| > I think you're staking out a very strange political position But that's not my political position. I assume for the sake of argument that my political position is the same as yours. > if you're suggesting that it wouldn't be undemocratic to disenfranchise women, African-Americans and people who don't own significant amounts of property. Of course it would. I wonder if this is tripping you up: a democracy can do undemocratic things. Doing undemocratic things did not cause Athens, the United States, or dozens of other countries to not be democracies. > The history of the word 'democracy' is irrelevant. The history of the word is one of several ways (which you are just not hearing) of demonstrating why what you're arguing is not just wrong, it is nonsensical. > But personally I would not call it a democracy any longer in that circumstance. At this point, I have to say, you're welcome to your own definition of 'democracy' or anything else. Use it in good health. |
You could say the same for the 'D'PRK. Maybe it's just a democracy that does a lot of undemocratic things.