Socrates’ criticism of democracy (i.e why its BS)

[Wrath of Dagon]

My library. So I'm afraid not. But google is your friend

So far can't find anything, are you talking about Plato's Republic or which dialogues exactly? Is there an exact name and a publisher I can look up?

 

 

Ah, but the idea of democracy *is* that *any* idiot i.e. pleb can vote. Houston we have a problem.

The idea could be that many make better and less corrupt decisions than the few. There have been qualifications in the past, and certainly could be again, like you have to be over 25 and pay at least $500 in income tax.

[Luj1]

 

So far can't find anything, are you talking about Plato's Republic or which dialogues exactly? Is there an exact name and a publisher I can look up?

 

 

 

It's not the Republic. It just says Dialogues and is thick as hell. I know 80% of it is basically Plato. He is confronting a dozen or so philosophers over the course of the book, half of them with names unfamiliar to me. This is just a small paragraph that has Socrates in it. It's some obscure Czechoslovakian/Yugoslavian publisher from the mid century. Let me check and I'll get back to you.

 

 

EDIT: This book is pre-ISBN apparently :/ Printed in '56, Zagreb

Edited April 6, 2015 by Luj1

[Valsuelm]

 

 

There's a saying, you cant please everyone. And that's the central tendency of modern democracy - social liberalism. Do you see the problem now.

 

...Not really?

 

 

I'm saying a classless system would perform better. But currently that is unfeasible due to the moral crisis induced by capitalism.

 

 

It's unfeasible for a variety reasons, capitalism being quite a small one. Capitalism is generally just a scapegoat, or serves to be the 'bad guy' for those who haven't thought things through, or just don't realize quite a bit. In a nutshell capitalism isn't a problem in and of itself (it's also impossible to get rid of as there will always be people who participate in it no matter if it's legal or not), it's human nature that can make things ugly in a society that has an economy largely based on capitalism (which I would argue is not at all how the west is currently set up despite all the propaganda that it is) or any other form of economy.

 

It is impossible to have a classless society where there is a government, no matter what kind of government it is, as a government itself necessitates a ruling class. This is one of the realizations at the center of all anarchist thought. If you really want classless, some form of anarchy is your only option. Anarchy of course, has problems of it's own.

 

The nature of humans will always lead to a society with classes when society is being looked at on a large scale. To put a very complex thing very simply there will always be people who wish to be lead, who look up to others, and there will always be people who wish to lead (their motives for doing so can vary quite a bit) or naturally do so. Couple that with the fact that there will always be people who lie, intentionally or even unintentionally (they're just deluded or grossly misunderstand situation X), and you will always end up with situations where there are classes.

 

There are many other aspects of humanity that also will always lead to a society with classes. Humanity is quite complex. There is no simple answer for a utopia, there is no complex answer for a utopia.

 

Are some societal structures more apt to hard wire classes into being? Sure. But at the end of the day, classes will sprout up in all large scale societal structures.

 

About the only thing that could theoretically ever prevent it would be if every single human on the face of the planet was awake to all that's going on around them, understood it all, was always honest, and every single human on the planet wasn't selfish, psychopathic, sociopathic, etc.. I wouldn't hold your breathe for this to ever happen.

 

Edited April 6, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Zoraptor]

Because logical-sounding explanations without experimental proof are just that, logical-sounding explanations. And those, as history has proven countless times, have an unfortunate tendency to reflect the preferences of the speaker instead of objective reality.

 

 

This isn't a situation where you can have experimental proof though*, it's not a Paradox game where you change some sliders and rerun the simulation a few times to see whether authoritarian China or democratic China performs better. You're limited to history, what has happened, and drawing conclusions from that. There's no intrinsic reason for China to perform better than India, they both started from more or less the same level at the 1950s, India had had the convulsions surrounding independence/ Pakistan; China was finishing a civil war and recuperating from WW2. You also have certain other support analogues like Singapore, (and after, Vietnam etc), far smaller scale than China but clearly what the theories behind their economic miracle was largely based on.

 

I certainly don't have any philosophical desire for it to be true though, philosophically I'd very much like everyone to have 'freedom' and quality of life and economic development; and have a pretty strong and fundamental dislike of China's government system. But there's a difference between theory and practice, practically, one can neither spring all three simultaneously from the ether nor simply dismiss China's achievements because I don't like their leadership system- facts are facts, they're strongly authoritarian yet have presided over the biggest economic miracle the world has yet seen. Whether their system is sustainable long term, whether they could have achieved the same thing without the authoritarianism- they're moot questions, we can only go by what has happened and what has happened in similar situations as comparatives, plus speculate on the relative dis/advantages of the systems relative to each other.

