@dot See my response to ingrate for the left/right issue.
Also, I'm genuinely curious: how exactly would you go about making rules in the absence of democracy? Are you an individualist anarchist?
"i have mixed thoughts about human nature, but reject anyone speaking authoritatively about what it might be"
Well, yes, obviously there's no way to chart human behavior with precision on paper. There are too many externalities to take in to account. I was merely providing a general collectivization of human behavior; could I be wrong? Certainly, but I think most people would agree that humans are generally reasonable creatures (whatever that means.)
"especially when it's claimed that what it might be "objective," which i totally don't think we even can be, much less are universally. and since i tend to consider myself anti-moral (for which see multiple threads on this site), i would refute that also."
I'm a nihilist, so I reject the notion of objectivity altogether in favor of diverse subjectivity. Most people aren't, though, so I still use the word "objective" as a go-to word for the purpose of describing a person who moralists would collectively recognize as an ideological ally.
"i also think everyone is selfish and greedy (and everything else) at various times in their life and under certain circumstances, and that those things are not such huge problems once taken out of a system that rewards it so intensely."
Indeed, but the members of a collective wouldn't all experience such emotions simultaneously. To push a democracy on its tipping point, a controlling stake of people (>50%) must all act in the same fashion.
"i could go on, but there's probably a better way to do this than for me to just rant in a comment. perhaps these could be new questions? ask them if they come to you!"
Well, if that was a rant, you are the calmest, most patient ranter I have ever met. Congrats :)
And yes, I will certainly convert some of these thoughts in to question form.
"could not more strongly"
Ha, I see :)