On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, Danny McCraine wrote:
> Sounds like fun! I've always believed that anarchy is the perfect form
> of democracy (people ruling the people.) I also believe that anarchy
> does not necessarily equal chaos, look how well we all get along here.
Anarchy, from the Latin "without a head", doesn't quite describe democracy,
but comes closer than what most of the world lives under and calls
democracy. When one has a head (leader), one tends to put an awful lot
of responsibility on that person -- "you are our leader, lead us."
And then we forget that, in a democracy, we all are responsible
for our own government (the act as well as the entity).
In ancient Athens, democracy was real -- if you didn't serve your term in
govenment, you were banned (ostracized). There were heads of state, but
only temporary or revolving heads (Gyroarchy?).
I understand that many of the Celtic tribes (or perhaps Gaulish like the
ones that sacked Rome) also had democratic systems in place, perhaps even
more democratic than those of ancient Greece, since they didn't exclude women.
Does anyone know about the organization of Celtic tribes, at least as far
as government is concerned? How much variance was there from tribe to
(who is trying to turn this Buchanan-US government thing back to
something more Celtic in nature :) )