Why Aristotle Feared Democracy (and so Should You)

[@tadroid3858]

"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs is the rule." Nietzsche

[@DapiferAdLignumVitae]

Im not a fan but ill reconize when they do have a point.

[@benikramer5115]

In individuals selected by the few behind the scenes (symbolically represented on the 1 dollar bill) to be elected by the sheeps as their shepherd, insanity is the rule. Those exceptions , who are of another category are statistically through the roof significant in danger to be killed (by a scapegoat as LHO for example) When wise men are calm and virtuous as stoicism points out, the intelligence of groups relies on the same principles. The problem is that a single member of a group can excrete his poison and ruin the outcome of the whole group.

[@fortunatomartino8549]

It's the oligarchs

[@DaveElectric]

That is an ironic quote

[@techpriest4787]

That is why we should be localists. If the culture blows up it will do so only locally. That way even extreme ideas (extreme depending whom you ask) can show whether they work or not. Essentially it is like a controlled scientific experiment. In practical terms. A federal union should not have cultural power over the member states I think.

[@brianthebrickbuilder6895]

This is one of those lessons that entirely shifts your understanding of the world especially if you are from countries like the U.S. where everyone insists democracy is morally superior.

[@thecatspajamas1442]

You do realize that he thought monarchy was the way to go, right? So you are saying you agree with these beliefs?

[@brianthebrickbuilder6895]

@@thecatspajamas1442 He said monarchy was better than tyranny. He said the best form of government is "polity". He said that in rare cases a monarchy could be better, but only for one generation of monarchs. You do realize that people have taken what he has written and applied it to the United States and other governments around the world. For example, this is why "democracy" isn't mentioned even once in the U.S. constitution.

[@MS-qy4sx]

@@thecatspajamas1442holy crap what an ignorant response. Did you even watch the video?

[@thecatspajamas1442]

@@MS-qy4sx i did. But I have more knowledge of Aristotle's 3 forms of government and their corrupted forms than just this video. He believed the three major forms were: Monarchy- (this was the best, according to Aristotle, especially with Plato's "philosopher king") tyranny is its corruption. Aristocracy- (2nd best) oligarchy is it's, corruption Polity (this was his least favorite. Because he didn't find the common people to learned enough to understand government and laws) - democracy is it's corruption. So my suggestion is to truly educate yourself a bit more before you go tossing the word "ignorant" around, or you may find your own ignorance will be mirrored back at you. I think there is a lot more to history and learning than a KZbin video. That's just my opinion, I suppose.

[@thecatspajamas1442]

@@brianthebrickbuilder6895 This is not at all what I learned and I have studied many Greek philosophers. He was a proponent of Plato's "philosopher king". What he said about tyranny was that it was the warped version of monarchy. (See above for the 3 forms of government & their corruptions. He said democracy is the corruption of polity. He did NOT think polity was the best. In fact, of the three, he found it to be the form he least preferred. He found most people to be fools (and I have tried, in vain, most of my life, to believe otherwise. I have finally concluded that he was probably right, but I have become less troubled by it than i used to be. I sometimes wonder if Aristotle himself had a similar journey or if he just started out being cool with it.) but he didn't think that the every day fool was truly capable of choosing people to make decisions, that their own separate greeds and pleasures would take precedence over the common good. He was of the opinion that a philosopher king could be molded and sculpted, if you will, and through this he would make the best leader, therefore the best government. The more people involved in government, the more chances of corruption were possible, to Aristotle. Though many Greek philosophers influenced western society as we know it, the US government and its leading documents were more influenced by philosophers from the Enlightenment, most notably John Locke.

[@MiguelReyes0312]

As a citizen of a third-world country, I've always thought about how democracy hinders development . One government tries to advance development while the opposition tries to convince voters how this is a bad idea .. even though they know it is a good idea...4 years, the country goes in one direction. The next four years a new government comes in, and the country goes on a completely different directing .. is like running in circles.

[@samuelevander9823]

On the contrary, change is constant, which can be a good thing if one does not agree with the current government's policies. Instead of suffering a lifetime of misery under a direction that does not benefit an individual or even certain groups of people. And we can see how a party's policies affect the people in a given 4 year term. Granted, it's a chaotic system. But not too rigid.

[@ianoliver3130]

Democracy is the enemy of capitalism and neo-liberalism. It must never be allowed a foothold in such a state like the USA which is why Jill stein can't be permitted to share a platform with Trump and Harris.

[@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009]

@@samuelevander9823 Too much change doesn't bring you advancements or good, it only brings you chaos and disharmony, you must aim for the middle, and Democracy is purely that of Chaos as those who head the train are constantly switching the reverser back and forth.

[@serae4060]

It works as long as the person(s) in charge have the good of the people in mind. But if they turn into tyrants, you will wish you could just vote them away

[@daniel4647]

It feels that way, but it's actually slow an steady progress. It's the same as the interplay between the young and the old, they young wants lots of change and they want it right now, the old are more cautious and try to not to stir things up too much, and together they move forward but at a slower pace. If you just change everything up over night you'll end up with a ton of unforeseen problems, problems that can easily become unmanageable, leading to a total systems collapse. And even a bad system is generally better than no system. So while the desire for change found in the young is great for nurturing new ideas and innovation and so on, if it's not held back and tempered by the old they'll quickly run themselves off a cliff. So while I agree that democracy can be tedious and annoying, nobody wants to wait for generations to see significant progress, it's still better in the long run than the other systems, in my opinion anyway.

[@armorbearer9702]

I never knew the middle class is so vital to democracy(14:27). I guess a shrinking middle class should be a sign that something is seriously wrong with the current government.

[@gavinshickle1814]

What do you feel qualifies someone to be "middle class"? And how do you know it is shrinking?

[@savvageorge]

@@gavinshickle1814 Not sure what the official definition is but I would define the middle class as people who aren't billionaires but also aren't on social benefits.

[@gavinshickle1814]

@@savvageorge That is how it's presented so it's understandable that people don't know. It's what allows politicians to constantly get away with promising to "protect the middle class". People who make 40K a year working for someone else think they are "middle class". People who make 100K a year working for someone else but also spend 100K a year think they are "middle class". But this simply is not the case. Realistically the term should never be applied to America because there is no land owning upper class like there is/was in other countries.

[@gustavoosafira]

​@@gavinshickle1814 The middle class is classified as the people who are NOT dependent on the government's social benefits and THEREFORE they can decide who the next candidates will be in a fairer way. But at the same time they're not billionaires or multimillionaires so their money cannot influence politics... once your money influence politics you ain't middle class anymore

[@everwinter0]

​@@savvageorgeBack then, the middle class never existed, and what you call it is just a fake, living off the fact that billionaires, out of fear of the red threat, shared their wealth with the rest of society. Why would they share again now?

[@jsto2466]

Solidly delivered arguments that I wouldn't be able to refute. All evident in recent news, as well as the last 150 years of political changes.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

News, you mean KZbin brainwashing.

[@yogi6235]

This perspective suggests that while we may be intelligent enough to understand how to structure a government, history shows that no form is immune to corruption. Aristotle identified six types of government, categorizing three as "good" (Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Polity) and three as "bad" (Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy). Despite these distinctions, it appears that every form of government is susceptible to decay and misuse. Throughout history, countless civilizations have risen and fallen, regardless of their governing structure, with corruption consistently at the core of their decline. If corruption is the fundamental issue, then the question becomes: how do we address it? Can we realistically expect to fix this problem and prevent it from undermining modern societies? Perhaps we can enjoy a period of stability under a government that begins with noble intentions, but inevitably, human nature seems to lead us to repeat the same cycle of ruin. I believe humanity has an immense capacity for good, but we also have a tendency to sabotage our own achievements, forcing us to start over again and again.

