But the middle class is part of it. They iterate that woke, 68, green, feminist agenda. It's origins are in the middle class, elites now recruited out of them or take advantage of it.
We, the people, are all working class. Class division is a tool of the ruling class, as are all divisions, promulgated by their propaganda (media). How are the inheriting offspring of the wealthy qualified? Aristotle had to operate and probably support the paradigm he lived in.
I have always said that any lie is one to much. People need to be held responsible for any lies that are told and I don’t mean a slap on the wrist. Lying has become a national issue that has to be dealt with from the top down . If a lie costs you to lose money and power you may not be so fast to tell a lie .
Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers was sued for lying about her political opponent being a child porn producer. Feb 1, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rogers, stating that politicians have MORE RIGHT TO LIE than ordinary citizens.
lying is only permissible when you elevate the political class above the law (which they determine and enforce only when it suits them) get rid of the political class and replace it with nothing. let people be accountable on an even playing field, and watch as lying evaporates over night if you think consensus or unity is the solution, then you dont understand human nature (we compete by nature) and are just repeating the empty platitudes the government whispers to placate you into thinking your vote matters. nationalism is just tribalism writ large. unity is an illusion.
@@douglasbillington8521 So then Putin proves that too? Wrong! Nor the USA nor the Russian Federation are real democracies... A real democracy is like a pregnant woman... Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant... There is no in between...
@douglasbilington8521 So then Putin proves that too? Wrong! Nor the USA nor the Russian Federation are real democracies.. A real democracy is like a pregnant woman... Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant... There is no in between... I wrote a paper on institutional direct Democracy. I consider my implementation a true democracy.
Yes. I remember them justifying it. "We will move factories to China and better jobs will replace them in the US". Instead, China simply became powerful and middle America became a wasteland.
The US constitution, as originally written, addressed these problems, and was written by men knowledge of history ( including being studied in Aristotle), and who had these same concerns. The problem is that the American people have not remained an educated population ( ignoring the founders’ warnings ) and the constitution has been altered to negate some of the protections against the dangers of democracy ( 17A ).
I'd call it wishful thinking. The reality is you can't have what they desired using a made up social construct like race. Do you have any idea how many times that fake race thing is our Constitution? We should be embarrassed. Anyway Democracy and conquest were supposed to be opposites. Like left-wing and right wing. Both required to keep the other in check to maintain balance. That was the basic narrative behind democracy BTW. History nerd. The 'evil' monarchy was supposedly flawed because it heavily relied on conquest. Rationalized conquest isn't a democracy to begin with. If you go down the right history rabbit hole you can find when the narrative or definition of what a democracy is changed. It's happened more than once. Always to rationalize conquest instead of actual democracy.
Biggest problem with the US constitution, as originally written, is this... it's not worth the parchment it's written on and, most importantly, any adult democracy regularly examines whether it's founding principles are still fit for purpose. Rather than kowtow before that piece of rubbish in a dazzled state and bleat about being the greatest country since the beginning of the universe (or before), how about taking a good look in the mirror?
Bro thats a lie and a myth. The founding fathers were a group of powerfull oligarchs that overthrough a monarchy. Like when the romans got rid of kings. The system the founding fathers developed was based on the early roman republic in which the patricians(founding father elites) dominated politics over the plebs(anglo-american christians) while growing their individual wealth via land and slave ownership(in america african slaves). Myth myth myth. The founding fathers were upset that they were getting taxed by the british but had no parliamentary majority in london. If you study eaely roman republic with the social wars it is very similary to why the americans had the war of independence.
Americans are watching this and thinking 'This means US!' Nope. Sorry. It doesn't. Several key aspects of Aristotle's Polity have been abandoned in the post-war era. And if they hadn't been,Trump would never have a political career. Personally, I admire Socrates' take on democracy: That is should not be limited to any one demographic or by any arbitrary criteria like home ownership. Rather, that anyone wanting to vote should be able to pass a basic civics and knowledge of current events test. And if they fail, they would be turned away from the polling station until the next election. On this continent half the eligible voters would lose their eligibility and have to educate themselves to regain it.
