Thread: What is a democracy?

The problem with that, Tim is that Rome did not really become a superpower until well after they became that oligarchical Republic, and only came to it's highest reaches of power and knowledge under the Emperor. Though I think I do agree with you that socially speaking, the Roman Republic and later Empire did not meet all it's citizens basic needs for a government.

I suppose our problem with democracy is two-fold. We need the wisest of us to be our leaders, because they will be less likely to turn the advantages of the power government affords them to their own purposes and will have the knowledge to use that power to properly tend the needs of the citizenry. But we have no reliable method of choosing the wisest of us so that they may lead. In the past, it was a god who was or chose our leaders, then their descendants, then, when that system became sufficiently decadent, and it was overthrown, we turned to merchants, scientists and philosophers to lead. But now, by and large, we are dealing with their descendants once again. It seems that inheritance itself is the very source of this decadent and corrupting oligarchic tendency in government.

The simple truth is, money is power, and when a worthy, hard-working, intelligent individual comes up with a way of doing something that makes him a fortune, he deserves the power that comes with that. When the people see how he uses that power, we can have a basis to decide that he has the necessary character to serve in some representative capacity. But when he is allowed to give the vast sum of that power to two or three individuals of his choice, where feelings of family overwhelm nearly all but the wisest of us, our ability to make that choice is occluded, for we are not in a position to determine that the descendants deserve the power they have. Even worse, because we allow such transfer legitimacy, should this individual use his power poorly, we have no basis to challenge him or even to complain about the situation.

So it seems to me that the simple answer is to eliminate inheritance, an answer that is as simple as it is complex. Practically speaking, many would try to evade it by giving away their wealth before their deaths. Morally, no one is so mean-spirited that they would not allow a family member to pass on treasured memorabilia upon their death, and that can mean anything from costume jewelry to a country estate. Where this line should be drawn is for men far wiser than I to decide. Regardless, what is clear is that this would mean a great deal more money, and thus power, that would be going through the hands of government. In the spirit of Democracy where merit is the determinant of deserving, I would propose that all this money so collected be redistributed absolutely equally amongst all the country's citizens and that none of it be allowed for any other use, outside a 3/4 vote of Congress, the signature of the President and a popular vote. This would go a long way toward eliminating that pauper state you warned about, it would retain the meritocracy by putting everyone on an equal base playing field, and whatever else you could attain would be truly yours.

This puts the acquisition wealth on the same order as the acquisition of knowledge, for our inheritance would be a more universal inheritance. When a scientist discovers a new phenomena and a new theory, the import and significance of that discovery becomes everyone's, and the scientist still gains in reputation and ability, despite the fact that he does not keep his discovery to himself and use what insight he gains from it for his own purposes alone. Likewise, when a man devises some new product or service, or way of delivering an old one, that is more effective at meeting a consumer's need, he should gain in reputation and power, and it is only right that he should keep what he has earned. But when his life is done, the wealth and the power should be returned to the people from whence it came.