In which other way can one interpret the arguments you present, if not literally? The core of your ideas can be agreed upon, such as the protection of individual rights and right of property. Yet two wrongs does not make one right, and therefore I feel somewhat urged to oppose the background you lay for these ideas.

I agree that when it comes to democracy, one has to think outside the box, but in order to better (or maybe solve) its problems. Moreover, there are several issues to democracy, including the one you mention; the risk of an apathetic majority suppressing the minority, or even worse, intended abuse of majority powers.

These issues taken into consideration, it is absurd to think that these are traits of a so-called true democracy. For the most part, the ideas of democracy rely on ideals. As often is the case with ideals in general, they are not necessarily met, although they give us something to reach for.

Furthermore, although democracy can be defined as simply as majority rule, this is a lacking definition that in no way is representative for the complexities of democracy. In most modern democracies reaching for the aforementioned ideals, there are mechanisms in place to counteract the problems. A constitution is only one of several such mechanisms, but maybe one of the most important ones, as it most often ensures individual rights (including minority rights, to avoid the problem you point out - which quite clearly was very much present in Socrates' time, yet much less so today).

I would very much like you to elaborate in which respects the minority is suppressed in the democracies of our day, if we are to take this further. It may very well be, that while you do have some points, they are problems of a nature quite different than what you think.

Firstly, however the wording, it is an empirical truth that the Greek democracy was nothing like democracy in its present form.

Second, the system of government under fascism, especially in Italy (although fascist characteristics can apply to Nazism as well), was a corporatist one. It sought to discipline the individuals through workers unions and corporations, as well as youth organizations. No individualistic thought has ever been expressed by a true modern fascist theorist, because it is not simple possibly - individual rights presuppose a freedom which is not coherent with the collectivist discipline that fascism champions.

Furthermore, although corporatist traits can be applied to free states, such as my own - Norway - it has nothing to do with fascism. The latter is includes what one could call state corporatism; a deep and thorough inclusion of corporations within the state to control the masses. In some modern states, however, we have - what I would translate as society corporatism, although that sure enough is wrong - in which, not necessarily corporations, but non-state organizations or interest groups are part of the decision-making.

Yet, I agree - to a certain extent - that one should "pull out the good from the ultimate ideologies", but then again, why should it necessarily be ideologies? Ideologies tend to be extreme, quite "squared" and aiming towards a certain end. As such, I believe philosophical ideas are much more suited to be the foundation of democracy.

As for anarchy, I again would like to highlight that anarchist ideas have little with individualism to do. It is rather from liberal political thinkers that such ideas have come, and they take them to such extremes, that they have - in my personal point of view - little, or maybe nothing, to do with reality: They dismiss fundamental thoughts on human nature, such as egoistic traits, concluding that men will be able to live side by side without any regulations. Nonsense!

:)

To be more consize - the normative theories of democracy is one thing; but how about democracy in a more descriptive, realistic state: it is not merely the rule of the many - it can be elitist, it can be based on a wider participation, or it can be the subject to diverse and rational argument before decisions are made.

Under given circumstances, some of these characteristics can describe democracy. Which are more in accordance with the general vew of democracu, or even yet, how do we wish democracy to be?

One could, firstly, argue that any rational person would see that a society is far better off if its citizens have the goods distributed somewhat evenly between them. Under these circumstances, society as a whole would be able to aim towards an idea of the good life (in Aristotelian tradition) or such; or maybe, towards other goals of even more importance.

If we exclude such a thought, much speaks for the fact that any rational person, when his or her material needs are fulfilled, would seek to fulfill the needs of others. This doesn't necessarily have to be on the grounds of altruism, but rather - in utilitarian tradition - that society is a better place when the highest possible number of people are happy.

And if one is prone to refuse both these ideas, one could ask: why do we not need welfare?

Indeed many political philosophers have argued that egoism is a inherit human trait. Yet they have championed ideas that are supposed to limit this trait, especially through laws - not necessarily on the basis of an idea of welfare, but rather to protects certain rights. These rights have been the starting point of both thought on democracy, as well as justice. (Even Adam Smith thought that traits more altruistic (my words) in nature were valuable).

