Athenian Democracy

[blkoralslaveboy]

perfect democracy where the popular vote rules each topic and everyone agrees to abide by it. what happened to that! time changes all and everything seems to approach a corrupt state with time instead of a more improved state of being. then we elect people who allegedly carry out our will although they too are corrupted with money, greed, power, and the desire for a lengthy career. and again we pile more and more on the already corrupted monstrosity we call democracy until its initial definition is as an infant is to its aged, dying, crippled, wrinkled self.

we have technology and although it too is corruptable could it not replace the humans? do we need human leaders anymore since they bring with them too much baggage to truly represent the majority of their constituents. can we replace them with just our collective votes on every issue. this is to say no more middle man! give us the ultra secure cell phones to cast our votes on every law being considered and be willing to live with the results of the votes instead of all the B.S. in the current state of things. no arguments, no lobbyists, no gridlock, no secrecy, no politicians promoting their own business affiliates or boosting contracts, and no religious views or "convictions" in law making just a strong unifying force, a good decisive vote count, strong security measures in place so hacking is kept to a minimum, a very strong policing system that's checked constantly through and through, and finally, just us citizens doing what we should have been doing to begin with. no vote no complaint.

is it possible anymore?? go ahead and laugh its been thought therefore it isn't impossible!

 

[Sophie&Alex]

Who was it who said, "(Western) Democracy is the freedom to do what you are told to do"?

 

[janna]

perfect democracy has never been popular rule.rule within the law is more democratic.remember(i pledge allegience to the flag and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.majority rule within the laws.

 

[Thanatos_dh]

Tyranny of the majority

One must be vary careful in constructing such a system. Tocqueville's "Tyranny of the majority" is a very real danger. Consider the gay marriage issue for example. Even in some areas IR is looked down upon and hence would be curtailed with a majority rule system. And what would happen if say complex economic or scientific questions which few understand well comes to popular vote.

 

[RoSquirts]

One must be vary careful in constructing such a system. Tocqueville's "Tyranny of the majority" is a very real danger. Consider the gay marriage issue for example. Even in some areas IR is looked down upon and hence would be curtailed with a majority rule system. And what would happen if say complex economic or scientific questions which few understand well comes to popular vote.

I think the bill passed by the Senate yesterday reflects the whole problem with following popular opinion. In order to get the bill passed tax cuts were included that will add another $100 billion to next year's deficits. The deficit next year has a great chance of reaching $600 billion. Does anyone really think this is going to help the economy? As it is, the deficit is the 'elephant in the room' that everyone is ignoring, and now we're adding substantially to it to help politicians pander to their constituents for reelection.

Sometimes leaders have to make unpopular decisions. The whole problem with our leadership is they don't stand up to popular opinion when necessary, especially in this age of people hiding behind certain 'principles' that are just a cover for a 'me first, fuck everyone else' mentality.

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

I think the bill passed by the Senate yesterday reflects the whole problem with following popular opinion. In order to get the bill passed tax cuts were included that will add another $100 billion to next year's deficits. The deficit next year has a great chance of reaching $600 billion. Does anyone really think this is going to help the economy? As it is, the deficit is the 'elephant in the room' that everyone is ignoring, and now we're adding substantially to it to help politicians pander to their constituents for reelection.

Sometimes leaders have to make unpopular decisions. The whole problem with our leadership is they don't stand up to popular opinion when necessary, especially in this age of people hiding behind certain 'principles' that are just a cover for a 'me first, fuck everyone else' mentality.

well said:clap:

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

One must be vary careful in constructing such a system. Tocqueville's "Tyranny of the majority" is a very real danger. Consider the gay marriage issue for example. Even in some areas IR is looked down upon and hence would be curtailed with a majority rule system. And what would happen if say complex economic or scientific questions which few understand well comes to popular vote.

while i have not read that particular piece, and shame on me for not doing so, i am not sure i can openly agree with that based on your condensed version. if Majority rule is likened to Tyranny, then democracy by that equation is synonymous with tyranny. or of if 99 vote yes and one votes no then it too is tyranny! while i understand the gist of what you're trying to assert i not believe that the tyranny of majority rule is worse than that of a minority rule where the minority is the body of lawmakers whose true intents are never revealed. the latter in my mind is in the order of temporary kingship in between violent overthrows and successions in classical times. sure, it wasn't supposed to be thus but the voter only gives them the power while many other factors influence them and this is truly closer to tyranny i think.

as far as the issues you have said. i agree perhaps we should do away with the human element in the near future when these liberal ideas are more common place accepted.

