The real apartheid state.

[Tahuti]

Yet in all democracies, politicians still constitute a different "caste". It may be a myth perpetuated by sensationalist media, but it doesn't change the politicians are regarded very differently from non-political people, even in democracies.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, i think that Democracy can only be eroded by Oligarchy, regardless if the factor of Oligarchy is presented as 'moral' or not. So a Democracy should indeed always strive to represent the biggest possible majority of the citizens, and also always be said to exist for as long as there is a majority of citizens who are expressed through it.

Currently this is not really very common, which is another obvious and alarming symptom of what is going on.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yet in all democracies, politicians still constitute a different "caste". It may be a myth perpetuated by sensationalist media, but it doesn't change the politicians are regarded very differently from non-political people, even in democracies.

Well, i think that Democracy can only be eroded by Oligarchy, regardless if the factor of Oligarchy is presented as 'moral' or not. So a Democracy should indeed always strive to represent the biggest possible majority of the citizens, and also always be said to exist for as long as there is a majority of citizens who are expressed through it.

Currently this is not really very common, which is another obvious and alarming symptom of what is going on.

I would argue that any system inherently decays into an oligarchy, hence 'democracy' is something of a relative term. Rich people, charismatic people and ideologically popular people will always have more power than poor, unremarkable and isolated ones. This is true under monarchy just as it is under democracy. What matters, I suppose, is widening the oligarchy, and controlling it. It's far less objectionable to have a system in which those most able to persuade people have more power than it is to have one in which those who own the most land control politics. Even that, though, is hardly perfect: as the Athenian democracy ably demonstrated, persuasion is as much a factor of education and preparation time as it is a matter of natural talent or even - God forbid - soundness of argument. Any citizen man could speak in the Assembly, and yet every one of Athens' influential 'politicians', inasmuch as we can apply that term, was an aristocrat. Demosthenes allegedly locked himself away for two months on end to practice rhetoric: this was far beyond the means of anybody who had to actually earn a living.

There's also a question of limiting the severity of the oligarchy. It's worse to have a situation in which 75% of the people have power and 25% are ignored totally than it is to have one in which 60% of the people have slightly more power than the other 40%. The former situation, of course, often ends in a mess. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln was elected despite not having appeared on the ballot paper in most Southern states. Knowing that they no longer had meaningful influence in national politics, and fearing that the majority would be able to enforce its will on them, the South seceded. This would perhaps not have happened under a system with no presidency and a more (an even more?) limited government.

 

[Tahuti]

Demosthenes allegedly locked himself away for two months on end to practice rhetoric: this was far beyond the means of anybody who had to actually earn a living.

Actually, didn't the Whigs (or some other radical British political faction of the 18th and 19th century) advocate salaries for parliamentarians to make the office available to people of all classes?

 

[Kyriakos]

I would argue that any system inherently decays into an oligarchy, hence 'democracy' is something of a relative term. Rich people, charismatic people and ideologically popular people will always have more power than poor, unremarkable and isolated ones. This is true under monarchy just as it is under democracy. What matters, I suppose, is widening the oligarchy, and controlling it. It's far less objectionable to have a system in which those most able to persuade people have more power than it is to have one in which those who own the most land control politics. Even that, though, is hardly perfect: as the Athenian democracy ably demonstrated, persuasion is as much a factor of education and preparation time as it is a matter of natural talent or even - God forbid - soundness of argument. Any citizen man could speak in the Assembly, and yet every one of Athens' influential 'politicians', inasmuch as we can apply that term, was an aristocrat. Demosthenes allegedly locked himself away for two months on end to practice rhetoric: this was far beyond the means of anybody who had to actually earn a living.

There's also a question of limiting the severity of the oligarchy. It's worse to have a situation in which 75% of the people have power and 25% are ignored totally than it is to have one in which 60% of the people have slightly more power than the other 40%. The former situation, of course, often ends in a mess. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln was elected despite not having appeared on the ballot paper in most Southern states. Knowing that they no longer had meaningful influence in national politics, and fearing that the majority would be able to enforce its will on them, the South seceded. This would perhaps not have happened under a system with no presidency and a more (an even more?) limited government.

Well, indeed in ancient Athens the Democracy was at the same time far closer to actual Democracy, and far more prone to devolve to demagogue-rule. It happened many times, and Demosthenes is a key example of that, since he tried as much as he could to further the war in Greece (Philip vs southern states), with quite tragic result.
He was not really a member of the aristocracy, though, given that he was not even a citizen of a long line, given that his grandmother was Scythian (something noted by other ancient writers who attacked him).

But in modern west societies we could, in theory, get over the demagogues. What is beind done, though, is that the governments in power are fine with their own demoagoguery, but try to banish the opposing type of it. This is dangerously bordering on tyranny.

