I do not think democracy is a universal value. I would consider it a relative newcomer on the calendar of human existence. Why? Well, look at history, past and present. Government has seldom been of, by and for the people. More often, it has been of, by and for a powerful elite---and has been effected through intimidation and violence. Look at any civilization, prior to Plato; and many others afterwards and take their measure. I have always had a problem with church and state: they are inextricable, while many naively avow that they ought to be separate. This is a primary reason why Protestants split from Catholicism. They got tired of money ruling their sacred lives. Today, or course, money rules most everything, sacred and secular. Ain't that a bitch?
Democracy is not one-size-fits-all. Never was. Never will be. Freedom implies more than we are willing to allow.
Pretty much.

Democracy?
Who would vote to be governed, ruled over, or controlled by anyone else but Oneself?
=

在古代雅典，民主是在进步中死去的。古罗马也没能让民主运作起来;然而，奥古斯都·凯撒保留了当时已不复存在的民主制度，以便通过这些制度行使独裁权力。角斗士、反叛者斯巴达克斯未能建立共产主义民主制度。20世纪的一群可恶的暴君敢于自称为“民主共和国”。即使是在现代西方民主国家，富人越来越富，穷人越来越绝望，而中产阶级的财富随着我们文明的退化而被侵蚀。
Democracy could be admirable if it could be made to work but as yet there is no evidence that humanity has the wisdom to be able to do so.

Well stated T, well stated. Your last sentence, though not original, is well-reiterated. And the overall substance of your comment is congruent with the reality of what others have stated, seems to me. Democracy is but another ideal---an outgrowth of the indomitablilty of the human spirit. Or, do we call those paradigms now? Thanks for the kind words. JP and KT: please carry on---this blog could one day be legendary...

I wrote a new declaration of independence and preamble to the Constitution sometime ago and thought to share it here.
Thanks,
A Declaration of Unity Freedom & Equality
We the people of this planet Earth, in order to form a more perfect or equal union, establish equitable justice, insure domestic as well as universal tranquility, provide for a common defense against inequity, promote a general equitable welfare system, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, or more simply the true Freedoms of Equality, to ourselves, our posterity, to all things, must declare and practice a new constitution, based on the ultimate truth, the power of Nature?s true equality, the separate and equal station in which Nature?s God entitles all, the self-evident truth that not only all men, but equally all things are truly created equal, that all is truly One. Then and only then, will mankind as well as the entire universe, that he through the course of human events so unlawfully, so unnaturally, so destructively, and so inequitably divided, be truly united, and equally set free. The time has come to dissolve the bands of inequity that divide us, the time has come for a new declaration, an evolution based on truth, a new constitution powered by nature?s true equity, true unity, true Oneness, the time has come to unite all things and set the universe free.
只有真相能让我们自由!
=

If by universal value it is meant a value for which there is a force of reason to adopt, then Democracy is a Universal value. Acts of consent for a governing body are democratic acts; therefore individuals who are in favor of their government are, by definition, participating in a Democracy. Acts of disconsent and protest are attempts to interact democratically with a political entity. Only by nonparticipation does one disengage with democracy.

Equality is the true value of the Universe.
Let freedom ring!
=

是民主的缺陷吗?正如本博客中许多人所描述的那样，它的内在特征，还是与我们未能正确地建立和实施它有关?我不是美国人，但我非常感兴趣地关注着共和党的表演。如果一个候选人胆敢用他的大脑推理，他就会变成可疑的自由主义者，而不是足够保守的人，这是可怕的。或者，如果他/她愿意成长为一个人或政治家，他们就会踩在?标签在他身上。假设大众意识?通过民主程序选出最不正常的政治家。
Let us be positive about this for a moment, and assume the electorate successfully selected the candidate with the best qualification. In a true democracy, the majority should have the means to adjust, change its collective mind on any issue to the extent it is practical, resulting in course corrections the Government should heed. In our current system, we address these issues by limiting the duration of time a politician can hold onto office.
我认为，我们的民主状况更多地反映了选民的成熟程度，而不是民主本身是否是一种可行的社会治理形式。问题是我们如何使它更有效地工作?
The question of values, whether there are universal values is a critical consideration. Organized religions take it for granted that they are the only one who know what they are. Like it or not, we have a strong religious dimension to our subject matter if the electorate subscribed to follow various religious doctrines. Is there a chance to identify some common values that do not have their roots in religious believes? If values do not sprout from metaphysical layers, how can we go about identifying them? Is there a non-religious god of some sort that would grant the universality to our moral codes? I?d like to suggest there is such a ?god?. It is our ?humanness?, our emerging, developing and expanding human nature.
Universal values are wired, hard-coded into the fabric of our makeup. We do not have to figure out what they are through some convoluted phylosophical reasoning. We can simply know them by reflecting what we are and what it is we all value. Mother Teresa and the Afgan suicide bombers all value life, for example. The suicide bomber wants to secure a luxurious aternal life in paradise by killing fellow humans. These misguided people are still searching for values ? albeit in a highly undesireable way.