 

[Thanatos_dh]

Human fallacy and majority rule.

I am not, nor was Mill or Tocqueville, equating Majority rule with tyranny. My point majority rule, espcially small majorities, can be disastrous. Now of course a ruling elite is also disastrous, even with fairly enlightened leaders. Pure majority rule often leads to oppression by a majority. Also, one must recall that a good many issues that come up the average person is not qualified to make a decision on. For example, I am certainly not qualified to make a decision on constitutional law. I would argue that given any random subset of the population, the majority would not be qualified to make any judgment on any decision due to diversity of education and experience.
I agree with Ro when she asserts that sometimes unpopular decisions must be made and carried out. Also, consider voting. In the US we use the electoral college because the founding fathers decided not to use direct majority vote. I would assert there is not a perfect governmental system, but there is a reason pure democracy is not tried often. Also, I have no idea how to eliminate the human element from the decision making ruling process.

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

I am not, nor was Mill or Tocqueville, equating Majority rule with tyranny. My point majority rule, espcially small majorities, can be disastrous. Now of course a ruling elite is also disastrous, even with fairly enlightened leaders. Pure majority rule often leads to oppression by a majority. Also, one must recall that a good many issues that come up the average person is not qualified to make a decision on. For example, I am certainly not qualified to make a decision on constitutional law. I would argue that given any random subset of the population, the majority would not be qualified to make any judgment on any decision due to diversity of education and experience.
I agree with Ro when she asserts that sometimes unpopular decisions must be made and carried out. Also, consider voting. In the US we use the electoral college because the founding fathers decided not to use direct majority vote. I would assert there is not a perfect governmental system, but there is a reason pure democracy is not tried often. Also, I have no idea how to eliminate the human element from the decision making ruling process.

Majority rule may represent a sort of tyranny i can agree with that. A smaller majority rule in the context of multiple divisions would represent a more brittle tyranny that the others might find more difficult to simply accept and that too i can understand.
The first and foremost concept which might be the derivative of the ideal democracy, at least in my view, is the freedom of the citizen. every citizen, regardless of race, color, religion, sexuality, handicap, language, political view, odor, physical appearance, eccentricity, mental aptitude, education level, lifestyle, living circumstance, and so on and so forth, as long as he/she is a citizen in good standing, should be free to pursue their personal desires as long as it does not hinder that of any other citizen. beyond that virtually every other law that is in place can be voted on by the public periodically. Actions of the state, too, should be voted on by the public this includes everything from going to war to distribution of tax revenue.
I realize that a good part of the public would not be able to understand the interpretation of the constitution. this does not mean that they can not be educated, that the issues being voted on can be simplified so that most of the public can have a good idea of what the fuss is about. give people some credit!
sometimes when laws or finances are overlain with sophisticated measures they seem impossible to understand to the "joe six packs" and "mainstreets". and sometimes these overdrawn measures are meant just to do that!
While i agree that it would appear very foreign to us simply because we have developed completely in the soil of the current system which we incorrectly call democracy, i disagree that pure democracy would be worse than the system in place. of course we need courts and a stronger policing system but beyond that i still feel that majority rule, with the assumption of the highest regard for individual freedoms, would be the "lesser evil" in modern times as compared to the earlier times of the said philosophers. of course this is just my opinion.

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

well, i'll stop. guess this is waaay off any topic too philo.

 

[swipe]

perfect democracy ....

we have technology and although it too is corruptable could it not replace the humans? do we need human leaders anymore since they bring with them too much baggage to truly represent the majority of their constituents. can we replace them with just our collective votes on every issue.