And in modern tradition, as always, I am prone to point a finger to John Rawls and his Theory of Justice. It is a theory that have been a great inspiration to ideas of welfare, as well as an instigator to ideas of atomism and liberalism. And still, as of today, few have been able to come with arguments against his ideas that have been able to shake the wall his theory is. Rather than I explain it here, I recommend a search on Google.

I agree on the matter of direct democracy. It is simply not possible in larger communities.

But how can one expand on the idea of democracy? Is democracy merely the normative idea of the rule of the many, or are the ways in which democracy can be described to a further extent on a more descriptive foundation?

You are wrong on several points:

Fascism does not champion any sort of individual freedom, hereunder including property rights. Furthermore, it is uncertain as what meaning you give to the term "old fascism".

The idea of property rights are derived political philosophers of the last half of the millennium, amongst others John Locke and David Hume.

In short: Locke argued, in his contract theory, that property is a part of natural law. Hereunder, property should not only be understood in terms of the regular use of the word, but also autonomy over ones person, work etc.

Hume on the other hand saw rights of property as a an counteract against man's shortsightedness, to make up for human egoism. Such rights, defined in laws, were to secure a much more farsighted environment for humanity.

We can, of course, not entitle all the honor to these philosophers, but it is not an understatement that their ideas have been of importance to the development of rights of property. Fascism, however, is not only a preposterous ideology based on discipline of the collective through corporative and others means, but also irrelevant in to this subject.

Anarchistic ideas are nor the foundation of ideas of freedom. Again, one is inclined to reference philosophers such as John Locke, but also the much later John Stuart Mill is a central figure. It is through the ideas of these philosophers, and others, that anarchistic ideas have been derived - and as such your reference is plain wrong.

It should also be noted, that these defenders of democracy, especially Mill, championed democracy. Modern philosophers also take point in democracy in their theories of freedom.

To further reference Mill, direct democracy is impossible when it comes to large groups of people. As have been noted here, it is more suited to smaller communities (in fact, direct democracy is in use in Switzerland). Thus, representative democracy is the better solution.

Representative democracy is democracy. It is none of this mish-mash "Democratic-Republic"-nonsense that you propose it to be. The USA can maybe better be described as a constitutional democracy, in which there is a majority rule, bound by the constitution. However, it should be noted that in the case of the USA, one must also take into consideration the federal system.

You say that democracy killed Socrates and Plato. It may well be that the Greek democracy was guilty of this, but it is a fact that the Greek democracy, although a true inspiration to the ideas of modern democracy, was not the kind of system of government we today know as democracy. Some would argue it was in decline, corrupted, though the fact that only certain groups were allowed to vote, is a better display of it errors.

Democracy is the rule of the many, and it is only in a representative form that it is possible. This idea can be expands upon, and democracy can be described in many fashions, based on which extent it includes the people in political debates and decisions. Your definition of democracy does not take such things into consideration, and is at best lacking.

Last, but certainly not least: It is frightening to see that you believe fascism champions individual rights; in fact, it is, in my eyes, no better than Nazism. I recommend picking up some books both on history and political philosophy, so that you may see that you are wrong in this matter.

Red Alert, anyone?

For one, the idea "each to his need" was not something that popped out of nowhere; although I can't substantiate it further, I think there's something inherently human about such an idea.

Secondly, there is no empirical connection between the phrase from the bible and marxist/communist philosophy. Even the logical connection you propose is quite weak, as (with the above paragraph in mind) the idea of "each to his need" probably can be derived from other sources than the bible.

I'm not that well-read on this subject, but I don't believe Marx, nor any of the general marxist or communist thinkers ever had the bible or any kind of religion or religious text as the backdrop.

Furthermore, Marx' starting point was dialectic materialism (inspired by Hegelian dialectic).

My stance is that life has no true meaning in itself; there is no higher purpose given by a god or the like.

Yet we exist, and given the premise above, it's not a given that there shouldn't be any meaning to life. It's up to each and every one of us to give life the meaning we think it should have; what if life worth if we don't aim to move it?

That said, I regard some ways of living life of more value than others: in general, those ways which contribute the most to the furtherment of mankind towards an end-goal, which I amongst other things, initially consider to be of freedom, happiness, enlightment and such.

Life it is.