democracy

 Wolff maintains “Unanimous direct democracy is feasible only so long as there is substantial agreement among all the members of a community on the matters of major importance. Since by the rule of unanimity a single negative vote defeats any motion, the slightest disagreement over significant questions will bring the operations of the society to a halt. It will cease to function as a political community and fall into a condition of anarchy (or at least into a condition of non-legitimacy; a de facto government may of course emerge and take control). However, it should not be thought that unanimous direct democracy requires for its existence a perfect harmony of the interests or desires of the citizens. It is perfectly consistent with such a system that there be sharp, even violent, oppositions within the community, perhaps of an economic kind. The only necessity is that when the citizens come together to deliberate on the means for resolving such conflicts, they agree unanimously on the laws to be adopted” It is a pipedream to think that all citizens would unanimously agree on anything. Not a group of seven stranded on a desert island might agree unanimously on how to share food.  In our economy democracy could be in place, but there is the question of authority. Christians say to obey those in authority, “²⁵ But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. ²⁶ It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,²⁷ and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, ²⁸ even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve’”  When leadership is not serving the people in the tradition which is laid forth, as in the Us and the Constitution, then are they to be considered “authorities”, or simply “those in power”, better yet “the hegemony.”