None of them. Conservatives are too concerned with Terror than basic liberties, Liberitarians are more of an Articles of confederation group, as the Constitution was giving more power to the central government. Democracts are moderates and understand it is ok to change rules made 200+ years ago.
Democrats hate America the most and will spit on it's founders and freedom the most. Republicans pee on the constitution slightly less than them and the only part that really reapects America's founding and love their country enough to stick to the constitution and the philosophy of negative rights the founders have is Libertarians
I'm referring to libertarianism as a whole, just right-libertarianism. Anyways, since you asked, the idea of one person having absolute control over a piece of property in a society is necessarily undemocratic.
If by democracy, you mean that people should control and vote on the economy and all in general, that was tried in ancient Greece like in Athens. It was a major fail and was simply "tyranny of the majority."
The USSR had trouble maximizing economic growth because a large economy is just not possible under socialism/communism like what the USSR was trying. Heck, the USSR wasn't even fully communist like Karl Marx's original idea.
@debate_power Well still, the majority of the people voting would still lead to tyranny of the majority. Most countries nowadays that are called a democracy are actually a mix between a democracy and a republic.
@debate_power It's tyranny, any idiot can make decesions on the government and economy. If we have certain leaders controlling most things, that would be better because those leaders are more educated about economics, politics and stuff.
@triangle Hahahahaha. So socialism invariably fails because some movements have tried to instate it in the past, eh? Well, you're just arguing against the ability to instate socialism rather than socialism itself. I don't have to defend socialism here either. Hardly surprising that those dictatorships you mentioned would come about, seeing as one of the key tenets of the socialist-communist ideology known as Marxism-Leninism is the creation of a dictatorship of a vanguard party. No surprise there.
Yeah, it had ideals of socialism and communism, but strangely never implemented either of those systems. Or perhaps not so strangely? Everyone in those days wanted power, like the former property owners who made it into the Communist Party as apparatchiks.
And even so, the ideology of socialism just isn't efficient by itself. Most "socialist" countries like some Nordic countries are Capitalist with more socialist economics implimented than most other countries.
That's basically a more pure form of Democracy. Nearly all of society would seriously need to be very well educated in economics and such, which would be pretty hard. Why not just leave corporations and the government to control the economy instead of all of society as a whole?
It would advocate for more self-reliance and competition, competition can be a good thing. With competition, people will work harder and harder and push the limits to beat the competitor. Without competition like in Socialism, people may not work as hard.