The republics of today, where all men are allowed to vote. That is an interesting question that even Plato posed; this, we will have to figure out. Read "The Republic" by Plato; I am currently reading it myself, though I am not too satisfied with Socrates's argument against Thrasymachus.
the right to vote is hardly the same as "equal authority." i read it well over 25 years ago, along with the entire works of plato. and incidentally, socrates is simply the "voice" in the republic.
It is equal political authority. True, but I would think Plato would write the voice of Socrates after the real Socrates.
not really. the u.s. is a constitutional republic, there are no true "democratic" states. and until one comes up with a means by which to determine who is "exceptionally qualified," we are left with plutocratci oligarchies--a planet full of them. not really. the republic is generally conceded to be the ideas of plato--socrates is the means through which he is speaking; the other works are scripted by plato, but the voice of socrates. of course, obviously plato would be informed by socrates, as much as we are informed by everything we have ever read or interacted with.
Even if the US is a Republic, people still vote, and all citizens' votes have equal authority. Therefore, yes, it is equal authority.
Votes are not the exclusive source of political authority in the United States (or anywhere else). There's also money. So until all Americans have the same funds at their disposal to lobby and contribute to political causes, we will continue to possess unequal political authority.
exactly. so until someone comes up with the means for determining who is "exceptionally qualified" to govern in this "ideal" meritocracy, we are left with--this is a comical over-simplification, but i think it works Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!--two sorts of individuals, or entities, with power (in our plutocratic oligarchies): 1) the rich, and 2) those who desire power. i'll refrain from offering any choice adjectives to describe my own personal opinions of the precedings' "qualifications," as i'm pretty certain such are plain as day. and then there is always this little conundrum: countless fictional scenarios (film, novels, etc.) imagine such an "exceptionally qualified" individual, and typically, said individual wants to have absolutely nothing to do with "power"--i think it tends to play out like this in real life, too. actually, a fine example of such is the bbc television series survivors, first made in 1975 and remade in 2008. i've been watching both over the past few evenings--highly recommended! edit: had to add this, though not particularly relevant: the original (1975) survivors is deeply flawed in that it portrays the born-rich as being wise, competent, sensible, and reasonable (with respect to respecting the rights of others, that is). yeah, that's believable. pffffft.
I think we can all agree that having a philosopher king would be a nice situation. The problem is that there is no such thing, and even if there was, there is no system for getting him into power, and replacing him when he dies. If there were, the world could simply operate along the sappy utopian lines of Atlas Shrugged, and everything would work out great. In the real world, there are no superhero leaders, nor beneficent oligarchs, and systems based on the pretenses of such invite perverse outcomes. The reality is that in the absence of democracy, power is gained and maintained not by virtue or wisdom but by brute force. So you end up with the rule of the most vicious, buttressed by a sick personality cult that arrogates the title of philosopher. Fortunately for everyone, all this has been obvious to almost every adult in the world for a long time now, except for the benighted few that still go in for trash like Mein Kampf and Atlas Shrugged.
Actually I think Plato addresses this in The Republic, but I might be confusing things. Norsefire can you confirm that? It seems to me as though in Plato's city the rulers don't exactly opt into their positions, but are selected. Actually I think what you point out is one of the issues with "democracy". I think this is where I find the most fault in both yours and Plato's arguments. How are we to determine which ideas are good and which are "dangerous", without examining them? Should a ruling class whose perspectives are limited by such strict censorship still be considered "philosophers" at all? The point of the "philosopher king" (for Plato) is to create a society in which logic rules--and yet, he suggests getting there by stifling the minds and imaginations of the rulers..? As a quick aside, I would argue (as Doreen hinted) that what we have in the U.S. is not democracy. I also don't think that so called "dangerous" ideas spread as easily as you seem to--try gaining a sympathetic audience to your ideas, for example. Probably run into a lot more of this:
and let's not forget that marvelous utopian novel by b.f. skinner. oh yes, and mention of rand always reminds me of this curious conundrum as well (especially with respect to "capitalism): funny how the closer one gets to attaining the "ideal," the worse things seem; apparently, it is only when absolute perfection is achieved (as regards the "ideal"), that utopia is to be had by all.
A couple of things, first look at democratic societies today and through history. On the whole, I think you will find that they are far more stable and far more prosperous than their counterparts. Second, democracy does not say all people are equal. It says that every individual has an equal vote in public issues. That is far different than saying every individual is equal in talent and abilities becaue that is clearly not the case.
No, they do not. I am not sure what you mean by authority, but anyone in Bush's or Obama's administrations have far more authority than any mere citizen. Individual citizens have miniscule power compared to wealthy people, CEOs etc. Money is power in the US. Money chooses which candidates the mere citizens can choose BETWEEN. Once in office wealthy people and organizations have vastly greater influence over, and access to, those in power. The carpenter from Boise isn't even a fart compared to their hurricanes. Then those in power also control the media, so the carpenter from Boise does not have access to a full range of opinions and a huge amount of information - including much about his own marginalization.
Would you prefer a system whereby the leadership is chosen by all the top professors of every major university in the nation??? Are you against the principle of 'no taxation without representation'?
Bah, when it comes to selecting leadership, all votes count equally. Thus we must have weighted democracy, where certain votes 'weigh' more than others, or not be democratic at all and be meritocratic. Though it is important to understand that there are some democratic elements we can maintain, but the selection of leadership and authority shouldn't be democratic. That's due to capitalism, not democracy, and no the two do not go hand in hand. Furthermore, there have been plenty of historical examples of successful authoritarian states: Imperial Rome, Sparta, Alexander's Greece, and Persia come to mind. Exactly, and since that is not the case, why should they have equal vote in public issues? They are clearly not on equal terms.
Capitalism existed in Rome, Sparta, Greece and Persia too. Sparta by the way had an elected government. Below is a link that I think better explains the differences between Athens and Sparta. http://probonostats.wordpress.com/2...hens-elected-government-is-from-sparta-contd/ Imperial Rome fell because of corruption. The Perisan Empire was defeated in combat by a Greek king. Before the creation of the modern democratic state, mankinds history was ripe with wars, famine, and chaos. Since the creation of the modern democratic state, we have seen unprecidented growth in prosperity and technology.
Do you not see the striking similarities between the voting system you just described and the ideas expressed in that book ?
And Rome and the like were all prosperous states. Sparta was a monarchy-Fascist state. No, it didn't. Okay... Nonsense. You're comparing apples to oranges; yes, the only reason things are "better" today is because we have better technology. Yet I could argue that now, more than ever, is the time for absolutism because of our more advanced technology (which can be invaluable for policing, monitoring, and surveillance). Rome contributed more to Mankind than any civilization thus far, and it was authoritarian for half of its lifetime and during its Golden Age.
no, it doesn't--are you not familiar with such things as the electoral college? anyways, even were votes to count equally, this does not imply "equal authority" by any stretch of the definition. uhh, we do. again, how would one go about determining who is "exceptionally qualified"? certainly not by any sort of democratic process. and we do have meritocracies of a sort; although they tend to go by the names of cronyism, nepotism, and plutocracy.
