OK, it is you.
Sort of an anarcho-syndicalist commune?
Everyone knows the pirates weren’t in charge. It was those parrots riding around on their shoulders who were really running things.
Except for Rome, which kicked out its monarchy at about the same time. Of course, the example the two of them set is one reason why later peoples consciously rejected democracy.
We could almost call Athenian Democracy a oligarchy. Only 10-20% of the polulation could vote. Mind you, that wasn’t bad for the day, and most of those Citizens seemed to be pretty active politically.
Rome had a very complicated process. But the basis was democracy.
I disagree about the “example” both governments set a pretty good example, all things considered.
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Nonetheless, future governments rejected democracy because both Athens and Rome slid into tyranny. In Rome’s case, after violent chaos.
Cite? Not that Athens and Rome slid into tyranny, but that "future governments rejected democracy because ".
So you want a caveman who lives in the center of the Universe, right?
The Dope sucks…
…people back in very well. 
Well, Rome itself would be the first. The military dictatorship that was Rome continued to exist after Augustus (who was, admittedly, a genius) despite the recurring Tiberiuses, Caligulas, and Neros in part because no one, most especially the army, wanted either the chaos at the end of the late republic, nor the oligarchy that was the late republic. And while the Roman Republic was rising, one of the few Greek philosophers to pay attention to them, characterized the Roman Republic as the best form of government known to man - not Athens. (The cite would be on my Learning Company courses on Roman history. But no, I can think of neither the course’s name, the prof’s name, nor the philosopher’s.)
I have yet to find a tract on the internet that distills the political thought in the Middle Ages and pre 19th century Europe to cite. Rather than divert this thread, I’ll just suggest looking at the criticisms and claims of Europeans as to why American democracy would not work, and also the reasonings of those who wrote the Constitution.
Well, the Roman Empire simply could not be run by the weird cobbled together Roman Republic. Still, the “Republic” was considered a Golden Era, and many expressed a desire to go back to the Republic. So, many wanted the Old Republic back, not no-one.
Coloman, King of Hungary from 1095 to 1116, issued a famous law:
De strigis vero quae non sunt, nulla amplius quaestio fiat (As for the matter of witches, there is no such thing, therefore no further investigations or trials are to be held).
In this regard he was 600 years ahead of his time.
Well, he may have been a bit of by saying “future governments” - but it was certainly a huge problem well noted by political theorists and scholars. Even ordinary and well-educated people frequently believed that the example of Rome and Athens basically meant that a noble confederation or monarchy was inherently superior, because no matter how bad a King might be he had vested interests and a specific, inherited position.
Unlike Greece, the mob could never backstab its own and create chaos which could onyl be stopped by a tyrant, and unlike Rome, it wouldn’t create the horrible constant Civil Wars and the less savory Emperors (driven by the need to constantly shore up an unstable position). I will grant that the people arguing for this were the nobility or associated with themselves, but they weren’t neccessarily wrong.
Ahem, Zoroastrians.
Yes, what about Zoroastrians?
“The religion [believed to be 2500+ years old] teaches the equality of all, regardless of race, sex or social position.” Zoroaster also said that there will be other monotheistic religions to come along, and they’re all cool too and one should treat their followers equally. So add equality of religion to that as well. Something for the followers of more “modern” mass religions to think about.
Did they actually practice that, though? Our own Declaration of Independence had no problem saying “All men are created equal” while slavery was in full swing. Athens felt fine calling itself a democracy, with the small exception of women and slaves. Where ancient Zoroastrian women free to study, work, travel and marry as they pleased? Did they hold positions of civil and religious authority- and were they found in these position in approximately equal numbers? Did they have the option not to marry, and to live independently with or without having children? Could they choose sexual partners with the same freedom as men could? Did they inherit the same as their brothers? Were there full legal protections against sexual violence? Was male virginity as prized as female?
Again, I’m not interested in what the words say. I know they say nobody should have sex outside of marriage. But we all know plenty of people did, often without becoming social outcasts. Could a woman do it as much as a man? How could women actually live out these rights in practice?
While different societies have been different degrees of unequal, the vast majority have been worse off for the woman.
Zoroastrians has some pretty hefty purity beliefs about menstruating women and childbirth. I naturally menstruate about 1/4 of my childbearing years. That’s enough to make me pass it up.
Only men can become priests in Zoroastrianism, and in fact only men from a priestly family can become priests. Women were considered impure during menstration. At one point, at least, polygamy was allowed in Zoroastrianism. The best that can be said was that women weren’t forced into marriages.
There’s a claim that Zoroastrians believe in racial equality. Note though that it’s rare for someone to convert to Zoroastrianism. Nearly all Zoroastrians are born into a Zoroastrian family. It appears that Zoroastrians tolerate other races and religions but don’t intermarry with them.
Mark Twain had a little of that too.