Political Definitions Are Changing

[Martin Hash]

People constituting a nation having a say in their well being to some extent is the natural order. Being dictated to by an outside proletariat (alien,) or a technocracy not answerable to the people is unnatural. Granted, in an aristocracy the level of control the people constituting the kingdom has, is minimal, and that's also a natural order. It's not a universal though. The former scenario being far older and natural as well.

You got that reversed; the "natural state" of society is brutish dictatorship. Rising above that is difficult. That's why societies that do are so well-remembered.

[TheReal_ND]

Proof?

[Martin Hash]

Proof?

History?

[TheReal_ND]

You only have five thousand years and most of that is near Asian.

[TheReal_ND]

I should add that the bulk of oppressive ruler societies are near Asian. As soon as European history began to appear this no longer became a constant rule of society.

[Martin Hash]

I should add that the bulk of oppressive ruler societies are near Asian. As soon as European history began to appear this no longer became a constant rule of society.

Uhhh... America started the ball rolling in 1776. Otherwise it was monarchies all the way.

[TheReal_ND]

All the way? Did you skip over Rome, Greece? How did the Germans live? The Phoenicians? Cretes? Angles, Saxons and Vikings?

[Smitty-48]

There were modern European republics which predate the USA, in Rennaissance Italy, the Dutch, the Swiss, the Polish-Lithuanian.

[TheReal_ND]

Switzerland. Perfect example of a community where the individuals making up the society exerted their will on it through collective bargaining.

[Martin Hash]

In fact, when "the American experiment" was started, even die-hard democratians thought it was too big.