Hmmmm...a universal shout of "democracy sucks, and especially ours." Easy to say, sitting all nice and comfy enjoying all the rights our democracy has provided us (including open blogs like this one). Try taking a look at all the countries around the world that don't have democracy - would any of you (or anyone in their right mind) want to live there instead of here?
The whole question really turns on another, deeper one - do all people in fact have "inalienable" rights? If yes, then if follows that the form of government that best protects those rights is the best form - and therefore universally the best, since those "inalienable" rights apply to all people.
I will take those "inalienable" rights as a given, and I will further posit that no government system known to man protects and promotes those rights better than democracy (Plato's fantasies notwithstanding) - and I think history bears me out. Unless someone can show me another that does (or did) better?

Are inalienable rights a cornerstone of democracy, as we think we know it, or were they there before democracy was conceived? Hoepner got me to thinking. And we all know what happens when a carpenter begins to think. He becomes a dangerous man---open to influence, and God forbid, revolution. Most of us do not get to choose where we get to live, not initially anyway and, of course, that is an inherent attraction for countries like the USA. Give us your tired, your poor; your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shore (although that third stanza has raised some ire of late...); bring these, the homeless tempest tossed to me...etc., etc.
I left the United States in 1969. Because of the freedoms that allowed government to make foolish decisions about what kinds of foreign incursions (ergo, Viet Nam) it could compel its citizens (mostly young) to participate in. There were other peripheral issues: race discrimination; social inequity; nationalistic and patriotic fervor, both founded upon an arrogance borne from winning some wars and having apres-war booming economies.
在人道主义假释期间回来时，我有一些幻想。7年的时间也许会带来改变(我想)——无论如何，1976年我母亲病重，我不希望让父亲在没有赡养的情况下离开。
他和她一直支持着我，超越了为人父母的要求。现在，这么多年过去了，我亲爱的父母早已不在了，她在1985年，他在1994年。我太老了，不太关心从现在开始会发生什么。自1969年以来，没有什么大的变化。自1976年以来。美国人应该比现在更好。但是，当你相信你是最好的，你还能去哪里?罗马人这样做了，谁知道在他们之前有多少人?在大多数领域都有好的、更好的和最好的。当然。 I'll leave readers to deduce their own solutions---unless, of course, they see no need to do so.

Many times, my opinions---and/or the manner in which I state them---annoy or alarm people. To me, it is all good fun, because I have lived more than six decades now and have seen language; witnessed behaviors much more egregious than my own...everyday and from individuals in every age group. That much said about me, I'll say this about the issue of democracy: People either understand and want it. Or they don't. In either case, it is not incumbent upon one country to actively assist another. Such global paternalism breeds global animosity. I do not give a flip about arguments concerning national security; regional destabilization or other such political double speak. They are, most usually, smoke screens, designed to cover economic fears and insecurities. Or, at best, excuses for furtherence of war-making, which allieviates some economic fears and insecurities. We can argue whether matter is solid or fluid. The fact remains (so far) that we cannot walk through solid rock and that two equally massive objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. If you have something proving the contrary, please let me know. But understand this: It won't change a damned thing, politically or philosophically.
Science might blink once; then shriek with undisguised glee. Of course. It would change things, uh, astronomically(?) But, it probably would not convert the world to universal democracy...although one just does not know, does one?
My appreciation to all contributors to this blog post and to Messrs. Taylor and Perry. Impeccable, guys---as always, Thanks for allowing me to be a part of it all.
PDV.

民主不是安排社会的最佳方式，但没有比这更好的了!