The U.S was supposed to be a polity, but the oligarchs figured out how to dumb down the public and turn them into their tools for oligarchic interests. Thus we are a bastardization of oligarchy and democracy where the oligarchy pretends to acceed to the will of the majority, but just does the bare minimum and makes long term plans to rob the nation. They turned half the population into slaves without them being any the wiser knowing that they would block any attempt at change and then created controlled opposition (the Republican Party, more specifically it's more centrist part) to be safe
If you require a civics test to determine who can vote, you are putting power into the hands of those who judge the civics test, and those who can complete them. Which may not seem so bad at first glance. However, the US had a history of using insanely hard "literacy tests" to prevent black people from voting, thus allowing Jim Crow laws to be enacted throughout the south. Granted, white people did not have to take these tests. But if they did, then most of them would fail, leading to society being governed by a small, powerful elite. Even if they are an educated small, powerful elite, they are still human beings, still subject to callousness, greed, and thus supporting policies that enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else. The great thing about a true democracy, one in which every vote truly counts, is that it's more difficult to enact policies that enrich the few at the cost of the many. Democracy is not a good system of government in and of itself but a defense against tyranny.
Aristotle is advocating for a Democracy that is ruled by elected representatives (Meritocracy) that are bound to a Constitution (Rule of Law). That is the VERY definition of the United States of America. Our founding fathers were quite familiar with Aristotle's writings.
It's important to note Aristotle made a distinction between democracy and polity, a polity is a good version of a democracy. Modern people use the word democracy as a catch all term to mean a polity, a democracy or a republic.
Democracy, aka the majority rule, has always been the most cherished tool of oligarchy, from the moment the rich discovered that it can be bought. "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." --- Emma Goldman
If voting didn't matter. they wouldn't make it so difficult to vote. 😜 Trouble is, candidates must be vetted and approved by the corporate class, in much the same way that the CCP decides who may hold office. The decisions crucial to the ruling class are made long before the election takes place. 🤨
"Whether am I in the right or not, there is no judge but me. You may only judge whether or not you endorse my right, and whether it exists as a right for you also." - Max Stirner
I've read Aristotle 's "Politics " and it was a revelation. He studied all the city-states in Greece and some in nearby countries. His conclusion was that all forms of government have the same basic flaw. There is no sure way to allow only the best people to govern. Aristotle thought that the wisest, most virtuous men should be chosen from all the classes of citizens; the nobles, merchants, farmers, soldiers and artisans. But all he could do was to advocate that only the finest quality of men should be admitted to government. He emphasized that education of the young should stress civic virtues like integrity, duty, and prudence. Greed and desire for power should be regarded as evils to be shunned. America today has abandoned the idea of educating the young in civic virtues, or even civics. We have allowed the greedy and corrupt to form an oligarchy, which is now in the final stages of relieving the public of their last dollars.
Yes I particularly enjoyed how you suggested the closest thing to an ideal society was one that was based on an ethnic hierarchy where the white population essentially acted as an oligarchy yes this would definitely make so much sense it's so inherently stable I wonder how come it doesn't exist anymore gee what a head scratcher 😂
I wonder if these programs would've been so profoundly received 8 years ago if not on you tube then. For myself it has my attention now for obvious reasons.
That programs related to Aristotle are more prevalent today is caused by The Complete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford Translation, Edited by Jonathan Barnes, in 1984. This completes the project requested by Oxford professor Benjamin Jowett in his will after he died in 1893. The first translation took about 50 years to finish, then Barnes went back and improved it. The best thing he did was to replace the 1925 Mure translation of Posterior Analytics with his own 1975 translation. This is the 2nd best thing that has happened to Logic since Aristotle invented Logic. It renders Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology obsolete. She could not have written that book had she read the superior translation but it was not available then. This last 100 years is Aristotle's 5th wave of acceleration. Each previous wave lasts for several centuries.
It's a largely irrelevant fact, these dudes lived in democracies and tyrannies. The video literally begins with a statement saying Aristotle often disagreed with Plato. Plato was aware enough of his flaws a person, in fact his biggest critic aside from Aristotle (lmao) and at times Diogenes, was himself. His best student is also the guy who went on to dismantle his theory of forms. They are for sure agreeing on some things, but you can't find in them a bad reason that isn't there for good reason.
They had seen the disaster of the Peloponesian War. In Athens democracy derailed and degraded into mob rule. This caused Athens to lose the war. Athens never fully recovered. Of course they were not fans of unrestricted democracy.
@@BygoneT When the term “democracy” is used repeatedly to try and warp history one begins to see the relevancy in historical terms. Being dismissive is another form of cognitive myopia.
