This idea of questioning things that either too you thought were unassailable in a particular domain for millennia.

People were wondering about the best way to conceive of what democracy is.

Even Plato had this idea of what is democracy and he had the question about who should rule.

That's the whole idea of democracy supposedly.

We have to figure out who should rule.

Should it be the philosophy kings who should rule?

Should it be the population of citizens?

And he decided that a mob would readily vote away the rights of a minority.

That's what he thought democracy was.

But pop a question, this whole idea of looking at what democracy was,

when even deeper and said, democracy has got nothing to do with who should rule.

Democracy is the system which allows you to remove policies and rulers most efficiently without violence.

And that's how you judge different democratic systems.

So you can actually make a judgment on France, England, the United States, Canada.

These places have better or worse kinds of democracy.

We might all call them democracy, but to the extent that we're actually able to get rid of the people

that we don't like from the democratic system quickly, efficiently, easily without violence.

That's the measure of a good democratic system, rather than trying to figure out which systems

going to give us the best rulers.

That's the same mistake as saying, what method of science is going to give us the true theory?

No method of science is going to give us the true theory.

Science is an error-correcting mechanism.

...