Inalienable rights of course pre-exist all forms of government, they are by definition inherent in human beings. Recognition of them, however, began with democracy. While no system of government is perfect, or perfectly executed (we are humans after all), I will still maintain that democracy protects and promotes inalienable rights better than any other system known to man.
I will wager that even when you left in 1969, you did not flee to a non-democracy? My uncle went to Vietnam, even though he disagreed with the war, hated the Army, and even though I think he sometimes wishes he had gone to Canada instead. Was he wrong to go? Were we as a nation necessarily wrong to go to war in Vietnam? That is a whole 'nother argument. I served twenty-four years in the Army - I think my uncle finds me a bit of a curiosity.
在世界各地，非民主国家不得不筑起高墙，使用武力把人民困在里面。民主国家发现自己竖起了栅栏，把人们挡在外面。我想这说明了一切。

Carpenter's comments remind me that at one time US soldiers had a Constitutional right to refuse to fight on foreign soil; that is, the US government was prohibited from sending any citizen to a foreign country against his will. The right played havoc with US attempts to invade Canada in the War of 1812-14, for example. The right was abrogated in a "housekeeping" Amendment; but, if the government wished to signal confidence in the democratic process restoring that right would go a long way.

Democracy is not a boolean variable, but a continuum, and in most cases, a work in progress. Absolute autocracy and absolute democracies are both unlikely in practice. For example, if a municipality, let alone a country, requires citizens to vote on every budget line item, they would not have time for their day jobs.
Professor Diamond fails to examine an equally important side of the question: how effectively have democracies been governed? Singaporeans enjoy a limited democracy, yet its per capita GDP has pulled far ahead of Ghana, its economic equal at independence. Poor and Illiterate adults in India have the right to vote, yet the Congress party governs under the control of someone without electoral responsibility. After 60 years, the poorest 2/3 of India saw little improvements in wealth or literacy, while the totalitarian Chinese government has acted far more diligently on big matters of poverty, illiteracy, public health and population explosion.
I do not imply that totalitarian governments are better, or more responsive, just some counter-examples to show Professor Diamond's fallacy to describe democracy in abstract and absolute terms.

我想补充一些关于加州政府的评论。一个问题是，加州试图同时混合两种形式的民主政府:代议制民主和直接民主，这导致了混乱。世界上有多少民主国家这么做?我想没有，但如果你能想到一个，请告诉我。加州人需要选择代议制民主还是直接民主。既然你们自己都要去做，为什么还要付钱给代表去管理呢?不仅如此，你还花钱请全职代表来做一份被公民不断试图篡夺的工作。如果你不愿意放弃直接民主，那么至少让你的立法机关兼职。即使你愿意放弃直接民主，也要让你的立法机关兼职。这样的话，立法者就会与他们所代表的社区有更紧密的联系，你就可以付给他们更少的钱，也许你就会有更少的法律被通过，从而导致公民希望把权力交到他们手中。

Arvoasitis:我读过宪法和所有的修正案，我不熟悉你所说的这个“权利”。
It was asked "what have we saved?" with all this defense and promotion of democracy. I would say, in chronological order: western Europe (twice), the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, eastern Europe, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo...so far. I've been to most of those places. If you talk to people from the generation involved, they are pretty uniformly thankful for it, because they know what the alternative was. We don't, so tend to devalue it.
Democracy is not really a universal value, since it is not a value, it is a system of government. I would maintain it is a universal aspiration - thus even very undemocratic regimes feel compelled to pretend to it. Think about it - when all those people fled Vietnam after the communist takeover, where did they run to? And you know, some of those running to the US were Viet Cong.
We've lived in democracy for so many generations that we find it way to easy to take it for granted.

I am always fascinated by comments that avow (or imply) our "wiring", and its elemental intractibility (my characterization, of course). Human consciousness is either a gift, or a curse. Which we are still exploring.
Isn't democracy just an analog of freedom? (no, I did not say: anagram...) My house is, uh, wired. My car has wiring. I believe that my human consciousness---that of all sentient beings---is something more than the electrical impulses which drive life. Ah, but now I have crossed the line between physics and biology---and, perhaps, started a new thought experiment?? It is said, in some situations, that we cannot have it both ways.
I once felt that way about science and philosophy. I was wrong. Why? One, without the other, would atrophy and perish. Did I just say something profound? No? I did not think so.

Inspired by Abelard's comment, I ask; Isn't the percentage of a population engaged in civil deliberation a more accurate measure of democracy than equality in political representation?

Democracy: Two sheep and a wolf debating on what's for dinner.
Under a collectivist view, if you care about subjective humanity then democracy is not for you.
Since THE WORLD is based upon SUBJECTIVE HUMANITY under objective fact-intuitive principals THEN DEMOCRACY IS NOT FOR THE WORLD.
醒醒吧。

Democracy can work only in fairly homogeneous societies. Societies that are, say, half Shia and half Sunni, half evangelical Christian and half secular, or half libertarian and half socialist that try to govern themselves democratically soon find they are damned to hell.