 

*and as numbersman says, that works both ways. If you can't prove that authoritarianism is 'better' that way you also cannot prove that 'democracy' is better either, as they both rely on the same single run of the data, ie reality.

[Orogun01]

 

 

There's a saying, you cant please everyone. And that's the central tendency of modern democracy - social liberalism. Do you see the problem now.

 

...Not really?

 

 

I'm saying a classless system would perform better. But currently that is unfeasible due to the moral crisis induced by capitalism.

 

A classless system is impossible in our current economical models, as there is capital there are those who own it and rise above the rest. The only difference is the distribution of capital but its possession will always create a preferred class.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I'm glad where I live we have a benevolent dictator

 

 

Yup dictatorships can be "benevolent" as you put it. Forget CNN. Just look at Gaddafi and pre-war socialist Libya. It had the highest standard in North Africa, even a lot higher than that of some eastern European countries like Serbia or Bulgaria. Free healthcare and education and all that.

 

 

I wish people would stop saying things like  " Libya was a great example of a stable economy and government  "

 

Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who never had a free and fair election in 40 years, he enriched his own tribe only and looted his countries coffers when it suited him. You cannot say someone is a legitimate ruler of a country if he uses the army and police to stay in power..its  a contradiction. If things were so great in Libya why did large parts of his country want political and social change when the Arab Spring started ?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

I'm glad where I live we have a benevolent dictator

 

 

Yup dictatorships can be "benevolent" as you put it. Forget CNN. Just look at Gaddafi and pre-war socialist Libya. It had the highest standard in North Africa, even a lot higher than that of some eastern European countries like Serbia or Bulgaria. Free healthcare and education and all that.

 

 

I wish people would stop saying things like  " Libya was a great example of a stable economy and government  "

 

Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who never had a free and fair election in 40 years, he enriched his own tribe only and looted his countries coffers when it suited him. You cannot say someone is a legitimate ruler of a country if he uses the army and police to stay in power..its  a contradiction. If things were so great in Libya why did large parts of his country want political and social change when the Arab Spring started ?

 

 

But General. Libya was a great example of a stable economy and government.

 

Whether you like that government or not is besides the point.

[ShadySands]

I was just talking about my wife

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I'm glad where I live we have a benevolent dictator

 

 

Yup dictatorships can be "benevolent" as you put it. Forget CNN. Just look at Gaddafi and pre-war socialist Libya. It had the highest standard in North Africa, even a lot higher than that of some eastern European countries like Serbia or Bulgaria. Free healthcare and education and all that.

 

 

I wish people would stop saying things like  " Libya was a great example of a stable economy and government  "

 

Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who never had a free and fair election in 40 years, he enriched his own tribe only and looted his countries coffers when it suited him. You cannot say someone is a legitimate ruler of a country if he uses the army and police to stay in power..its  a contradiction. If things were so great in Libya why did large parts of his country want political and social change when the Arab Spring started ?

 

 

But General. Libya was a great example of a stable economy and government.

 

Whether you like that government or not is besides the point.

 

 

But that's the point you guys keep conveniently missing, there was a massive uprising against the Gaddafi government by his own people. I'll repeat the point " an uprising by his own people " 

 

The same thing happened throughout many Arab countries because people were tired of being ruled by families and dictators. They wanted  a better and more equal society and frankly they deserve it. This was known as the Arab Spring and was a homegrown process of social unrest driven primarily by people within there own countries

 

Don't try to dismiss the fact that people are capable of wanting a better life for themselves without the West telling them that Vals, it comes across as arrogant

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad where I live we have a benevolent dictator

 

 

Yup dictatorships can be "benevolent" as you put it. Forget CNN. Just look at Gaddafi and pre-war socialist Libya. It had the highest standard in North Africa, even a lot higher than that of some eastern European countries like Serbia or Bulgaria. Free healthcare and education and all that.

 

 

I wish people would stop saying things like  " Libya was a great example of a stable economy and government  "

 

Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who never had a free and fair election in 40 years, he enriched his own tribe only and looted his countries coffers when it suited him. You cannot say someone is a legitimate ruler of a country if he uses the army and police to stay in power..its  a contradiction. If things were so great in Libya why did large parts of his country want political and social change when the Arab Spring started ?

 

 

But General. Libya was a great example of a stable economy and government.

 

Whether you like that government or not is besides the point.

 

 

But that's the point you guys keep conveniently missing, there was a massive uprising against the Gaddafi government by his own people. I'll repeat the point " an uprising by his own people " 

 

The same thing happened throughout many Arab countries because people were tired of being ruled by families and dictators. They wanted  a better and more equal society and frankly they deserve it. This was known as the Arab Spring and was a homegrown process of social unrest driven primarily by people within there own countries

 

Don't try to dismiss the fact that people are capable of wanting a better life for themselves without the West telling them that Vals, it comes across as arrogant

 

 

No Bruce. It was a western backed coup. Same thing that happened in Egypt, Syria, and that has been attempted in other nations, such as Iran. Yemen is in a similar boat but things are a bit murkier there.