A democracy needs 2 things…internal Accountability and external Transparency. Both of these are (should) be the same thing. The “people” should see clearly their elected leaders policies, opinions,laws,judgments and what direct effect they have. There should be laws to force truth and transparency on all leaders and political influencers and required sworn public testimony for all involved. This requires first an honest “spectrum” of delivering this true information to the masses who are themselves also legally required to be truthful and transparent. Checks of power should be built into serving the public with mandated balancing power intervals like term limitation and corporate de-monopolization with removal from power and public trial impeachment for violations of transparency and accountability. Voting should be required rewarded and “informed” voting rewarded even more-so.
What if we moved the power of approving laws to the citizens and make the house and senate just law making bodies that have to then be voted by the people for approval
What is a democracy? Democracy is rule by the many, the poor. What is Oligarchy? Oligarchy is rule by the few, the wealthy. Both of these descriptions have one thing in common. Neither speaks to the character of the rule, but both of these fall under the same Genus of character; corruption. Democracy needs one thing. Replacement by rule by excellence. The Common Good desires rule by excellence, not corruption. What you call rule by excellence is whatever you call it, polity, constitution, aristocracy, anarchy (? , lol), but it is the character of the rule that can bring about justice and domestic tranquility.
Situations are transparent only when viewed with an educated mind. The US education system is very poor and this made possible the election of Trump against all logic. Now the US oligarchs will be able to damage education even more.
I recall reaching several of the same conclusions about democracy as a child. Analytical minds put to task and abstracted from distinct personal interest can solve many issues.
I sometimes wonder if the ancient people that must've read Aristotle's politics collectively decided to lobotomize their ofsprings after reading it, because I don't get how humanity could be this shit at politics when we have the best guide to deal with them in that book but everyone ignores it
Like most economists, Aristotle came up with theories that sound great on paper but don't work in reality. One not only needs to understand politics or economy, but also sociology and more importantly the meaning of life.
Aristotle's works were quickly lost, relatively so, and the first translation directly from Greek to English was not done until 1776, by William Ellis. This is why the Constitution of the United State resembles the instructions that Aristotle advised. Thomas Jefferson and other founders had this translation in their libraries.
@@yoyoma17 Good question, but I'm afraid the answer will disappoint you: nothing can work, at least for the near future, which means in my lifetime and yours. The human being, like all other animals, is evolving in general (with upward and downward periods), but it still has too many flaws to create an harmonious society. Even the most conscious members of our species can't live together in harmony (read about the history of Auroville in India and Findhorn in Scotland, the two highest spiritual communities in the world, it's not nice). And evolution is VERY slow. So, whatever system you crate, with whatever people you create it, disharmony will set in permanently after a while. We are still too emotional, too greedy, too naive, too selfish, too ambitious to live in harmony together.
Too many variables should be fine tuned, meaning that too many things could go wrong. I would prefer an enlightened monarchy, or even better, an aristocracy, like in the prime days of Rome.
Sounds like that was the vision the Founding Fathers of America had in mind, almost bit by bit. I believe it all began to rot when the greatest safeguard against a tyrannical federation, state secession, was removed from the original Constitution, as there was no longer a major threat against a tyrannical Federation other than the 1st and 2nd ammendments, which have constantly been attacked upon since Lincoln spit a lead ball with his forehead. At least his excuse could be that he didn't have the brains to foresee he would greatly help ruin this nation, but there's none for all of his successors that allowed his change to the American law book remain. _Oh, and before anyone thinks this is defending the evil of slavery,_ *no*- it was a despicable enterprise of the oligarchy, that was ironically doomed to crumble the moment the Industrial Revolution landed in America, and this great nation would've been far better off without it. Never trust the Dutch³.
Except that the "democracy" Aristotle talked about was a randomized council democracy with direct voting about their proposals in the main assemblies. The demagoguery only comes in at this direct stage. By the classical definition, modern "representative democracy" is a very classical oligarchy. And your proposal is just for a form of stratified fascism.
Representative democracy is not a democracy because citizens do partake in the political process. And the problems Aristotle talked about apply well America. There's no shortage of the same criticisms aimed it.
@@christineyoung8345 The worst aspect of all these idealistic critics is the missing materialist and economic dimension. Democratic Athens employed strong taxation and practical obligations for their oligarchs, while modern "democracy" no matter how it's set up, works as a tool to enable rentier oligarchy.
