by lot. The comment that there were "no constraints on popular sovereignty" is flat out false. See graphe paranomon. You are again offering no citations from anyone who ever supported pure democracy (Rousseau is accused of supporting it, even though he said he supported republicanism), nor are you offering any direct quotes from Socrates, Plato or Aristotle in which they ever used the adjective "pure" in front of "democracy". -- Nikodemos 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What was the constraint on popular sovereignty? Where was the bill of rights protecting individual liberty from the majority? I just gave a quote from a respected historian. If you disagree with him, fine. But you and my word means nothing without sources to back them up. That's how Wikipedia works. RJII 06:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The concepts of individual liberty or separation of powers did not even exist yet. Let's not be anachronistic. And I already gave you a major source explaining the framework of Athenian democracy. The demos could do a lot, but not just anything. -- Nikodemos 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where in that paper does it say there are protections for individual rights from being trampled on by the majority? RJII 06:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nowhere, because the concept of individual rights did not exist yet at the time of ancient Athens. Obviously no government protected individual rights before people created the idea of individual rights (which happened during the Enlightenment). -- Nikodemos 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Hence, it was a pure democracy. RJII 07:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, a democracy doesn't have to be "pure" to reject individual rights. Besides, there is no fixed list of "individual rights". Liberals have been bickering among themselves for centuries on the question of which rights count and which don't. What makes the will of the majority any worse than some arbitrary list of rights that you happen to support? -- Nikodemos 07:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not true that there was no conception of individual rights though. The source of opposition to the system was the lack of protection for individual liberty. The idea of individual rights, of course, existed before they were implemented. Ideas themselves are important, even if they have no existent in reality. RJII 07:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * RJII, you are clearly not well versed in ancient history. There was no conception of individual rights before the Enlightenment, and certainly not in ancient Greece. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle opposed democracy because, simply put, they believed the people were too stupid to rule. Liberty had nothing to do with it. Aristotle, for instance, believed that some people are naturally born slaves. These philosophers were no champions of individual liberty; on the contrary, their ideas later became the foundation of medieval monarchy which the classical liberals sought to overthrow. -- Nikodemos 07:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's crazy to say that people had no conception of individual liberty. You're telling me people did not have a desire to be free? That's completely ludicrous. RJII 07:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Aristotle begins his Politics with a criticism of his master Plato. The word “democracy” was already in wide use by then. Plato, in The Republic, says that there are roughly three types of government: tyrannies, oligarchies and democracies. Aristotle for his part, being a more scientific and systematic thinker, classifies the systems of government. According to him, first we have a kingdom or monarchy. Then, we have aristocracy, and finally, polity. These are the three “good” systems of government, simply because they work (Aristotle is pragmatic in this). Whenever they do not work, it is because they are degenerating, viz. monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and polity into democracy. Democracy is the term Aristotle uses for what we nowadays would call mob-rule. He explains that monarchy is “government by one;” aristocracy is “government by the best ones;” and polity is the other two together with the participation of all the other citizens, that is to say, of all the other freemen of the city, because the slaves are not considered citizens. When monarchy suppresses the other two, it degenerates into tyranny; when aristocracy isolates itself from the people and becomes a clique, it degenerates into oligarchy or rule by the powerful; and when the people oust the monarchy and aristocracy it degenerates into anarchy and chaos, which is what Aristotle calls democracy." RJII 07:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." -Aristotle RJII 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And, you'd better go delete "Liberty was greatly prized by many classical writers such as Aristotle, Demosthenes, Cicero and Tacitus, often in the context of democratic institutions" from the Liberty article if you're so convinced. RJII 07:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And, why are you being so competitive? RJII 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have taught me well... -- Nikodemos 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that "pure democracy" is just another word for "direct democracy." I may merge this stuff with that article. "Direct democracy" might just be the newer name for it. RJII 05:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I say redirect "pure democracy" to Athenian democracy rather than direct democracy, which is a somewhat specific set of democratic practices. "Pure democracy" as a term is non-scholarly and is merely "democracy" preceded by an adjective. But perhaps it is a valid description of Athenian democracy and thus the redirect should make sense. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)