[@RaijinPhoto]

In the words of Battlestar Galactica "All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again."

[@Ann-eb8dp]

Sounds like Trump

[@boe3421]

Man has not evolved psychologically/emotionally to self govern. Man is still in its infancy in these catagories.

[@yee2631]

I get that Aristotle was a renowned philosopher and all that, but the fact that he genuinely believed monarchy was a superior form of government to democracy is enough for me to confidently disregard anything he had to say on the matter.

[@mattroten2822]

We're just too into corruption and greed. Hard to weed it out when its been celebrated for the last 40 years or so in America idk 50 60 years? It's kinda been the hallmark of the kids of the ww2 generation. Over all civilization has been on an uptick. Corruption is a constant fight because it's just so much easier to grab what u can then working together to keep things good for the maximum amount of people, and "gasp" probably shortchanging yourself in the process.

[@ellenwhitworth7286]

Welcome to the world today. And that is why the middle class is being destroyed. Too bad people won’t wake up to this.

[@gavinshickle1814]

I would be interested in knowing what you feel qualifies one to be "middle class".

[@AS-np3yq]

@gavinshickle1814 "feel"? What has this to do with feeling? It is mathematics. The middle income class.

[@gavinshickle1814]

@@AS-np3yq Wrong answer number 1. Would you like to give it another go?

[@clintgillespie8579]

@@gavinshickle1814 Right now, it takes about $90,000 per year to qualify as "middle class"

[@TheTerminator-2]

@@gavinshickle1814 wrote "I would be interested in knowing what you feel qualifies one to be "middle class". ---------------------------- Didn't get an answer, didja? Are you surprised? I'm not

[@vonpayton2041]

I think I’m learning that the real problem I have with democracy is not in the idea itself (which seems great), but in how easily it can be manipulated/exploited.

[@AlexanderosD]

Edit: Poignant for the politics of today. Love getting to hear these summaries of the various philosophers' views.

[@nsbd90now]

This is not a summary. Didn't even define "democracy" but then goes on to talk about "pure democracy" and "modern democracy" all without definitions. That is pseudo-intellectual manipulation. The word "democracy" in this video functions like a Rorschach test. It is very similar to when you hear or read people going on about "the media". It is such a general term it become meaningless and the audience projects upon it willy-nilly.

[@AlexanderosD]

​​​​@@nsbd90now Okay, I said "philosophers" not "democracy". Sorry, let me clarify; I meant summary of the various philosophers views on political ideologies.

[@nsbd90now]

@@AlexanderosD Go to an actual academic giving a lecture. You're not getting that from some lame AI script and video made by someone who MIGHT have an undergraduate degree. You won't get the fancy graphics and dramatic voiceover mispronouncing words, but you'll get actual scholarship and understanding of the topic and the philophers' writings and positions.

[@dxb526]

Appeal to (academic) authority is not an argument.

[@nsbd90now]

@@dxb526 Academics is where the arguments actually get argued. That is why they are authorities.

[@theodoridi]

Timely video, nice presentation

[@cautiousoptimist1926]

Perhaps, I'll fear democracy should it ever become a problem. However, I live in the US which I think is better described as a misrepresentative republic, or an oligarchy hiding behind the curtains of a political theater they own and operate.

[@jensenchavez265]

These things are not mutually exclusive. People tend to think that when you live in a society, you are living in a static or well defined culture but this is not the case. Democracy exists alongside Oligarchy, maybe even arguably underneath it. In fact, Democracy is the natural evolution of a Republic and Oligarchy is the natural evolution to Democracy in turn. Just as Communism is the natural evolution of Socialism, every. single. time. Even when they are not different stages of the same progression, they can exist side by side. For example, one needs not live in an Anarchist society in order to live by the principles of Anarchy. Unfortunately for us, Democracy is a very real thing in this country which many live their lives by while expecting the rest of us to do the same. You better start worrying about it, because it'll be death by a thousand cuts otherwise. You cannot mount a meaningful resistance against that which you fail to identify. Stop looking at this country as what it once was or what you want it to be and start recognizing it for what it is lest it never again be that which you want it to. Statism is the problem, it is the mechanism by which the elite exert their influence and control over the rest of us. It doesn't matter what the flavor is, the purpose of the state will always be to force you to live how others see fit under the threat of violence. Whether the others are a single dictator, a faceless cabal of businessmen or your fellow citizens, it doesn't really matter; the outcome is always the same. We are not meant to rule, nor are we meant to be ruled over. The greatest lies ever told to us are that society exists to our benefit or that culture is your friend. The Republic is dead, the time to start saving it was probably when JFK was assassinated; though I would argue that time came and went long before then. If you fail to recognize this, then it is unlikely that you or your loved ones will make it through what is coming our way. The American experiment, like every single other Statist project has resulted in the same conclusion, Authoritarianism. The exact thing which worried our founding fathers and caused many to seek to avoid the formation of a government to begin with. George Washington himself advised against two party systems and warned of their danger, yet here we are at the natural conclusion to a Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy; a two party system which threatens the safety of the entire world. Democracy is real but it's not the ceiling, it is merely a tool for those who wish to rule while remaining hidden.

[@angelosenteio]

Only two types of government have ever existed. Give them names and organize them as we try, the few decide for the many until the river runs dry.

[@adopequeenatyrantkingaboss8057]

👏

[@prayunceasingly2029]

​@jensenchavez265 I think we can just look at Canada as an example of a country a little further along the death by 1000 cuts

[@patrickday4206]

We are a constitutional republic controlled through democracy. The rights of one is supposed to be as important as thousands.

[@edwardjohnson3547]

How I wish more people would study history more

[@FitnessFreak271]

Well informed video and I watched it until the end. Thanks for such a educational video.

[@kaushikvsmaniyan]

2:42 - 2:49 - "the law should govern, not people who are subject to passions.." - spot on. Today's world is a case study for what happens if it doesn't. 3:09 - 3:18 - absolutely. 16:40 - Constitutional Republic

[@scottpeterson7500]

How did the Rich accumulate so much wealth in the first place? Such things as wage theft, monopoly and policies that actively work to prevent competition

[@internetfairy1]

Not necessarily.

[@sarahtiferet9025]

@@internetfairy1 Yes necessarily . The Rich benefit and GREATLY INCREASE their wealth due to WILDLY UNFAIR tax system which the WEALTHY LOBBYED for which forces the poor and Middle Class to pay A LOT more in Taxes percentage wise than the RICH . WE pay for THEIR UNPAID TAXES Unless you're like Trump and Musk . Trust Fund/ Man babies .

[@joshuabrigden4820]

Imagine if social media were the courts and legislators

[@Odin31b]

Beware the power of the mob... I think you mean the current "Cancelled" phenomenon.

[@jaygee553]

Imagine if We The People found out that the word Democracy is not in the pledge of allegiance? Nothing would happen because its We The Sheeple.

[@What_do_I_Think]

Aren't we already moving in that direction?

[@kevinblackburn3198]

Thought we were there

[@ckevorkianxo]

@@Odin31bno I think they meant your Trump-ism with that, he exploited your guys weak points. Instead of fighting the system you’re all backing a failed billionaire who couldn’t care LESS about any of us.

