What is Democracy, is Democracy Possible?

Democracy is a system of collective self-government where all individuals have equal access to government decision making.

Exactly! So is it right to use the propoganda of the false "concept" of democracy as mutual to the practical definition that you just gave to get the support of populaces? As if to somehow convince the public that if we have the definition you just gave, then we have the concept as well.

is that becauseyou dont believe in totalitarian goverment whatever its individual worth ?

Yes. The idea of the philosopher king is ludicrous and dangerous.

A society is the aggregation of millions of individual wills and actions, and no man could ever, ever come to an understanding of it.

In my opinion, if one ever comes to a position of power over another, not to mention political power over the whole of society, that person has a moral obligation to relieve himself or herself of power. If this is not done, I consider it my moral right to relieve him or her of this power and to punish them for wrongdoings.

I am Mr. Fight the Power, after all.

AHH but we are in the philosophers world of makebelieve...i am a benevolent ruler ,all my subjects have individual freedoms that live in luxury, freemedical care,no wars and most of all i have implemented a zero emmisions on all transport..nature and the environment are a priority..iam almost the benevolent god...now would you kill me and why have you not been killing lately?... are you full of promises and not much action or are you to stuck in the philosphers world..

A person's right to self-determination is categorical.

I will skip the discussion of what I would expect from my chosen ruler (closer to an advisor) and just state that benevolence does not imply righteousness. All of your implementations are wrong if at anytime they violate a person's right to self-determination and deny the person's ability to become his own person.

If I find myself in a position where I stand to lose greatly from your assassination, I would not attempt it, but at the same time I am morally forbidden from stopping another attempt. So you must rule with the understanding that revolution and death can become morally justified.

I don't kill lately because no man can kill a system. Education is the role of the anarchist now, and while I don't oppose violence against oppression and aggression, it is often counterproductive.

i intercede when natural justice is threatened

I measure practical benefit by natural justice, and this is the only legitimate role of government.

The question becomes whether it is necessary for a state to exist to protect natural justice. I do not believe it is necessary, and whatever benefit it may provide in providing a final arbiter of justice is outweighed by the risk of granting some unchecked body this power.

Because democracy seems to be more than a political definition, it is a social concept too. And this social concept appears to be the result of itself, which nobody bothers to point out how this can be empirically proven. I mean, we have the freedom to vote (which few attributed of democracy ironically? well maybe not), and then there seems to be a huge atmosphere of "freedom" and other such virtues evoked by democracy, especially in contrst of the third world nations in which media depicts the negativity, the vile, the cruelty, the lesser freedom that is preached outside of this western demos. The idea that the political concept/definition comes with or evokes these qualities that makes us seem superior (and by "seem" I talk ideologically especially) is rather presumptuous since nobody is willing to actually think about what it is that progresses us to make these claims. Why should a voting system evoke all these "fuzzy" (in humble respect to the conceptions of others) principles. I don't see the common people ruling as being contributory to media, technology, etc. Yes of course there is some influence, but its intentions are indifferent nonetheless.

So, is true democracy possible? Depends. If it's a political definition then yes of course, we have the minimum requirement of being able to claim such an irrelevancy. If it's the social concept then no I do not believe so. It would be like the absurdity of saying theodemocracy exists. In what way would that matter then?

Any thoughts, ideas, or arguments?

Democracy is just a catalyst for the evolution of social liberty.

What a fantasy you live in...do you really believe that democracy is as you described it?

I think democracy could do just the opposite, well, pseudo-democracy at least. It's the mindset that we live in democracy that gives us apathy.

What people call democracy is not democracy. I think a lot of people will claim democracy is this freedom out of the sense that we have it better off than other countries. In what way? Technologically speaking, everyone's right to vote.

See I don't think that an electoral system that allows everybody to vote creates these virtues for society. The electoral system itself emerges from the virtues of society. I think social characteristics make more sense to cause the political characteristics and not the other way around.

I just don't believe that democracy has a nature, it's just inherent from the social status of the society; how educated are people, how much do institutions affect the lifestyles, what institutions affect the culture, the media, etc.

It is the technology that acquires the liberties IMO, not the electoral system, but I agree that true democracy should be defended.