Name at least two philosophers who would support a direct democracy.?

Question: Name at least two philosophers who would support a direct democracy!.!?

Why would they support a direct democracy!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Probably the closest you'll get is some of the utilitarians like Mill and Bentham!. "The greatest good for the greatest number" translates pretty easily into "majority rules"!.

Kant and Rousseau both thought the public should be involved!.!.!. but usually through the filter of contracts, explicit or otherwise!.

And for the record, you have GREATLY misunderstood Machiavelli, who considered his 'Discourses on Livy' - which strongly advocate republics - to be his masterwork!. There is some suggestion even that he believed like Plato, Marx, and others that there were inevitable cycles of governments so it was just best to know how to get along well in any of them (link 1)!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I'll give you one, Socrates!. It's just a guess, though!. Most of what we know about Socrates is filtered through Plato, who believed in the idea of the philosopher king, essentiall an oligarchy!. Still, Socrates seemed to put people on a relatively equal footing, he thought nobody knew anything!. Plus, living in ancient athens, one of the few direct democracies in history, he's more likely to support that system!. Of course that system executed him for his beliefs!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Protagoras, the head of the sophists in ancient Athens, not only would but in fact did support a direct democracy!. He is said to have been a friend of Pericles!.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau seems to have been another believer in direct democracy, although that is a somewhat complicated judgment from ambiguous texts!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

How ironic that I (having the nickname of Plato) wouldn't support a direct democracy!

To answer your question, Cleisthenes (there's a big fat DUH) and John Locke!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Give me two names which did not!****thanks for the additional info!. Democracy is a noble tool and thus sadly can (easely)be abused!. (corruption!?)Www@QuestionHome@Com

i kantWww@QuestionHome@Com