[@WillyBluefield]

America's democracy is 2,977 mega-rich capitalists toasting each other and grinning from ear to ear while they watch presidential election returns every four years. When you own both sides of a coin, the coin toss is a laughable gesture.

[@colorpg152]

exactly and the funnies part is the poor people defending it thinking its for their benefit

[@WillyBluefield]

@@colorpg152 Was it Nietzsche who said, "Once you get them to believe the big religious fairytale, the rest comes easy."

[@Mixi-c1o]

​@@WillyBluefield he wasn't that correct.

[@EnlightenedMinarchist]

YOU'RE A LUNATIC

[@embrown1442000]

That's an oligarchy you're describing. And you're right.

[@chuckbeattyo]

Lack of virtuous behavior by the richest and powerful is KEY. Their leadership and role model virtuous behavior is KEY

[@sherigraham3873]

I agree. The constitution will ONLY work for a God fearing, virtuous people.

[@someonenotnoone]

Virtuous like forgiving debts, guaranteeing people can work for themselves.

[@kevinfleischer2049]

@@someonenotnoone No, virtuous like in not corrupting others with money, competing fairly with others, supporting pushes for legal reform that ensures the success of the many. Forgiving debt is just another word for stealing from the creditor. Everyone cold buy bonds. The fact that many people dont and even dont know how, just shows that the bridges to knowledge are not wide enough. Don't understand me wrong, the student loan system of the US is fraud and needs replacement. But dept forgiveness in general is no sulution. If the dept was created illegaly/imorally, maybe a conversion into something else is necessary.

[@novalis791]

Very good presentation

[@mmusi8599]

This is the best channel I ever came across in relation to politics. Our education and media never teach these things.

[@timothyrussell4445]

Ask yourself who's in charge of them

[@absolutelynot554]

Check out academy of ideas as well. They are also solid.

[@EmperorCaligula_EC]

‘The existing state (of the democratic party state) can probably be called a “dictatorship” based on the emotionality of the masses.’ - MAX WEBER, Politics as a Profession. (Max Weber was one of the founders of German Sociology. This is from a lecture he held 1919 in Germany, one year after the establishing of the Weimar Republic.) (The brackets are added because of the reference to the previous paragraph of the text)

[@AS-np3yq]

Yeah, female vote ;)

[@peterbellini6102]

Excellent content, kudos. Aristotle: Schooling us Millenia later

[@sylvieroche9364]

"When the poor majority holds power, there is a strong incentive to use that power to take from the rich". Very interesting. I would be interested to ask Aristotle a question (by that i mean, maybe in his writings he already spoke about that) : when the poor are the majority, cannot we consider that the system already failed ? If a small minority holds the wealth, isn't it ONLY because they hold power (or their fathers did). And isn't it in the common interest to redistribute wealth in some way ? In which way was it fair that a few got all the wealth to begin with ?

[@kelvinpell4571]

Oh dear.....

[@JamesTownsley-qs2yu]

A big factor in whether your objection is valid or not is who qualifies as poor. Aristotle is referring to ‘the poor’ simply as the majority of society that contrasts the rich. By this definition, the poor will always exist and almost always be the majority. These people could be abused slaves of the Roman times, or they could be modern day Americans who are watching this video on a smart phone. One of us was likely oppressed; the other very unlikely to be oppressed. Either way, redistribution of wealth is not the answer. I don’t know if you meant to do this, but the second half of your comment is fundamentally Marxist, and one weakness of Marxism is that it assumes that wealth is never created, only rearranged among the members of society. The easiest way to understand why this is wrong is to stop thinking of wealth as just money but instead as the things that money buys. Money is the paper, wealth is the mansion. Money is the coins, wealth is the healthcare service provided. Now if I kidnap a bunch of people and force them to build me a house, that is unjust and Aristotle would condemn that. However, if I build a house or pay skilled people to build me a house using money I received from my own work then taking that house and giving it to someone else who needs a house more than me is unjust and Aristotle would condemn that as well. Both examples happen, but Aristotle is concerned with justice, more than a common good. Redistribution of wealth is essentially stealing ‘for a good cause’. There’s a lot more to these subjects of course: if you’d interested in this I’d recommend looking up Milton Friedman on KZbin or reading almost anything by Ayn Rand if you’re feeling adventurous. (“The Fountainhead” is prolly the best place to start tho imo) another book that touches many of these ideas but in a sort of personal application sort of way is “The richest man in Babylon”. It’s also pretty short for a book for whatever that’s worth. Honestly, I probably wouldn’t read this whole thing, but if you did, thank you honestly 😂

[@someonenotnoone]

@@JamesTownsley-qs2yu Yeah it's a factor but if the majority of people feel they are poor they're not going to listen to rich people tell them they're rich.

[@josecho24]

I agarre about the system already falling, but I think the question could be: how can we balance the fact of not being born with a virtuous mind?

[@12235117657598502586]

The ‘MIDDLE CLASS’ is the only buffer between the poor and the rich! Remove the middle class and extreme’s will tear the country apart! 😬

[@i_am_nature919]

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few."- Wendell Phillips

[@Mendy1958]

Democracy can be superior if rules are applied. Wall Street, a minority, doesn't want rules. They want Anarchy and deregulation as it applies to them. This wrecks pretty much everything about how democracy is supposed to work.

[@What_do_I_Think]

As we currently see, a Constitution is not a solution that works indefinitely. When the people in charge have the will and power to pervert the meaning of a constitution, the road to oligarchy and tyranny is paved. Checks and balances are good, but only as good, as they really work and as the will of society to upheld them is strong enough.

[@colorpg152]

i have seem people in power just disregard laws entirely

[@debravictoria7452]

It's hard to make them work when the public school system makes sure that it is nof part of the curriculum.

[@What_do_I_Think]

@@debravictoria7452 The GQP made sure, that public schooling is made worse and worse. They want stupid citizen!

[@TheMelnTeam]

When a government decides its constitution is just a piece of paper, it is up to the citizens as a whole to decide whether that government is right or wrong. Neither decision will look pretty, though the latter is clearly preferable.

[@What_do_I_Think]

@@TheMelnTeam I think, you did not understand the video. The majority is not always right, as the government is not always right. For that reason, there must be a strong constitution with separation of powers and controlling structures (in the US called "checks and balances"). When these fail or collapse, the whole nation might fail. Look into some nations in Afrika or South America and find there a lot of failed nations. They did not fail, because people did not decide what they thought was right or wrong, but they did fail because they do not have a solid foundation in law that is kept alive. For example everybody has his own laws: Anarchy. Also some revolutions end up in a shorter or longer or even indefinite phase of anarchy.

[@snoverstudios123]

When a polity system does not offer the opportunity to chose the very best and brightest, the most empathetic towards the individual rights and true freedom for us, and only offers, as presented by the producers of South Park, "...choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwich", then that system is one I cannot consent to, and if they/it doesn't have my consent and uses force against me, that is tyranny. If I do not consent, if it is not voluntary, then it is tyranny.

[@jensenchavez265]

Such systems only exist transiently. The are no rights, no freedoms; save for those which we seize for ourselves. "A Republic, if you can keep it.", we didn't. We couldn't because we allowed ourselves to believe those things would be maintained if we placed the responsibility of their preservation upon others via voting and "Representative Democracy". You cannot preserve your freedom while placing others upon pedestals above you.

[@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009]

One of the greatest contradictions of Democracy is oddly enough that of the lack of consent by those who live under it.

