Rome was quasi democratic. The concept of a nation-state was developed after the American revolution. As an aside, why are we all subjugated to your arbitrary distinction?
1 ok. point? chulent has been around longer(to attack my level of knowledge as having relevance to your ignorance has no logical sense.)
2 ok. point? (Although tytler did speak about the benefits of democracy. He believed though that every lasting democracy will have elements of monarchy-power of the 1% if you will. he believed utopian democracy can’t exist. I didn’t pick sides in his debate with Montesquieu. I am simply pointing out his concern. you obviously did not read tytler. Read what he writes about Democracy and monarchy and repost.)
3. Using your logic, let me make an analogy. If an analyst am concerned about i.e. bad business practices at let us say Goldman Sachs. The analysts then argues that these practices will caues Goldman-Sachs to collapse. It doesn’t. I wish to discuss these practices that the analyst was concerned about Using your logic one must assume that there can not be any problem with Goldman-Sachs and that it is silly to even discuss it. I hope you see the severe flaw in your logic.
I am referring to the present quasi-socialist European countries that almost had complete financial collapses.