You are still resorting to unsupported assertion. I'm having difficulty taking seriously that the slave dependent economies of Athens and Sparta are to be considered so much more egalitarian than Egypt.Above us only sky wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:14 amTake the example of ancient Greece and ancient eygpt, in ancient Greece, it was direct democracy because it is possible to assemble 10 hundred people across the whole city-state to the city center to discuss things and make a vote then go home to cook dinner in a single day; it is impossible in ancient eygpt to organize 10 thousand people from all Eygpt into the city center of Cairo to cast a vote and then go home to cook dinner (the voting thing will become a hunger strike).FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:46 am Are you serious?
There is no correlation between population size and authoritarian government. I don't need a big theory to describe two unrelated things not being related to each other.
Another example:
In city-state of Sparta, the system is a direct dictatorship, Because it is possible for the ruler of Sparta to know and dictate what his citizens must do in a city with less than 10 hundred people.
In ancient eygpt, the Pharaoh has no way to know and dictate what his citizens must do because eygpt is much bigger with much more population than Sparta, therefore ancient eygpt was an authoritarian state.
Population size does make a major difference, whether you accept it or not.
By now we should have been arguing about correlation and cause. But you still have no correlation and your arguments are becoming circular. All you are doing now is pointing to dissimilarly sized nations, claiming the larger must be more oppressive because it is larger, and then discarding oppressive small countries as the unlimited exceptions to your rule.
It isn't working for you and your theory needs a comprehensive rethink.