[@embrown1442000]

Sovcit nonsense. You use this government's roads and services. Government tells your boss to pay you. You're using the internet? Thank government infrastructure. You give consent by your actions. You're a citizen because of birth. Don't like it here? Leave. Russia is waiting for you. You live here, you pay taxes, you follow the laws, period. No one's begging you to stay. Trust me - you'd absolutely hate actual tyranny, like in Russia.

[@apocolypse11]

Over 100million Americans n kamala n trump are in the ticket. Lmao

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

where do you identify the best and brightest, certainly not in our schools or universities.

[@jeronimotamayolopera4834]

DO NOT FEAR ANYTHING.

[@AS-np3yq]

Give fear to Jesus Christ. Only fear/respect God.

[@wyverstone7657]

So a democracy must enshrine equality, individual liberty, freedom, and justice within its constitution. Citizens need to be educated that we defend our neighbors individual liberty as our own; because it is. We stand united defending liberty, or individually we all will lose it.

[@colorpg152]

its going to fail no matter what its a bankrupt idea that has been defied by people who benefit in having mid wits believing on it

[@RepentantDrContra]

A System has to be in place that prevents mob rule from happening. A System like our Electoral College.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Can you trust your neighbors?

[@gnericgnome4214]

equality is an inherent poison of democracy. People are not equal. As Dr McCoy first pointing out in Star Trek TOS: in all the billions of worlds within all the billions of galaxies, for the 14+ billion year history of the universe... there is only one of each of us. We are unique. That which is unique cannot be equal to anything else. Equality is the enemy of individual liberty. The miracle of the US was that it was created to be a republic based not upon democracy and equality, but the rule of law based upon individual liberty and self-reliance.

[@wyverstone7657]

@@DavidLockett-x4b Considering the political climate these days on the right cheering on the taking of other peoples individual liberties, sadly no I do not. This is a big reason I’m a proponent of constitutionally enshrined individual liberty, and never allowing government to away individuals rights without a day in court and due process of law.

[@frankwolf3860]

If "polity" was not Aristotle's preferred regime type (there @16:33, what is his preferred regime type?

[@a.randomjack6661]

I still wonder why pirates were usually democratic... among themselves.

[@albertorodas6479]

Same as today

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@albertorodas6479 Yes. I call it a piratocracy. There are other words to describe it more accurately, but using those more scientific terms gets my replies deleted. 🙄

[@mnk9073]

They wanted the most capable and the most fair to lead them, if they wanted to have a cruel twat that can't tell his lee from his luv as captain they might as well have stayed in the navy.

[@alabastertheunicorn3204]

It was more of a polity in Aristotle's definition because all strata worked together for the greater good of the group

[@talisikid1618]

That’s easy. There was no way to force anyone to be a pirate and they could always turn on you or inform on you.

[@CraigAnderson-h2h]

We don't have a democracy so nothing to worry about. Much ado about nothing...

[@nickush7512]

I gather that Mr. A spoke very good English indeed !! Nice to find such as this, a job well done guys, thanks for making and sharing.

[@jbsoileau79]

Well rounded exploration of this topic. I'm just finished your one on oligarchy. I would like to hear one on Aristocracy since that seems to be Aristotle's second best choice. I am not seeing it on your channel. I would also like to hear your thoughts on how to fuse Polity and Aristocracy. In my mind this was sort of done in our House and Senate but our oligarchs have perverted it with Citizens United et al.

[@nelsonchick7348]

The key to any well working political system is a strong/large middle class.

[@ToddSchul]

Which is why it is being systematically destroyed...

[@Corndogg316]

Which can only exist with massive government intervention. In the US the middle class was created after WW2 when the rest of the world was devastated and we happened to have a great president. The natural order which it reverts back to is more similar to feudalism. A few elites and many common workers. Serfs, however you want to call it

[@rsimpson69]

Why do families seem to work then, while the parents are relatively rich compared to the children, but seems less functional once they begin to earn?

[@rsimpson69]

I would propose that the real key to a functional political system is the freedom of individuals to exit that system and choose another for themselves.

[@kathri1006]

Educated in critical thinking

[@krisburke1712]

Polity does not ensure that those that lead are of good moral character..the US democracy experiment has a constitution as is the same with Canada each Constitution has a clause whereby the government can circumvent the laws within...leaders ought to be well educated, proven merit, service to the poor..the best suited are those that do not want to lead..those that do not seek power..

[@techpriest6962]

Wise men know less than they wish too know, but they can in their wisdom point out the obvious that the masses ignore.

[@roberthiorns7584]

Aristotle's thoughts make total sense to me in todays society. Because there is No middle class, its been devolved in favour of playing the classless society card. No good having wings to rise above if the mechanism that holds them is ripped out.

[@Portents-Magic-imagination]

Rise to where? That’s the lie the rich tell the poor so they keep working.

[@nelsonchick7348]

A pure democracy could work, but if only there were limits on how decisions are made. For instance, in the heat of the moment people can go crazy, but if given time to dwel that can be mitigated.

[@TruthFairy671]

Slavery was allowed to exist in a democracy, never forget that!

[@Portents-Magic-imagination]

IDK. Aren’t we all slaves to capitalism?

[@user-jf6yv8rj2s]

It wasn't slavery. They were servants, who had only the wealthy people, who they could afford it. Don't forget that the navy and the army was been consisted of citizens.

[@becausecontextmatters5260]

Slavery was allowed to exist regardless the form of government, your statement is meaningless

[@ArthurDonnelly-p3e]

Thank you again for an enlightened and well spoken discourse.

[@JPErwin-l1z]

I rather not have the rich in charge of my freedoms, my rights, my finances, and my life and liberty.

[@dblue1199]

too late

[@wongtan5680]

They are already in charge of your minds, they know how to hack you

[@coffeyvideoproductions7767]

Yes, a problem, even with noblesse oblige, is the powerful rarely feel any oblige.

[@rsimpson69]

I'd really rather not have the poor in charge of those things... Even less so than the rich. At least with the rich, there's the better possibility of good stewardship

[@JPErwin-l1z]

@@rsimpson69 name one time in the history of America where the poor ever controlled anything. Better yet in the history of civilization of the world. I'm waiting for your facts.

[@moshudoduwade219]

This is brilliant! I wish I learned this at school! School destroyed my life! But this is a great education! Brilliant!👍👏🤩

[@lisabrygger9168]

Too Woke for Those Still Living in the Dark Ages of The 1st Testament Like National "Christians" seem to Observe than The Truth

[@Frisbieinstein]

Having read Aristotle's Politics, I can tell you that he defined democracy differently than the way we do today. To Ari "democracy" was the common people ruling in their own self-interest to the detriment of the general good. What we call democracy he defined as "polity" -- the common people ruling for the betterment of the general good. I will note that today in the USA we actually have what Aristotle called "oligarchy" --rich people ruling in their own self-interest to the detriment of the general good. The mask of democracy is transparently phony.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

In our democracy, the politicians pretend to rule, and we pretend to let them. Whereas in reality Google rules.

[@MIKEMIKE-te2dt]

Thanks for this very educational video!

[@techtoth1]

The rich would feel threatened even at the cuspid of their power. There's no end to their greed. That's a mistake Aristotle made. He basically considered humans too good, compared to the sad reality. Probably because in his times the rich would still have a sense for beauty and social consideration. I can't see that now.

[@buddyrojek9417]

It’s definitely a mental illness. They can’t stop. They move in wealthier circles and compete. This is why a brake is required

[@sawdat9376]

Balance is the key to prosperity. This applies to everything not just politics.