In the land of the computerised president the geek would be king

 

[Dutchman2]

Athenian democracy of course didn't let slaves or women vote. I think it was Madison's Federalist #11 that also had some fears of the majority pushing everyone around. It was this thinking that led to the separation of powers and checks and balances.

Many political scientists believe that, the higher the participation rate, the more danger there is of popular demogogues being elected. Proportional representation, where you have many political parties, are high participation systems. Systems with high participation, like Weimar Germany, can elect a Hitler. Media has some of the same effect. We elected Reagan and Schwarzenegger.

 

[mocha_latte]

Some Democracy!

In ancient Athens you could vote if you were:

1.) a citizen - which required owning property

2.) Male - only half the population

3.) Free - more than half of all Athenians were enslaved.

therefore only about 10 - 20% of the population could vote.

 

[Atlopencpl]

perfect democracy has never been popular rule.rule within the law is more democratic.remember(i pledge allegience to the flag and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.majority rule within the laws.

Right - majority rule = mob rule

 

[mocha_latte]

Inefficient

Another problem with "pure" democracy is that it's inefficient. When the Persians invaded Greece, Sparta, an oligarchy, quickly decided to fight and raised an army. Athens, had to first gather a vote to decided whether or not to raise an army and fight. Then they voted on who would lead their army and navy. It's a good thing the Athenians had strong defenses already in place and the Spartans to save their asses!

In a republic such as ours, we hire people, through our votes, to make the laws for us. Our republic is in no way perfect, but I'd rather that than have to vote on every law myself.

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

Another problem with "pure" democracy is that it's inefficient. When the Persians invaded Greece, Sparta, an oligarchy, quickly decided to fight and raised an army. Athens, had to first gather a vote to decided whether or not to raise an army and fight. Then they voted on who would lead their army and navy. It's a good thing the Athenians had strong defenses already in place and the Spartans to save their asses!

In a republic such as ours, we hire people, through our votes, to make the laws for us. Our republic is in no way perfect, but I'd rather that than have to vote on every law myself.

Well, obviously we allowed others to take us to war last time didn't we? Besides, voting today takes much less time, given the effective technology difference between now and 2400 years ago. I'm arguing more for the principle instead of an exact duplicate of Athenian democracy.

But my mind isn't swayed yet. BTW it is very dangerous to sit back and let others think for you in the way of voting on actions, or if not then don't complain.

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

Right - majority rule = mob rule

Majority rule can not be likened to mob rule in this case, my friend. Mob rule can be minority rule if the minority is more well armed or in a drastically better bargaining position than the rest of the population despite their numerical inferiority. Mob rule has no bearing here:

mob rule definition |Dictionary.com
Main Entry: mob rule
Part of Speech: n
Definition: control or government by a gang, often of violent criminals; also called ochlocracy

this is based on Webster's Dictionary. In the end mob majority is almost a contradiction in terms.

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

In ancient Athens you could vote if you were:

1.) a citizen - which required owning property

2.) Male - only half the population

3.) Free - more than half of all Athenians were enslaved.

therefore only about 10 - 20% of the population could vote.

The idea is what i am arguing for the principles behind their definition of a democracy. If you would only read an earlier post i've made you would see how a citizen is defined under better circumstances. After all, even when our founding fathers created their version of a democracy it was not too dissimilar from the 3 points of citizenship you described. So, things have changed for the better! and it is under these, better, circumstances that democracy is more likely to succeed.
Right now we are not powerful citizens because at best we give our vote to someone we LEAST DISAGREE with, in so much as the majority of voters are concerned. This person then goes and does whatever he/she thinks is right. So what does your vote really mean? Ooooh, oooh, you get to replace him with another guy you LEAST DISAGREE with. amazing and you'll still complain later unless the next guy is worse then you say how the previous guy wasn't so bad!
Again, you are plants that have grown completely in the soil of the current system and though the seasons change as do the gardeners, it is all you know and its comforts are hard to escape. but that's fine, don't get me wrong, it is still the best governing system on the planet, hell i'm no rabble rouser.