Before Democracy, how was such a system decided upon? Was a vote taken on whether we should vote?? No. Democracy is enforced. That is not 'freedom'.
It is. And its not freedom. Only a dumb wit would imagine that democrazy provides freedom. Politicians are there to convince people that freedom is ensured while the capitalistic scavengers run the show. Roots of democrazy goes back to ignorance. Ignorance that one is capable enough to handle himself. But then I am not convinced that humans as a species are capable enough to handle freedom and peace. That's something only animals can do.
Looking at peoples that lived here we cannot tell exactly how they governed themselves for there is no written word to tell us exactly how it began. I would think that there were a few humans that were put in charge because of their knowledge, strength, wisdom or other characteristic that made them stand out amongst the others that were with them.
Exactly what I was saying (hence the apostrophies around the word freedom Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .) Democracy cannot come into being without enforcement. You contradict yourself. This sounds like an opinion, not fact! Where is your argument?? :shrug: How exactly are animals free? A fish cannot take to land just as a bird cannot live underwater. Humans can do both. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am not sure that a true democracy requires substantial enforcement, unless you want to compare it to anarchy, in which case it has more structure. As for where it came from, it is definitely the case that it arose from the powerful voluntarily declaring it to be in effect. There was a time when it did not exist, the powerful then declared that it did, and thereafter it did. You seem to want to conclude that it must therefore have been "enforced." but think of it differently: Perhaps, instead of "declaring democracy to exist, the powerful "ceded their power to the masses." By analogy, perhaps it is more akin to a slave owner declaring the manumission of his slaves. If I volunteer to give up my power over you, no one needs to "enforce" that so long as I do not try to later take the power back. It would be a rare case for a slave to tell his (former) master, "Nope, keep your freedom, I demand you continue to work me like a slave!" (Not completely unheard of though, as in the late Roman period peasant farmers often preferred to be enslaved by the landowners for which they worked over being free.)
The roots of democracy come from Islamic jurisprudence. Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights of their subjects because they were inalienable and came from a source no ruler could question or alter.
I'm pretty sure that the current system of democracy are seeded in a combination of mechanisms from ancient Greece and the Roman senate. It also existed in some isolated areas of India in 6 BC. I don't think it came from Islam at all, such systems predate Islam by hundreds of years.
In any event, inalienabble rights are not the core of "democracy." You can have non-democratic nations that recognize inalienable rights. A constitutional monarchy is not necessarily democratic, for example. You could also conceivably have a democracy that does not recognize inalienable rights...one where the majority's will controls and where the rights of the minority can be stripped if the majority wills it so.
Society is enforced. That's not freedom, either. If you want total freedom, live alone in the wilderness or on a boat in the ocean.
Britain doesn't have a Bill of Rights in itself. I believe it relies on European legislation, but I am not entirely sure. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh Sam, you're at it again and you're pathetic. Did Islam not arise in the 7th century CE? Democracy goes back more than a thousand years before that, to some Greek city-states in which it was practiced in a form recognizable today. A few of them were remarkably progressive by some measures, for example in the rights enjoyed by women. I'm sure you're going to split hairs and tell us that no ancient Greek community could possibly be called "democratic" because so many of its people were disenfranchised. But every democratic community denies the right to vote to some of its people, typically "outsiders" by religion, ethnicity or class (whether achieved or inherited). The USA disenfranchises convicted felons. I.e., break a law you don't agree with and you'll never be able to vote for a candidate who promises to repeal it. Every nation has a minimum age for "adulthood." We now let 18-year-olds vote, but is that common worldwide? Even so, why is a person who will be 18 in two weeks arbitrarily considered not mature enough to vote today? You're starting to sound like the old Soviet Russians: "We invented everything." Rights are granted incrementally with age. Children below a certain age do not have the right to drive, use popular drugs, or make decisions about their own future. A few years younger and they're not even allowed to choose what they're having for dinner or when's bedtime. At any age they can't vote on where they'd like to live or how much risk they're willing to accept. E.g., living in a high-crime neighborhood, riding in a car with bad brakes, having incompetent parents, etc.
I did not know that the Greeks had a concept of inalienable rights not granted by the government or ruler. In fact, its only recently that I came across this information on Islamic jurisprudence while reading on the US constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#Natural_rights_theories
I abhor running into these quasi-philosophical/hermeneutical discussions but.... Nor did I. However, I am curious as to how the concept of "inalienable rights" (sic) has anything to do with the topic....
The vast majority of people in ancient Greece could not vote on laws, could not vote on who would vote on laws & had absolutely no say in government & hardly any rights.
