BL> However, my point is correct: democracy *can* be quite large as
 BL> long as the people are homogenous. In fact, a pure democracy
 BL> would have to be fairly large to work. Small groups go towards
 BL> anarchy, communism or totalitarianism. Democracy takes too much
 BL> time in a small group. 

 KR> it works as long as everybody accepts the results, and
 KR> cooperate. i think that the current gun debate is an excellent
 KR> example of why it wont work here and now. 

  The gun-business will work because cooperation is forced in the end:
the guns will be finally confiscated and the recalcitrants gaoled. The
Vietnam War was a better example: in the end the majority came around
to accept the minority view. Democracy allows discussion.

  After you accused me of confusing democracy and capitalism, I think
you are confusing Democracy and Law. Democracy merely means that laws
are passed by the majority... bad laws exist in all systems. Society
depends on people accepting Law, whether the society is totalitarian,
democratic or even anarchic. Totalitarian law is imposed, democratic
law is debated and finally passed by a majority, and anarchic law is
basic... but all laws are enforced or the society falls apart.

 BL> Abo society is very strict with behaviour imposed on the tribe
 BL> by elders, as with the kibutz. Freedom is sacrificed for the
 BL> common good imposed from above, defined from above, and
 BL> development is stifled. A democracy is impossible to run in
 BL> small groups, but it facilitates change... as does anarchy. 

 KR> order is always imposed in any sort of organised society, the
 KR> only one where no order is imposed is anarchy.

  Anarchy must have order or it falls apart too. Anarchy is a true
contender everyone ignores, but in fact Unions are mostly anarchic;
Fido is anarchic... even something like a football team. An anarchy
allows anyone to do anything they want, but it relies on the overall 
goal to restrict what they can want, and still get a result.

  For instance, anarchy on the road would work. Everyone would have to
drive on the left (or right). Everyone would have to stop after
accidents (or carry a gun to prevent the bastard driving off), but
speed limits and such are not inherent to the goal.

  There are rules inherent in everything we do that involves other 
people. Anarchy is not *no* rules, it is no extra rules.

 KR> i'd say that democracy is **only** possible in small groups, it
 KR> has only been successful in small groups of like minded souls.

  Democracy can't work in small groups... look at a Body Corporate;
the injustices imposed by Little Hitlers are infamous: a determined
person does not like cats, so no one is allowed cats. What I am saying
is that democracy is only successful with homogeneity (small dissent)
but this is the usual case. The size of the group is just a matter
of odds. A small group will throw up only one leader, a large group
with throw up many and give the rest a choice. Most of us are happy to
go along with the rest.

  But once the representatives are elected democratically, the council
of representatives is basically anarchic. This is why political Parties
we invented, to form basically two groups and prevent true anarchic
representation. The Party system is what destroys Democracy.  

 KR> maximising freedom can only lead to anarchy, then the freedom
 KR> of the strong is maximised at the expense of the weak. 

  You have that backwards: maximising anarchy can lead to freedom,
but you are right about the weak. It's just the way things are.
Whatever system we use, there needs to be a bias towards the weak, but
the one system that did that most (Soviet Communism) ended up with the 
poorest whites on the planet! It doesn't work.

  You can't look at a political system in isolation, you need to
consider the economic system and the law at the same time.

  I don't think there is any doubt that capitalism is best at creating
wealth. With that starting point, the ideal political system is one
which causes minimal dissent, distributes the wealth evenly, and has 
minimum impact on individual freedom... since it is this freedom of 
competition that makes capitalism work. It's a loop.

  A democratic anarchy would serve this best... a minimalist democracy
using tax as the weapon to control free enterprise, and basically no
other laws at all.

 KR> the middle class is what makes a society work, they take the
 KR> direction of the upper class and guide the lower class in
 KR> carrying them out.

  This is not true, and never has been since WWI. No one gives a shit
about the upper class... they exist in isolation on already-earned
money. It is true that the middle class makes society work; they have
numbers, they are the movers and shakers, the actual creators of
wealth. Like everything else, wealth has to be continually created.

 KR> when that middle class, though find out how much power they
 KR> really have then the system is in danger, and that is what is
 KR> happening in china. the middle class are finding out that they
 KR> can use their experience for their own ends. 

  No... a middle-class rebellion is impossible; never happened.
Rebellion comes from above as a coup, or from below as revolution.
The middle class *always* work for their own ends. All human
beings do that, except the occasionally insane ones like Jesus,
Hitler, etc.

 BL> I think we may be arguing over the meaning of "migration." To
 BL> me, that means leaving one country to live in another,
 BL> permanently. I find it hard to believe that any of these
 BL> Chinese entrepreneurs are surrendering their Australian
 BL> passports... they're just chasing a dollar in a stronger
 BL> economy than ours.

 KR> you dont have to surrender your australian passport to become a
 KR> permanent resident of another country unless that country
 KR> demands it, any more than you have to give up your previous
 KR> citizenship to become a citizen here.

  You are still avoiding the meaning of "migration" which to me
implies permanency.

 KR> i know quite a lot of people with dual citizenship, i've got 2
 KR> passports, its quite useful, i can go to the us, japan, or
 KR> anywhere in europe without a visa. 

  Pommie bastard.

 BL> The Military throws up men for the job, and Curtis LeMay and
 BL> SAC was necessary at the time. Politicians keep them on a tight
 BL> rein. In fact,

 KR> curtis lemay would have been a fuckwit under any circumstances,
 KR> it is to the credit of the us presidents that he was kept under
 KR> control, and their debit that he was put anywhere near the
 KR> position that he was in. he was very effectively satirised in
 KR> dr strangelove. 

  But he was necessary at the time, like all great military leaders.
SAC was needed to threaten the Russians by degrees a step at a time, 
and it needed a lunatic the Russians believed would kill them all.
Curtis LeMay was the man for the job. 

 BL> the Chinese have probably the best record of all for
 BL> controlling their military.

 KR> thats true, they are too busy pirating cds, well they were, i
 KR> think that has stopped now, at least the supply of "installer
 KR> disks" has dried up in hk. 

  He, he. The Communists don't understand that copyright is part of
the great game. This is the one failing of anarchy: a new player who
doesn't know the name of the game can damage the game. If we do away
with copyright, no one creates (except for themselves) and the wealth
dries up.  

  This is a great failing of the West at present, and for Australia in
particular: the creative ones have no commercial outlet.

Regards,
Bob    
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---