[SpiderMonkey]

This idea can't be new (seeing as its too simple for liberals not to have thought of) but I'm going to put it forward all the same.

A single leader is undesirable for the people. When a person, or small group of people, run a nation - the population becomes sevants of those people, rather than those people being servants of the population.

Therefore, the obvious solution is to create a system where there is no top position. Where every decsision is made by a vote amongst a comitee. What its the use in giving any person, even someone democratically elected, dictatorial powers?

[Liberal]

Well, there is a relatively good mexhanism that prevents the "leaders" from becoming "dictators" - The devision of powers between the legislature, executive and juridicial.

Therefore, the obvious solution is to create a system where there is no top position. Where every decsision is made by a vote amongst a comitee.

I am interested... can you pls give an example of this kind of system...if it exists. Thanks.

[SpiderMonkey]

Well, there is a relatively good mexhanism that prevents the "leaders" from becoming "dictators" - The devision of powers between the legislature, executive and juridicial.

Therefore, the obvious solution is to create a system where there is no top position. Where every decsision is made by a vote amongst a comitee.

I am interested... can you pls give an example of this kind of system...if it exists. Thanks.

No examples exist. Every state in the world is an oligarchy.

I can imagine such a system wouldn't be able to get much done, but an impotent state isn't *such* a bad thing.

[Napuljun]

Rule and ruled have to exist within every society and there can't be the rulers who have are controlled by the ruled. The ruled can have some decision making effects, but the rulers will always be.

This problem was only tried to be solved by Colonel Ghaddafi with his Green Book, but he didn't resolve anythign becuase he was still clung to his seat of power.