As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond.
This comment by me within this thread might also expand on the topic you’re asking about:
1. I have seen that page multiple times. For starters, what does it have to do with plutocracy? Do you know there are different forms of democracy? What does a direct democracy have to do with plutocracy? You seem to conflate true democracy with direct democracy.
You can have a true democracy that is indirect and not plutocratic. You can assert otherwise but nothing in the definitions contradict that.
2. We seem to be going back and forth. But it seems you don't have any country that matches your original definition
3. > As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond.
This is another strange shift in the thread. I am *not* asking for a non-global power that will impact the course of humanity. My simple original request was just a single power that fits your *original* definition of true democracy (not the modified one you suddenly have presented here).
It is not irrelevant as a true democratic non-global power can become a huge power (thanks to true democracy^TM).
Direct Democracy was addressed and criticized specifically by American founding fathers. You should read the fedaralist papers, specifically the numbers written by Madison. They were aware of what I see here as an extremely naive case for "democracy".
No thanks, if you have a point to raise, please do so yourself in plain-English, I am not going to read 80-100 documents written hundreds of years ago by men who thought a democracy meant 3-5% of the population should be able to control the rest.
