Well, I was thinking. A rare occasion to be sure, but neccesary to clean the air out between my head. Or to clean the brain out, whatever you like.
Meh. That paragraph sounds weird, and it is.
Anyway, my question is, WHAT ON EARTH? Where does the modern form of democracy come from?! I know Greece had democracy--but after Rome fell and all that, how on earth did democracy come back?
Especially with kings like Louis XIV. You know, those insane kings who had so much power.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd argue that democracy came back precisely BECAUSE of kings who had too much power.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Well, then would you? I want to find out the answer! Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ancient Democracy is definantly not what it happens to be today. In the ancient sense democracy was for the landowners and rich only in theory and practice. It was more like having many kings rather than one king.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, it wasn't quite so simple as that. In greece it was certainly landowners and rich, but in the last days of republican rome, for instance, it was "citizens", which were typically at least somewhat landed, but hardly always. However, the richer citizen's votes counted more (the voting collectives they were part of had fewer members than those of the poorer citizens).
However, our system of government is in semi direct descent from the germanic tribal system which wasn't wiped out in england as in much of the germanic world due to church influence (in the rest of the world, that is).
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Earlier today my professor said that our system was created to be extremely slow and inefficient so that no one would ever be able to take too much power. So when you complain about how the government isn't working, that means it's working fine.
I had never thought of it that way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, there are definite intentional inefficiencies built in.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Rome thought to build a way to bypass those problems in its republic. It had two consuls that were able to become dictator for 6 months. Actually worked okay.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort* worked horribly. Take anotheer look at those history books. You might notice the repeated internal violent conflict, including several civil wars and many civil purges.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
It worked fine for about 250 years, and then broke down horribly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Would you care to specify the 250 year period it worked fine in?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Fugu: I'm talking about the period before Caesar.
My thoughts on democracy.
quote: Money created the foundations for democracy in western civilization. It replaced feudal ties and bonds, it became the foundation of society, and once it did so, rulers could control power by controlling money. Hence, to understand how the foundations for democracy were created, one has to trace the increasing value of money that climaxed in the English civil war.
At first in the Dark Ages, the most valuable commodity was militarily safe land that could withstand constant raids and invasions from groups such as the Muslims and Vikings. Money was of little importance as most communities were self-sufficient. Once Europe stabilized, however, cities began to flourish. Food surpluses led to inter-city trade and the flourishing of artisans. Trade led to the creation of uniform money.
Money escalated in value as it could buy increasingly useful items. Soon, as less and less people grew their own food, money was the only way for people to obtain their essential supplies. Society grew to rely on money and the trading ability it gave.
By extension, rulers too relied on money. In Britain, Jon Softsword needed money to fuel his endless attempts to take France. Nobles who controlled the money demanded that he sign the Magna Carta and give them rights. He was forced to comply. Later, in Edward I's reign and Edward III's reign, money was again needed. Both rulers turned to Parliament.
Parliament, however, only held true power when the ruler needed money. So in 1628, when Charles I needed to fund his wars against Spain and France, Parliament took the opportunity to demand he sign a document called the Petition of Rights. With that, a year later he dissolved Parliament and refused to let to it meet.
It passed increasingly intense measures against him. Finally, when he needed money to fight the Scots, he was forced to let it return to session in 1640. He tried to enforce his polices with physical force: Parliament rebelled and formed an army.
When Parliament won, the foundation for democracy had been set. Government by the people had started. No longer could a ruler capriciously rule: or if he or she did, he or she would lose essential money.
[ June 08, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I repeat, would you care to specify the 250 year period? Do you mean before Caesar rose to dictator? Before the triumvirate? Before he was born?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I disagree with the conclusions of that short extract. The continent had money as well (earlier, in fact), yet democracy (or its close relative, the parliamentary monarchy) did not really take seed there as it did in England. Money merely mutated the situations that were already in place, transforming the counties (descended from tribal/village organizations that had been disrupted by the church on the continent) from largely social organizations into more governmental ones, each leveraging its own sense of identity as an argument for entitlement in the evolving rulership.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Ah, but countires such as France and Spain never had the government rely on a group of public representatives for their money.
I don't really know anything about the 250 year idea presented earlier. I can't really argue Roman history ATM, not having studied it for a while.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)