PS: As for salaries for politicians, in my view they should become a tiny fraction of what they currently are. Supposedly they are so large to ensure the politicians will not be paid-off by oligarchs. Right. I see a problem or two,three... there :/

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, indeed in ancient Athens the Democracy was at the same time far closer to actual Democracy, and far more prone to devolve to demagogue-rule. It happened many times, and Demosthenes is a key example of that, since he tried as much as he could to further the war in Greece (Philip vs southern states), with quite tragic result.
He was not really a member of the aristocracy, though, given that he was not even a citizen of a long line, given that his grandmother was Scythian (something noted by other ancient writers who attacked him).

Maybe so, but he was extraordinarily wealthy. I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation a while back to work out how rich the clients of the great orators must have been. Isocrates, apparently, could sell a single speech for twenty talents: during the Peloponnesian War, one talent was the monthly pay of a warship's entire crew, and only something like one in fifty people owned more than three talents' worth of property. If Demosthenes - in many ways a better writer - was charging comparable fees, then he would have been a rich man indeed.

I'm not sure that the problem was demagoguery, per se: it's been pointed out in several WH threads that it seems intuitively obvious that charismatic orators should be able to influence 'the mob' to rash decisions, but there's almost no concrete evidence that it actually happened. The problem was more that democracy, through its many flaws - of which not paying politicians was arguably the greatest - ended up as simply another vehicle for elite control.

PS: As for salaries for politicians, in my view they should become a tiny fraction of what they currently are. Supposedly they are so large to ensure the politicians will not be paid-off by oligarchs. Right. I see a problem or two,three... there :/

Not quite; politicians are paid a great deal so that the most capable people will want to become politicians. If it's more lucrative for somebody of ambition, talent and drive to enter any career except politics, then the government will be run by second-rate people who couldn't make it in other fields. There's also the reality that it's a difficult job, with no fixed hours, no job security and often huge demands on personal and family life, so in my view they deserve a reasonable salary to make up for it. How many other jobs carry the risk of national ridicule and summary sacking for speaking too quickly?

 

[Kyriakos]

While i can see that point, it seems that currently in our own societies (most of the west, anyway) it so happens that the main politicians are themselves part of the oligarchy, either in wealth or other parameters of such quality. So they can pretty much continue to be oligarchs, and do not really have a reason to care about the public. Assuming many of them are not really philanthropic anyway, this can easily translate to them being against the public or large parts of it.

The Byzantine aristocracy is another good example of this problem, cause unlike in other parts of Europe, in the Empire the dynastic rule was not the norm, so many emperors could be of their own dynasty, or even one-offs (no dynasty forming). So the rich members of those potentially able to be emperor were in endless scheming, resulting in the Empire having a massive number of civil wars.

 

[Agent327]

Well, indeed in ancient Athens the Democracy was at the same time far closer to actual Democracy

I wouldn't call a system which by definition already excludes half of its inhabitants on gender democratic.

 

[Tahuti]

I wouldn't call a system which by definition already excludes half of its inhabitants on gender democratic.

Then Switzerland was a patriarchic dictatorship until 1971!

 

[Kyriakos]

Then Switzerland was a patriarchic dictatorship until 1971!

+1

Let alone that the Demos were by definition those who could engage in debate in the court/agora of the city. Back then this was not possible for non-male citizens. While females were also citizens if they were born there or had lineage that allowed it (laws in Athens changed periodically on what sort of line one should have to be deemed a citizen), they were not parts of the political group of the Demos. Jeelen probably is confusing the Demos with the Polis, but the former can easily be only part of the latter (and potentially can be equal to it), and the system was not termed Politocracy anyway

Obviously 2500 years later it rightly became the norm that both genders can be part of the political body of the city/nation/etc. So now both genders are part of the Demos.

 

[Flying Pig]

I wouldn't call a system which by definition already excludes half of its inhabitants on gender democratic.

There's certainly a case for it when the business of the state is nearly exclusively the declaration and prosecution of war. The whole point of the Assembly was that those who would have to fight the war were the ones who had to decide to wage it in the first place, and they had to approve the plans which they would be putting into effect. If anything, it would have been extremely undemocratic for the system to allow, on a day when women outnumbered men in the Assembly, the bloc vote of those who would not be fighting to override the wishes of those who would.

 

[Tahuti]

+1

Let alone that the Demos were by definition those who could engage in debate in the court/agora of the city. Back then this was not possible for non-male citizens. While females were also citizens if they were born there or had lineage that allowed it (laws in Athens changed periodically on what sort of line one should have to be deemed a citizen), they were not parts of the political group of the Demos. Jeelen probably is confusing the Demos with the Polis, but the former can easily be only part of the latter (and potentially can be equal to it), and the system was not termed Politocracy anyway

Obviously 2500 years later it rightly became the norm that both genders can be part of the political body of the city/nation/etc. So now both genders are part of the Demos.

What about the "idiots"? Were idiots - in the Ancient Athenian sense - politically privileged citizens who refused to be politically active?