[@Mykey404]

I enjoyed this. I also learned a lot about the application of confirmation bias through reading the comments.

[@elaineroddy9958]

Once again, so informative. Thank you

[@jamesnasmith984]

He presumes merit underpins most wealth. Also, the creation of a truly solid constitution requires a remarkable ‘disinterest in gain’ from its founders, an improbable condition.

[@timothyrussell4445]

Yes, but he does discuss the importance of ability and virtue, two qualities essential to good governance, and makes the point that only a minority of people sufficiently possess such attributes. You might concede the Founding Fathers did in fact have these, though any Constitution runs into problems over time. Just look at the French.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

The US constitution was written by slave owners, and then amended by Honest Abe, a man they pretend to respect.

[@ivancho5854]

I've really enjoyed this series. Are you going to make a video on Monarchy or one on Polity? Thanks.

[@MrZReacts88]

And Aristotles worries. Were seeing today on the world stage.

[@TravisFerguson-v6i]

Okay so I've made some comments earlier on in the video concerning what I felt like we were troubling ideas that Aristotle had about democracy overall shortly after you did describe a format that Aristotle said would help a democracy and not surprisingly that is the system we are in with a constitution and a balance of power all that. Then you brought up about the strong middle class which is also a fantastic point that Aristotle definitely had right as we have seen as possible. The unfortunate truth is that the middle class has gotten taken over by the so called talented wealthy people which I am sure was a very different thing back then overall

[@architeuthis3476]

In today's world, a lot (though not all) of the pitfalls Aristotle was concerned about can be overcome. For example, providing high quality education to everyone, minimizes (but doesn't eliminate) the likelihood that the masses will make poor decisions. Such advantages could very well tip the scales to favor democracy over the other forms of government he describes.

[@TheMelnTeam]

I'm not sure where you're getting that confidence in education. Especially because we've seen, multiple times in different countries, that there is no guarantee of "high quality education" even if you try. In fact, both domestic and foreign interests target education deliberately for exactly this reason...they want to influence what choices the masses will make. Education doesn't just become high quality out of nowhere. Someone must decide what that entails...and inevitably, the people deciding that will have incentive to direct teaching in beneficial ways. Not to society as a whole, but to themselves or their interests. It's not just the USA where this has happened. We observe it through history. China 1000+ years ago did it...just as modern China does. Soviet schools no doubt had some interesting curriculum outside of the hard sciences, etc. I'm also not 100% convinced that everyone has the capacity to learn government policy sufficiently to make informed decisions. At least some fraction of a population physically can't do it. That's a smaller % of the population than would fail to grasp a graduate math degree, but it still exists. We could certainly do better than today, however. We could, in principle, at least make politics about policy rather than tribalism.

[@architeuthis3476]

@@TheMelnTeam I understand that education is abused (very much as is happening in the US today), the point is to do give critical thinking skills. Most of what maga objects to today is not indoctrination (which is most of what one gets in religious education) but critical thinking (for example the country was founded by slave owners who complained they didn't have enough freedom). As I mentioned above, this won't eliminate the public making poor decisions but it will minimize it.

[@TheMelnTeam]

@@architeuthis3476 I agree that you need to get education to teach critical thinking skills. The question is how you prevent undermining that w/o creating weaknesses to rights generally. It's a similar problem to how our courts got corrupted, or how civil forfeiture was first allowed then overtook burglary as a source of crime loss to Americans. Anybody with sense knows its wrong, yet bad actors find benefit in undermining it, and act to do so. What policy blocks the infiltration of bad actors in education, while not green lighting authoritarian practices generally? So long as government mandates what is taught in schools, the selective pressures are insanely strong.

[@architeuthis3476]

@@TheMelnTeam The reason this happens is that critical thinking skills are NOT taught (or if they are, not taught very well). So that when policies that are blatantly corrupt are instituted, Americans may oppose them in word (if they're even aware of them, another strike against American education) yet comply with them in practice - possibly while attempting to rationalize their poor decision with logical fallacies.

[@embrown1442000]

Do you trust MAGA to educate our children? They've gotten on to school boards across the nation. There isn't a perfect solution to a problem involving large groups of humans. However, we agree that things need to change. Starting with educational reform is a good start. It will take a generation to undo all of the damage the GOP oligarchs and MAGA have done.

[@gstrainscoming9]

Incredible. So relevant to modern times.

[@snakeplissken9587]

“Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” Aristotle

[@timothyrussell4445]

And what do despotisms degenerate into?

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Albo as a despot, you must be joking, more like a piss pot.

[@mariobrosus9315]

Very well explained. Thank you for your video.

[@anitamassey3434]

Makes sense to me Thank You for sharing.

[@graciefreebush394]

I love democracy. I dislike minority rule.

[@KR-yy8gp]

So you did not understand the video. Did you even watch it?

[@graciefreebush394]

@@KR-yy8gp I simply have a different opinion. I am a fan of democracy. I strongly dislike the Electoral College system. It awards the biggest participation trophy in the nation.

[@zeissiez]

Democracy is minority rule.

[@carenkurdjinian5413]

Such A Simple True Observation …..🌞

[@daniel4647]

The flaw with this is that wealth does not really belong to the rich, they got it by stealing and exploiting others, trough "might makes right" which he seemed to be against. And then they used this might to ensure that nobody else could do the same. If he's fine with might makes right, then he could justify stealing and exploitation and say that anything you can take from others should be yours. But if he's not following this logic then there is no reason to say that the wealth the rich have actually belongs to them. And he seems to have fallen into the trap of getting his head stuck up his own ass here, because he seems to believe in elitism. Yet, every single living person today has knowledge that would make this guy look like a toddler. There are no people with extraordinary abilities, this isn't the Marvel Universe. There are people with resources and connections, and then there is luck, and that's about it. If everyone had the same education, the same upbringing, the same amount of resources and connections, and luck wasn't a factor, then everyone would be the same with the exception of a few minor genetic traits and the occasional sick person. So elitism is in fact a BS story the rich tell themselves to justify their theft and exploitation to themselves. I deserve more because I'm better. And that simply isn't true, especially not in modern society. If having more knowledge makes someone more deserving then I'm more deserving than Aristotle was because I have all human knowledge in the palm of my hand, thousands of times the library of Alexandria available at any moment, I'm practically a God compared to him. Would that give me the right to take his stuff and make him do menial labor for me? What about if it was some poor people in a poor country that can't even read or write? Am I allowed to exploit them? They still believe in magic so surely I'm entitled to it based on my status as a person with extraordinary abilities, right? Or you know, maybe not.

[@halnineooo136]

To the moral justification of concentrated wealth I like to oppose the following Robinsonade : If any talented rich person, Elon Musk let's say, survived a sunken ship and found himself on an inhabited island, how many billions can he make there with his own talent alone and without help from other people? Surely it would be a miracle if he manages to feed himself and stay alive until some ship passes by his island and saves him. All wealth is a collective achievement. All of it. A single individual on their own is barely capable of feeding themselves. The part of retribution a talented individual is entitled to for their contribution to wealth creation is a matter of negotiation with the rest of society. Individuals are allowed to a larger share only because greed is the most reliable motivation.