 

In none of these places are the people better off overall than they were prior to these coups. In Syria and Libya in particular the general quality of life has tanked. This is true also in Iraq, however that wasn't so much a coup as it was an overt invasion.

 

This discussion has been had before and numerous people have refuted your claims again and again, as well as pointed out some of the realities of the situations again and again. Your desperate cling to the propaganda doesn't make it any more true, or the realities of the situations any less false.

[teknoman2]

in a non democratic country, you have to deal with what you get as government. the pro is that you may get a ruler who turns the place into a paradise, the con is that he may be the worst tyrant 

in democracy both the pro and con is the same thing: you get exactly the government you deserve, no better and no worse

[Valsuelm]

in a non democratic country, you have to deal with what you get as government. the pro is that you may get a ruler who turns the place into a paradise, the con is that he may be the worst tyrant 

in democracy both the pro and con is the same thing: you get exactly the government you deserve, no better and no worse

 

I do not deserve Obama. I did not deserve Bush. I did not deserve Clinton, I do not deserve the threat of his wife creature, I do not deserve Harry Reid, I do not deserve John Boehner, I do not deserve Nancy Pelosi, I do not deserve Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I do not deserve John Roberts, I do not deserve the income tax, I do not deserve to lose friends and family to imperialist wars, I do not deserve to have people killed in my name that I wish no ill upon, I do not deserve to lose my property at gun point and rot in jail if I fail to pay the government extortionists (also known as the IRS) their 'protection' money for which I have no use, I do not deserve to be forced to purchase a commodity I have no use for (Obamacare), I do not deserve to be monitored in any way shape or form by my government or anyone else, I do not deserve to be lied to, I do not deserve to be harassed by government thug revenue collectors (also known as police) as I drive down the road bothering no one, I do not deserve.... I could go on for the rest of the month easy, possibly for the whole year.....

 

While it can be argued that any populous as a whole gets the government they deserve, certainly a good deal of the citizens stuck under that government (whatever type it is) do not deserve that government.

 

We are all stuck with what we get as a government, democracy isn't special in this regard. No ruler ever turned any nation into a paradise for it's people.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

No Bruce. It was a western backed coup. Same thing that happened in Egypt, Syria, and that has been attempted in other nations, such as Iran. Yemen is in a similar boat but things are a bit murkier there.

 

In none of these places are the people better off overall than they were prior to these coups. In Syria and Libya in particular the general quality of life has tanked. This is true also in Iraq, however that wasn't so much a coup as it was an overt invasion.

 

This discussion has been had before and numerous people have refuted your claims again and again, as well as pointed out some of the realities of the situations again and again. Your desperate cling to the propaganda doesn't make it any more true, or the realities of the situations any less false.

 

 

Nope, false.. incorrect

 

The Arab Spring was a form of social and political protest  that was started in Tunisia and spread throughout the Arab world and had different degrees of success. It was driven by people who lived in these countries and wanted a better life for themselves. The Arab protesters objected to being ruled by families or dictators and wanted a more equitable society

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

 

Please familiarize yourself with what the Arab Spring was and what were the reasons for it 

 

The view that the West was responsible has never been accepted or proved and as usual with anti-Western conspiracy theories it makes no sense. For example Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was an ally of the West and Libya was a member of OPEC and was happily selling oil to support his dictatorial government. So why if the West was behind the Arab Spring would they jeopardize these types of relationships ? 

 

So once again its just shows hubris and a myopic view of the Middle East to suggest that in certain countries the actual citizens of those countries wouldn't want a better life for themselves...which is exactly what they wanted and was the reason for the Arab Spring

Edited April 7, 2015 by BruceVC

[teknoman2]

 

in a non democratic country, you have to deal with what you get as government. the pro is that you may get a ruler who turns the place into a paradise, the con is that he may be the worst tyrant 

in democracy both the pro and con is the same thing: you get exactly the government you deserve, no better and no worse

 

I do not deserve Obama. I did not deserve Bush. I did not deserve Clinton, I do not deserve the threat of his wife creature, I do not deserve Harry Reid, I do not deserve John Boehner, I do not deserve Nancy Pelosi, I do not deserve Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I do not deserve John Roberts, I do not deserve the income tax, I do not deserve to lose friends and family to imperialist wars, I do not deserve to have people killed in my name that I wish no ill upon, I do not deserve to lose my property at gun point and rot in jail if I fail to pay the government extortionists (also known as the IRS) their 'protection' money for which I have no use, I do not deserve to be forced to purchase a commodity I have no use for (Obamacare), I do not deserve to be monitored in any way shape or form by my government or anyone else, I do not deserve to be lied to, I do not deserve to be harassed by government thug revenue collectors (also known as police) as I drive down the road bothering no one, I do not deserve.... I could go on for the rest of the month easy, possibly for the whole year.....

