zlacker

Democracies are not 'young'. Rome was a democracy for four hundred years before falling into autocracy and empire. As was Athens and some other Greek cities. Many 'barbarian' tribes were democracies as well. Democracy is not something invented in 1776. All experiments in democracy have so far failed. Most fail spectacularly and devolve into authoritarianism (see the 1st French Republic). There has never been a long-sustained democratic government. The most stable forms of government is a representative monarchy or an empire. In 2066, the monarchy of England will celebrate 1000 pretty-much contiguous years. There are actually monarchies that have lasted longer (like the Eastern half of the roman empire which lasted more than 1500 years, as well as the pharaohs of Egypt or the empires of China). There is no democracy that has lasted that long. And to say that the English monarchy requires 'subjugation of its citizens' is quite silly, or even that the Roman empire under Caesar required constant human rights abuses of its citizens (it didn't... roman citizens had lots of rights we enjoy today).

Look.... I believe in democracy, but I don't have a religious fervor over it. I am shocked when my fellow Americans seem so unschooled in basic history. Indeed, many of the undemocratic things put into our constitution (like the much maligned electoral college) were put there by our founders hoping to avoid the pitfalls of democracy. They were very aware that democracy typically fails spectacularly, and put in many anti-democratic things into the constitution to avoid it.

>>iammis+(OP)
Rome was a democracy like North Korea is a democracy. Sure, different time, but the pleb certainly had zero influence on policy direction. But in any case I wouldn't call it "not successful".

Contrary to that England is a parliamentary democracy for nearly 200 years now and the monarch only has a representative role.

But on that account every form of governance has failed. How many autocracies and monarchies have failed? In that case it isn't because of fundamental flaws and had other reasons?

I don't think the US constitution is full of anti-democratic rules at all. On the contrary, its intent is to grant rights.

>>raxxor+eu1
> I don't think the US constitution is full of anti-democratic rules at all. On the contrary, its intent is to grant rights

People make statements like this and I can only hope they're not american, because the idea you could be educated in an american school and come out believing this is too horrifying to ponder.

Our founders directly stated in contemporaneous documents their fear of unchecked democracy and how it can descend into tyranny.

There is a natural conflict between democracy (and any form of government) and individual rights.

The founders sought to create a republic (not even a democracy really) with heavy protections for individual rights which they saw as at risk from democratic forces

That you think individual rights and democracy are intertwined is only because of bad history linking the american constitution to some great creation story of democracy itself. Many democracies have been authoritarian nightmares for those in the minority

Some Americans wanted a monarchy after the civil war, but they still wanted individual rights protected. Democracy won out but not because of its human rights record. Indeed, the founders were familiar with democratic tyranny based on their classical studies.

The examples of the natural misalignment between democracy and human rights are numerous. Slavery, Jim crow laws, drug laws, all of which were highly popular in their day or are popular now, but agree or disagree obviously curtail individual rights.

Now to your points.... No the Roman republic was not at all like north Korea. The Roman republic was an actual republic, with elections, power transfers etc.

England has been a monarchy for a thousand years and still is. Parliament is a nice thingy but the queen can get rid of it if she wants and she knows that. That's why they behave themselves most of the time. In fact she did this in recent memory in Australia.

All governments fail, but some fail faster and more spectacularly than others.

(I don't have time to give you every thing said by the founders on the danger of democracy and it's nTueal tension with individual rights... Here's a good starting point https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/jimhuntzinger/2018/1...)