 

[Kyriakos]

What about the "idiots"? Were idiots - in the Ancient Athenian sense - politically privileged citizens who refused to be politically active?

I have thought of that term, but i am not sure just what relation it has to the ancient "idiotes" which indeed means "interested in private affairs" (as juxtaposed to public affairs). It is fairly evident that many in ancient Athens could not care less for taking part in the public affairs during peace times or non-crisis times, cause afterall Athens had a law which actually granted some minor payment to a citizen IF they had voted/participated

I have to suppose the "idiotes" was used as a slur, a bit like today one could accuse another of being "selfish", while all people to an extent are selfish anyway and that is not really bad up to a degree

 

[Flying Pig]

After a fashion. Pericles, in the Funeral Oration, claims that what made Athens different was that 'unlike other nations, we regard those who take no part in public business as not merely unambitious, but useless'. In theory, attendance at the Assembly was compulsory, with slaves going around the agora with ochre-covered ropes and whipping anybody found conducting business while there was a meeting: red marks meant that one was subject to a penalty of some sort. The payment for participation, in fact, only came about rather late on, towards the end of the 5th century, which was around the time that meetings increased from about one a month to about one a week. Of course, it's a fairly safe bet that your average Attic farmer would have simply stayed out of the city on meeting days if he wanted to avoid them. After all, something like 90% of the Attic population must have lived in the countryside, and many city-dwellers would have had some sort of farmland in their name.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thanks, great info

 

[HannibalBarka]

Mouthw, If ethnic cleansing is OK as it is the only way for Israel is remain jewish, if EC is justified for political reasons, than why is that better or more moral than "kicking all the jews" to the sea as advocated by radical palestinians? if you condone this, what do you think makes you "better" than cheik Yasin?

 

[Tee Kay]

Oooh, blast from the past (well, 2013, anyway. It seems so long ago)

But Hannibal has a good point.

(By the way, welcome back! We I miss you!)

 

[Tahuti]

Mouthw, If ethnic cleansing is OK as it is the only way for Israel is remain jewish, if EC is justified for political reasons, than why is that better or more moral than "kicking all the jews" to the sea as advocated by radical palestinians? if you condone this, what do you think makes you "better" than cheik Yasin?

There are more Arab countries than Jewish countries.

Anyway, I don't think Israel remaining Jewish is the most important concern for Zionists. It is not about having a Jewish state, but about having Palestine as guaranteed sanctuary for Jews, Jewish majority or not. They simply fear that the Palestinians will end this, should they become a majority.

Given how badly most of the Palestinian political leadership screwed managing the Palestinian territories - even when accounting for Israeli policies such as checkpoints - I totally understand the Israeli position.

 

[Mouthwash]

There are more Arab countries than Jewish countries.

Anyway, I don't think Israel remaining Jewish is the most important concern for Zionists. It is not about having a Jewish state, but about having Palestine as guaranteed sanctuary for Jews, Jewish majority or not. They simply fear that the Palestinians will end this, should they become a majority.

No, I don't buy that. The idea of becoming a minority in our own country flies against everything Israelis believe in. Yes, certain early Zionists just wanted a place for Jews to escape persecution, but if that's the case, why Palestine? Why not Uganda, or Madagascar, or the Russian Far East? The Jewish right to self-determination is Israel's justification for existing.

The reason kicking out Arabs is justified is simply because Israel has much more to lose than them. They can still go to the West Bank or Gaza, which will almost certainly never become predominantly Jewish. I'm not for kicking Palestinians out of the Territories, and actually support a complete dismantling of the settlements. So I hardly think it's fair that Israel should lose its identity under a demographic flood of foreign nationals.

 

[Tahuti]

No, I don't buy that. The idea of becoming a minority in our own country flies against everything Israelis believe in. Yes, certain early Zionists just wanted a place for Jews to escape persecution, but if that's the case, why Palestine? Why not Uganda, or Madagascar, or the Russian Far East? The Jewish right to self-determination is Israel's justification for existing.

The reason kicking out Arabs is justified is simply because Israel has much more to lose than them. They can still go to the West Bank or Gaza, which will almost certainly never become predominantly Jewish. I'm not for kicking Palestinians out of the Territories, and actually support a complete dismantling of the settlements. So I hardly think it's fair that Israel should lose its identity under a demographic flood of foreign nationals.

The fact that Palestine (I include the State of Israel in the way I'm using it right now) is the Jewish home is a combination of history and practical politics: Palestine was historically important for being the site of the old kingdom of Israel, and eventually was part of the road to British victory against the Ottoman Turks, which gave the Yishuv a window to establish a political presence there since the late 1910s. You can't say the same about Uganda or Madagascar.

Your position on the Arabs doesn't make any sense. Arabs with Israeli nationality are mostly very much Pro-Israel and they should be the last ones to be kicked out of Israel/Palestine. Especially since you apparently want to give away West Bank, which would require dismantling the settlements, which would probably cause a civil war far more bloody than the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.