 

While it can be argued that any populous as a whole gets the government they deserve, certainly a good deal of the citizens stuck under that government (whatever type it is) do not deserve that government.

 

We are all stuck with what we get as a government, democracy isn't special in this regard. No ruler ever turned any nation into a paradise for it's people.

 

but this is how democracy works. if the majority is ok with being raped you have to drop down your pants too, and as long as the majority are ok with it the president will be a rapist.

[Rostere]

but this is how democracy works. if the majority is ok with being raped you have to drop down your pants too, and as long as the majority are ok with it the president will be a rapist.

 

And continuing your analogy, the difference between a non-democracy and a democracy is that in the former, people are going to get raped even if the majority are not OK with getting raped.

[Luj1]

Gaddafi was a brutal dictator...

 

 

 

Sorry mate but that is BS... don't swallow mass media trash.

 

 

 

 

A classless system is impossible in our current economical models,...

 

 

True.

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by Luj1

[213374U]

 

but this is how democracy works. if the majority is ok with being raped you have to drop down your pants too, and as long as the majority are ok with it the president will be a rapist.

 

And continuing your analogy, the difference between a non-democracy and a democracy is that in the former, people are going to get raped even if the majority are not OK with getting raped.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that the only real difference is that in a democracy*, people are brainwashed to believe that they have agreed to the deed implicitly. Nevermind the fact that nobody ever asks them, and any and all protests against it are ignored as a matter of course. Therefore, according to its own twisted internal logic, "it's not rape", but a consensual coupling stemming from the highest, purest feeling of love...

 

*modern, representative "democracies", anyway.

[Gorth]

*modern, representative "democracies", anyway.

Sounds better than *modern oligarchies* anyway.

 

The only thing correct in the original post seems to be the fact that Socrates is dead and the Athenians are credited for that.

 

The rest is mostly a number of traits rewritten with a lot of artistic freedom from his original description of oligarchy as a form of government.

[teknoman2]

 

*modern, representative "democracies", anyway.

Sounds better than *modern oligarchies* anyway.

 

The only thing correct in the original post seems to be the fact that Socrates is dead and the Athenians are credited for that.

 

The rest is mostly a number of traits rewritten with a lot of artistic freedom from his original description of oligarchy as a form of government.

 

wait is there any place that does not have an oligarchy?

far as i know, we choose our government from the politicians of today, who are relatives and friends of the politicians that formed the governments of 10-20 years ago, and 10-20 years in the future, the friends and relatives of todays politicians will be the politicians among whom we will be choosing the next government

our vote really counts doesnt it?

[Gorth]

our vote really counts doesnt it?

Sort of. Problem is just, most people don't care and would rather let the running of a country be done by somebody else. Always easier to criticize than to participate actively

 

Being an old Cynic, my only contribution to conspiracy theories (as far as i know) is, the world is run by those who control the contemporary media and by extension form the public opinion of the masses.

[Luj1]

The only thing correct in the original post seems to be the fact that Socrates is dead ...

The rest is mostly a number of traits rewritten with a lot of artistic freedom from his original description of oligarchy ...

 

 

Rewritten by whom? What are you saying?

Edited April 7, 2015 by Luj1

[Meshugger]

So, haven't we reached the natural conclusion that a Platonean Republic is the only feasable form of government? We will be the Philosopher Kings of course?

 

No? damn.

[213374U]

*modern, representative "democracies", anyway.

 

Sounds better than *modern oligarchies* anyway.

 

I agree. It "sounds" better. Is it better?

Edited April 8, 2015 by 213374U

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Well, no country on Earth has experienced democracy as a ruling agency, so it's difficult to say that it has failed on a technical level. It fails miserably at the conceptual level once a person has accepted the truth of negative rights and refuted the fallacy of positive rights--so why bother even regarding democracy?

 

So, haven't we reached the natural conclusion that a Platonean Republic is the only feasable form of government? We will be the Philosopher Kings of course?

 

No? damn.

 

Anarchy is the only rational form of association. Note that anarchy is not mutually exclusive to law or cooperation. Absent a compulsory state, anarchy actually fosters cooperation, civilization, and society. Unfortunately, humans are by and large too lay and gullible to avoid falling for the tired, millennia old lies of narcissistic sociopaths that claim we need to coercively organize through murder, theft, and violence in order to prevent those very crimes.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://youtu.be/u52Oz-54VYw