[@TheMelnTeam]

Wealth is not generated by "stealing". People genuinely do possess different levels of ability and productivity. The problem comes after that, when people who possess wealth (or some other source of power) will use said power to steal...ultimately resulting in less net wealth. This is a genuine ethical *and* practical problem. That problem manifests in every form of governance to a degree...often disguised as wealth redistribution, regulations on industry, licensing requirements...there are lots of tools to accomplish the same objective, with power being a common denominator. You are just wrong about "no people with extraordinary abilities". Objectively wrong. Someone who is > 3 standard deviation outlier in capability at some task is going to be more productive than an average person at the same task, by a wide margin. In some domains, comparable training will result in vastly different capability. On the flip side, there is a non-trivial % of the population that struggles to grasp conditional hypothetical questions. There's no amount of education you can give someone in that % which will make them productive at tasks that require similar cognitive ability. You can train them for 30 years and they'll still be worse than a talented person would be after 1 year of training. While they should still enjoy equal legal protections, any policy that attempts to give them equal outcomes will ultimately result in vile, malicious practices. The real world isn't so simple, because you don't only have geniuses and dolts. You have a wide range of capability, motivation, and levels of useful tasks. Nevertheless, productivity will vary between people and by basic logical extension, so should wealth. The one place we agree to draw the line is when wealthy people (or others) use their power to suppress the productivity of others and/or steal from them. Any system which does so, which includes 100% of systems that attempt to create equal outcomes, is a net negative.

[@halnineooo136]

@@TheMelnTeam Wealth and the power that goes with it doesn't map perfectly to ability and talent and vice versa. As in my island metaphor, the contribution of millions of talented people is highly underrated. The very few ones who get most of the praise and power are overpaid by us for their contribution however decisive. We can negotiate better.

[@TheMelnTeam]

@@halnineooo136 Of course it's not a perfect map. We already covered part of the reason why in what I wrote. The relationship between capability and productivity is nevertheless unmistakable. In principle, you are right that negotiation could be better. In practice, we do not observe it.

[@MrSeadawg123]

​@@TheMelnTeam Certainly you have noticed that the smartest people are not at the top. They have gotten their by various means. But not because they are the smartest people in the room. It is usually the smartest people that have been exploited the most. About wealth not being stolen. That is pretty much the way it has and continues to be. And that being said. If you look around very closely. You will see a system designed to control. Any that have become disenfranchised by it. Done under the guise of protecting people. The future will belong to AI. And a resource based type economy. Which incorporate a blend. Of many things. As the world is not black and white.

[@andrewvirtue5048]

Any Aristotle book recommendations around this topic?

[@quartytypo]

Families don't practice Democracy. Why should the government? Tell your boss you want Democracy from now on.

[@mikexhotmail]

😂 Indeed

[@colorpg152]

exactly finally someone who gets it

[@FredBlogs-j7j]

What has greater worth, money or a portion of someones life?

[@TheTerminator-2]

Aw, the logical fallacy of false analogy. (don't worry sports fans, quarty will never figure it out)

[@colorpg152]

@@TheTerminator-2 how is it a false analogy, a family doesn't elect the father, a class doesn't elect the teacher, the passenger's don't elect the pilot, the workers don't elect the boss, in every aspect of life the best leads, you are saying this because you have no argument

[@marklawrence76]

New Subscriber. Keep the videos coming

[@oriraykai3610]

Aristotle was not "the father of modern philosophy". Socrates and Plato were. He actually supported oligarchy in his writings.

[@someonenotnoone]

All of his talks about "citizens" being trampled by democracy and tyranny were in fact "oligarchs" being trampled by democracy and tyranny. Poor them.

[@timothyrussell4445]

Think you mean polity

[@ThisVids4U-c2w]

Good work there fella

[@mechannel7046]

13:30 Aristotle's polity. Middle class key to stability and balance

[@TM-fr7gh]

It's remarkable how intertwined politics is with economics

[@Roust7]

Aristotle over generalized the rule of Law. Who makes the law group up people. There are unjust law, as there are unjust men. Aristotle, completely ignored democracy that is constrained by the laws that establishes freedom of rights for all the members of democracy not just the majority.

[@someonenotnoone]

Aristotle's champions of the day seem to be of the objectivist tradition - seemingly, they believe they have proved the laws they want are just. It is a terrifying prospect for people to contend with those who believe their values are objectively justified. There is no room for discussion there.

[@v.g.r.l.4072]

A lucid and balanced synthesis. Thanks.

[@joesmith6776]

A society governed by constitutional rule of law with the principal goal of forming a more perfect union, and by extension the world, would be IMO the best form of government.

[@embrown1442000]

The US seems to have been lax in the 'building a more perfect union' part. Citizens have taken their hand off of the wheel and believe those who say government is the problem, not the solution. That's not true. Not if we the people wake up and take back control of the government and the economy.

[@someonenotnoone]

To form a more perfect union you need communication between those being united - democracy.

[@timothyrussell4445]

Yep, defintely need to scrap the current UN and replace it with something a lot fairer which is able to act when it needs to.

[@TravisFerguson-v6i]

The idea that democracy could create such equalization has been proven false.

[@Apollyon-er4ut]

Good stuff. This is why Ben Franklin responded to a woman's question about the US establishment, that they had established a Republic, but with the qualifier "if you can keep it." Sadly, we haven't. The US abandoned the the ultimate rule of law (US Constitution), long ago. Now, we've abandoned basic rule of law such as theft, destruction of public and private property, arson, violence, etc. This is why El Salvador is now a safer place to walk the streets of any large city of Kalifornistan. Though this serves the purposes of the Leftists who run our state, in has left the state in utter decay, crime, burdensome regulation, living costs, etc.

[@antonius_006]

This is why meritocracy is an important concept. Concepts require thinking, and therein lies a difficulty.

[@JoeBoxerNo1]

This videos name should be "AMERICAS CURRENT PROBLEM IN ITS GOVERNMENTS"

[@richardlo4867]

Nope. This isn't America's problem. The problem is how America's representative democratic system got hijacked by moneyed interests and only operates for their often short-term benefits.

[@aizac91]

America only? Nope. As a Global South native, it is the problem of all Western governments today.

[@JoeBoxerNo1]

@@aizac91 Totally agree... a few ofthem seem to be on the right track ahead of us right now, hopefully more and more will begin to follow if they dont cheat their way into the Presidency again.

[@ezzovonachalm9815]

Americas current problem IS its government !

[@ezzovonachalm9815]

@JoeBoxerNo1 AMERICAS CURRENT PROBLEM IS ITS GOVERNMENT !

[@stevekoehn1675]

An active Democracy with engaged populous is the only thing that can keep the secret police from taking you away in the middle of the night to be killed or worse

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

Aristotle didn’t fear democracy; democracy feared Aristotle.

[@TheTerminator-2]

The logical fallacy of ... nonsense. NICE GOIN' GENIUS !!!!!!!!!!

[@oriraykai3610]

OMG. The honey badger fanbois have discovered political discussion groups. 🙄

[@DarkElEl-l6h]

Like I always said, we need a balance between caring about the poor and the rich or the medium.

[@Kaizrwolf]

In our world, Power is a thing that corrupts each and every one. It is only a matter of time and does not depend on the level of nobility of an individual. The only way to solve this problem is to eliminate the very possibility of one person ruling over another (without mutual consent, of course). People, as a species, are capable of self-organization. This is a fact. Why does the very idea of life without a common plan for you and everyone else in a particular territory (country) frighten you so much?

[@colorpg152]

power doesn't corrupt nor reveals it only attracts evil people

[@Kaizrwolf]

@@colorpg152 The concept of evil and good is so primitive that it can hardly be used in an intellectual or constructive conversation. No person in power considers himself to be inherently bad and tries to change the world in accordance with his understanding of good. However, good intentions usually pave the way to hell. Hitler wanted the triumph of virtue and greatness for his people. Napoleon dreamed most of all of peace and prosperity for France. But the nature of power is to corrupt.

