Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (14689)	5/28/2001 11:18:51 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

I think that direct democracy has size limitations. Our island couldn't grow much without outgrowing that model and needing some structure. Exactly. One of the benefits of a small group is that the needs of all members can remain a concern of all. A larger group would inevitably develop sub groupings reflective of personality, interests, and so forth. I am presuming that differences in skills and abilitiies would not need to lead to using behaviors, no more than it does off-island--not amongst people of maturity and character. If people (even mature people) are to care for one another, they need to have TIME for one another. So it is inevitable that people form alliances in smaller groupings. When the group exceeds family size (say a dozen), the WE slowly begins to decay into WE and THEM. Of course, this is a reality of life everywhere, but it does then beg for a structure to inform the commonality of the larger group. Even so, the defects that would occur in such a society are not a necessary function of size, but rather of individuals changing, and failing to meet the original requirements of the scenario. Regardless of size, if all the apples in a barrel are good, and harmless to their neighbours--then so it is. Ahimsa.