The democratic thought is based on that 'ordinary people' are suitable to rule themselves.

The US two party system is very different, of course. Here the people decides about who should rule them, but it is not reasonable to claim that the people rules itself through the political institutions. In comparison, I find that the standard European system is better, also as a model for global democracy.

I wanted to know what it means to know something, whether we can know at all, and, if so, how.

If two norms conflict, if they are mutually inconsistent, then at least one of them must be false.

Actually, I defend the right to free abortion.

It is of note that for a long time moral nihilism was a kind of unquestioned default position in analytic moral philosophy.

In many European countries we have populist indirect democratic systems. The people elect, in a proportionate manner, a parliament. The parliament with all its parties is representative of the political opinions among the citizens. It is reasonable to claim that the people rule itself through the political institutions.