[@embrown1442000]

What you describe is untenable for most people. In order to be fully independent of others you have to be completely competent in every skill needed to survive. In today's world, very few people are. The rest of us need each other., so we need rules to live by and enforcement of those rules. We hand responsibilities like that over to government because we don't have the time or resources to govern and make our way through society at the same time. Those who want to rule us first shake our confidence in the government we set up, then make themselves the only viable replacement. Rather than give in or walk away completely, those who live in a shared society decide who to believe and what to do about it. It can be messy. See the US today. But, we're all we've got. I admire those who can be fully independent, but I recognize that I can't be one of them. So, I have to work the systems I have to make the best life I can.

[@Kaizrwolf]

@@embrown1442000 I believe that youtube algorithms hide any political commentary directed at US citizens during elections. So I will try to write my answer in the next comment. If you don't see it, then consider that the Google corporation has decided for you what you should and shouldn't see.

[@Kaizrwolf]

embrown1442000 Thank you for sharing your opinion! Please understand me correctly. Any power in human society always has a pyramidal structure. This is an axiom. There will always be those who lead and those who follow. Due to the peculiarities of the human psyche. The presence of leaders is inevitable and normal. What we must find is not a perfect system of government (such a thing is an illusion), or an incorruptible sentient being. We need fair conditions that determine life for everyone. Human society needs a genuine Social Contract. Which can be concluded between an ordinary person and people in power (government) only on a voluntary basis. Such a seemingly insignificant detail as whether laws and citizenship are mandatory for everyone from birth, or a person has the right to refuse his status and compliance with generally accepted rules at any time (for example, by freely moving to another territory where generally accepted rules correspond to his preferences), determines whether this person is a freeman or a slave.

[@rpfandler4009]

Very nice explanation 😊

[@michaelgracey3928]

It's like he travelled in time to today and thought "Nope that's just dumb"

[@mydogharlee]

I’m not college educated but understand why we have a constitutional republic as apprised to a true democracy. A true democracy creates a majority (or the illusion) of consensus but hides those who decide they are the majority (and it’s not the citizens).

[@Andre99328]

Aristoteles fear of democracy derived from the Athenian 'radical' (i.e. direct) democracy of the 5th century, where populists ruled, which lead to the destruction of Athens. In the end it comes down to how the institutions and the constitution are made and controll each other and what a society wants. No form of gouvernment is perfect, because it is people who rule and people are never perfect. However, it sounds in this video, as if democracy is particularly vulnerable to corruption, which is not true, because ALL gouvernments are vulnerable to corruption, but democracy less that monarchies, oligarchies, dictatorships etc. Aristoteles is not the best philosoph; he supported Alexander the Great, who turned out to be an insatiable conqueror, and when he died, his legacy fell into the hands of his generals, followed by a hundred years of civil war. I don't think we should turn to Aristotele for advice on political systems.

[@brycehedstrom374]

... so says an anonymous drive by commentator, providing no context, no cogent arguments and convincing no one.😂

[@Andre99328]

@@brycehedstrom374 I believe I made some arguments and gave a historical context, which you chose to ignore. In addition, I didn't catch any historical context in your video, which is important to understand a 2,400 years old philosopher. Your reaction to my comment on a personal level trying to ridicule my arguments instead of giving an answer just demonstrates a lack of understanding and insecurity. Have a nice day.

[@geraldmay9408]

Our American Republic with its constitution, the balance of power, and rule of law is the quintessence of Aristotle's ideas on politics.

[@Andre99328]

@@geraldmay9408 in part you are probably right; the founding fathers were educated in ancient history. As far as I know, however, most of the US constitution is based on Polybios' description of the Achaean League, which was one of the earliest democratic federal states. Particularly the strong position of the Strategos resembles the US president, and the autonomy of the Poleis is similar to the US states. Then again, other historical sources might have had an impact on the US constitution.

[@ChannelFish279]

This was a fantastic video.

[@rogerbartlet5720]

A political theory put into practice is influenced to a greater degree by the culture it's put in.

[@jensenchavez265]

No! It is this sort of fallacious thinking which encourages people to utter the ridiculous mantra of "Real Socialism/Communism has never been tried.". The philosophy shapes the people, not the other way around. The same path will never lead you to a different destination.

[@rogerbartlet5720]

@@jensenchavez265 So your saying a countries culture doesn't affect the implementation of political theory? Compare Germany's implementation of fascism to Italy's.

[@jensenchavez265]

@@rogerbartlet5720 They both ended in disaster for the people, don't you think that sort of illustrates my point? An ideology doesn't meaningfully change just because you placed it in a different culture. If it does meaningfully change, then it ceases to be that ideology and would therefore yield a different result. Any change due to culture is cosmetic, not practical. The ideology is far more formative to the culture than the culture ever will be to it.

[@timothyrussell4445]

@@jensenchavez265 It may have been tried, but it's never been implemented in the way Marx advocated. On the other hand neoliberalism has been implemented, and you have to admit has spectacularly failed: societies are more corrupt than ever, wealth distribution has returned to feudal times, economies have stagnated and the planet is fucked. And we have a moronic orange ape who just might get the most powerful job on the world. God help us!

[@somacho2000]

Thank you, just found you.

[@Dmanz67]

Ancient Greece wasn't a Democracy as we would recognise it today. Only the select few could vote.

[@someonenotnoone]

Indeed it was an oligarchy. When people advocate for democracy now they advocate for all individuals to have individual human rights - to be able to participate in creating their own government. Depending on who you ask they will call this all kinds of things. But the viewpoint of participation and compromise is in stark contrast to people who think participation is irrelevant, and all we have is ethical rules that should be followed. Of course, deciding which rules we follow presents a bit of a problem for those claiming participation is irrelevant, because that means they should be quiet - suggesting rules would be participating, voting.

[@timothyrussell4445]

That's not quite true: Aristotle based his treatise on an analysis of the histories of many Greek states, which had different systems of government.

[@arpitvakilna7125]

The underlying assumption in the Aristotles advocacy and promotion for the constitutional polity is that all the members of that society shall abide by and conform / comply to (in word and spirit) the stated laws in that constitution. what if they do not respect or refuse to abide by those laws outright or manage to find some effective implementational work-arounds to by-pass those laws, to evade those laws effectively through well-orchestrated collusions? or even worse, what if the very law-makers who happen to belong to some specific class of that society and who also happen to hold a dominant majority; deliberately leave behind lacunae and loop-holes within that legal framework to favour a select few stakeholders from their society? then all of the edifice of government crumbles down, isn't it? this whole business of delivering effective governance is very complex; full of pitfalls and treacheries on its way. unless the population of a society evolves and places itself on the same page as everyone else no effective governance structure and system could be implemented to effectively deliver governance for them. each one must understand the significance of their laws, why they are in place, what are they meant to achieve? and how? etc.

[@arpitvakilna7125]

the danger of infiltration within the implementing bodies responsible to deliver on those laws shall always remain highly probable and relevant. how could an effective lawmaker anticipate and eliminate any such elements from interfering and defy the potential for abuse by such elements? that is the disconcerting concern that humanity must heed to.

[@arpitvakilna7125]

if it seeks to find an effective mechanism to govern itself by itself through its own representatives and mechanisms.

[@arpitvakilna7125]

also there are these two separate and mutually disparate norms namely, democracy pre say and democratic values being incorporated into one's system. now the question is this, was Aristotle against democracy or he was against the incorporation of institutionalizing democratic values into one's systems? if at all he would have been opposing or not advocating for democracy then he would have never solicited for a constitutional polity because even for that to be a some degree of democratic values and public-initiated volition would have to be exercised, isn't it in terms of electing their representatives who could make such laws and decisions for them on their behalf? so democracy is not a matter of concern but the core concern is how it is being implemented? by whom? through employment of what mechanisms and if such employed mechanisms are compliant and consistent to the democratic values serving larger public goods and interests? if not, they are not worth continuing as they prevail, do they? then it inevitably calls for a review and sweeping reforms. does humanity thinks along these lines as yet?

[@arpitvakilna7125]

sorry for placing wrong punctuation marks, some editing might be needed above to restore grammatical sanity in these sentences.

[@Lucas-hb1uq]

Imagine a democracy that has laws in place and a constitution to protect rights. Imagine a democracy where the majority wins and not the minority. Imagine that the will of the people is listened to and not the will of capital.

[@xamunchkin]

Will of the 85iqs

[@Lucas-hb1uq]

@@xamunchkin as if the electoral college is made up of high IQ college grads. It’s just an antiquated system.

[@andreykarbinovskiy430]

Democracy is a rule of mob, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[@Lucas-hb1uq]

@@andreykarbinovskiy430 Democracy isn’t mob rule, but I wouldn’t expect someone who gets their political science from Facebook memes to know that. Without democracy you’d be doing what you are told by a dictator or monarch. We need more democracy in our lives not less. Unlike what those moron trumpers want. They need a daddy to tell them what to do

[@Lucas-hb1uq]

@@xamunchkin 165 million 85 iqs is exponentially smarter and more correct than 500 members of congress with 125+ IQs million. Thats being generous. IQ is a poor measure of intelligence btw

[@ACE-gk5gi]

. Old times . A double edge sword Modern times A double edge nuke . Ya Goofy m8te from Australia

[@JamesFitzgerald]

This is great! I love this!

[@albertorodas6479]

Not only Aristoteles, there are several authors, including British, that explain the rise of democracy as a sign of lack of strong leaders democracy give chance to beta and gamma leaders to rise.

[@jofftherevelator3691]

True. Gammas occupy european parlaments and the EU. Taking revenge in petty forms.

[@ianoliver3130]

"The strongest argument against Democracy is having a 5 minute discussion with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

[@herculespayton2460]

I could not write own comment. Sorry. This ancient form of democracy, with direct representation, excluded many inhabitants from govenment, ie only property owners could vote, not for women, not for slaves. Democracies today have more principles than before. Can not compare ancient democracy with modern democracy.

[@colorpg152]

@@herculespayton2460 no they are worse today

[@yeboxxx_channel_2505]

​@@colorpg152Elaborate.. I prefer Constitutional Monarchy with my own Constitutional Laws.

[@420BlackBird-r6q]

Aristotle never considered that money, laws, and status are both man-made fictional idea. If no one believes in their existence or value they vanish out of existence. There is no shortage of these facts in the past and present. The best way to allow a fairer form of government is a democracy based on ability and skills. But also know that all people are different. There may need to be new ideas that include all groups to the construct of an institution.

[@josww2]

One thing needs to be added: *full* citizenship (including voting) should be earned, not inherited. Service to the state (military, civil volunteer, etc), X # of children produced, etc etc. And/or, maybe military service, more than X children, or paying higher taxes should earn you 2, 3, 4+ votes, while other adults only get 1.

[@reshhaverstahm7729]

...and for those who might push back against such a hierarchical society, there's always Soylent Green.

[@patrickday4206]

To easy to abuse make it where only the rich survive those services or can afford to not work and volunteer

[@mnk9073]

Tell me your favourite books are _Starship Troopers_ and _Atlas shrugged_ without saying it... Cringe.

[@josww2]

@@patrickday4206 When you serve in the military today (or civil conservation corps in 1930's), in addition to receiving a small salary, your housing, food, medical care and other expenses are all paid. If expenses are paid, there's nothing stopping poor people from joining, even if the salary was smaller or non-existent. But unlike the other losers' replies to my comment, at least yours had substance 👍

[@mikeb5372]

Just be quiet and keep dumb ideas to yourself

[@erictred4529]

Thank you for this!

[@andreykarbinovskiy430]

The idea of humans in government working for the "common good" is hilariously naive.

[@billmarrufo]

Not so if citizens organize and become intense supervisors of their actions. Social networks available today allow for that more than ever before. Everyone with a cellphone can be a TV reporter.

[@mysteryneophyte]

I think it may have been possible at one time but people are so disconnected, The human heart is so corrupt that it doesn't take much but yeah I might have been possible who knows you're probably right though

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Possibly we should have AI making all the decisions and running governments as a benign dictator, or would it start to pass laws that favor itself?

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

@@billmarrufo Most people could not care less about politics, so long as they are comfortable.

[@billmarrufo]

@@DavidLockett-x4b Arthur Clarke and Stanley Kubrik imagined so 56 years ago when they created HAL 9000.

[@jancornelessen7276]

Yes found it very enlightening

[@unbreakable7633]

Limited government limits what the majority can rule on. It is the surest foundation to liberty but the courts abandoned it after the Civil War and that just got worse with FDR and then the Cold War and the war on terror.

[@cl5619]

Also LBJ and his Great Society socialism. Socialism and democracy, even in a democratic republic, is a toxic mix. If You add a money printer, and I say we probably have about 65 years when everything becomes unglued. We’re about 55 years into this cycle

[@timothyrussell4445]

Project 2025 doesn't sound too limited though

[@vladdumitrica849]

In the current situation (oligarchy = decisions are taken by a few without asking the consent of the citizens), when those who are elected do not have the obligation to respect their electoral promises, in fact the elected elect the voters and not the other way around. In other words, you can see from the polls how many citizens will vote for certain ideas and promote them to enter the Parliament. The only concern would be to make the respective ideas known to as many citizens as possible and to give the impression that you are serious and intend to implement them. That's what all parties do. Voting is just a brick in the wall of democracy and even by voting it can be manipulated because in one round of voting you have one result, in two rounds you have another result, and if you give points to each preferred candidate it is a different result. Then it is a gross lack of understanding of the democratic mechanism to accept that once a candidate has been voted, he can do whatever he wants just because he was voted for. Outside the sphere of politics, the world proceeds differently. A company boss, when he has a problem to solve, will consult several specialists and choose one of the proposed solutions. If the chosen solution does not produce satisfactory results, he will change it quickly, because no one is a reader in the stars and only practice can validate the chosen solution, but it is important to be able to immediately change something that does not work. The manipulation works precisely because there is no immediate responsibility of those elected, only in 4 or 5 years, during which they pursue their own interests. If we could at any moment change or block their decisions when we are not satisfied with their actions, then the strategy of the elected would be different, that is, they will try to perform and will no longer be able to choose the easy way, to manipulate. It can be seen from the speech of the elected that they argue to win and not to solve problems. When you argue just to win, you don't take into account the competitors' arguments and try by all means to discredit the other competitors. And the energy put into play will be all the greater the more you have to earn after you get into office.

[@tetrahedronX7]

Me seeing trump win.

[@chrisd1]

Bookchin's work The Next Revolution is worth a read, Direct Democracy. Also Citizen's Assemblies, advised and informed by experts, with legislative power...