Food for Thought: The first British monarch to ever care about the Little People was Queen Victoria (reigned 1837-1901). She expressed interest in how the peasants were doing early in her reign. Her advisors laughed at her, trying to help her realize "We don't care about them.". I suggest that Good rulers have come on the scene only recently. Of Course, you'll find exceptions, BUT I think many of those old-time "Loving Monarchs" are the ones who wrote the history. -- THEN, Thomas Jefferson said democracy can't work if the people aren't educated. Okay... How many of you remember your eighth-grade civics class? Most people learn "something," pass the test then go directly back to not knowing the three pillars of government, or that the President can't MAKE anything happen. With our highly polarized two-party system (which actually isn't part of "Democracy,") I'd venture to say that YOU think half the people are stupid. (I personally suspect it's more than half.) -- And as Aristotle said, democracies vote for what's appealing at the moment. We demand that the government give us more of "something" that costs money. WE don't want to pay higher Taxes. That can only mean that the government sells Bonds. MOST people can't grasp that THAT directly means WE want something nice, and we demand that our CHILDREN pay for it. If you don't understand this then you should not be allowed to vote.
One point about Bonds. In countries where we have control over minting (printing) and destroying currency (taxes), bonds are necessary to absorb the surplus that we produce as society and that the lower class cannot afford to consume. It's just a social contract to have wealthy people to not lose their money while keeping the currency (not the money) well valued. Otherwise, too much currency would be out there. Our kids will pay our pensions and our bonds. But bonds will be paid out to the elite in its majority while the meager pension will be paid out to social contributors.
I see two problems: i) How, or by which criteria, would we select the leaders by merit? (Presently everybody can accumulate votes to qualify), and ii) How would we protect the law in order not to be changed at will of the ones in power?
@@f0rtytw0mccarte39 There is a distinction to be made between aristocracy and oligarchy. The first one is "ideally" educated according to the principles of what they called "virtue", the primordial one being courage (not bravery), like the courage to question oneself on his beliefs and ideas, and addictions.
The answer to your question is in the end of the book - "Myths Lies Illusions and The Way Out" The key is to take away from politicians the rights to change the law. - This is the idea of "Direct Democracy" where is legislated yearly approval of each minister and Supreme Judge. If not approved by the people, the Minister, President, or Judge AUTOMATICALLY loosing the job!
You can't, no political system is immune to corruption. In fact it is inevitable that any political system eventually becomes corrupt purely because most people that seek political power will be doing it for their own reasons and it is absolutely inevitable over time that more and more of them get in
@@sleeper9638 I think that you are mixing up the system of "Democracy" where we have to elect a "Honest" people and give them all the power without any mechanism to keeping them accountable. Ask yourself how "They" using the most corrupt and non-loyal people and these non-loyal people is serving them well? The System is the one, which determining the loyalty of the politicians. Such System exist, but "They" pretending that there is no such things as accountability legislation's and System, which making the politicians loyal to the people!
Polity. A polity system is balanced, stable, merit-based and democratic. Underlined by ethical, well-thought-out and inclusive laws that apply to everyone.
“But above all every state should be so administered and so regulated by law that its politicians cannot possibly make money.” Aristotle, The Politics, line 1308b33 This is the most important line in all of what is called Aristotle with respect to removing corruption from government. Apply this to his discussion of Justice in Book V, Part 5, of Nicomachaean Ethics regarding the definition of money and then have a look at Article 1, Section 8, Item 6, of the Constitution of The United States: “Congress shall have the power to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” If Aristotle, were advising today, he would tell you that this is the fastest route to justice; stop the counterfeiting, stop the laws of confiscation, and remove the ability to make, take, or fake money out of being involved with public offices.
A large middle-class is just decentralized wealth. The core of Aristotle's proposals seems to avoid centralizing power in the hands of the few(either by oligarchss/aristocrats, monarchs/dictators or demagogues sweeping large swaths of the populus with little stakes their way).
There would be no need for term limits if all politicians thought as President Washington did. After his first term, he did not want to serve again but was overwhelmed by the requests of him to serve again. After that, he wanted nothing to do with serving again.
"The short tenure of office prevents oligarchies and aristocracies from falling into the hands of families; it is not easy for a person to do any great harm when his tenure of office is short, whereas long possession begets tyranny in oligarchies and democracies." -Aristotle, The Politics, 1308a16
@@WolvesOfApollo Senate seniority means power to the Senator's state. Good luck getting terms limits into the Senate. "not easy" 2016: Actually, it's super-easy. Barely an inconvenience.
"overwhelmed by the requests" Biden got 81M votes in 2020. Some think this a sign of foul play, not considering that people don't just vote for. They also vote against.
I'm certainly open to suggested improvements. The conclusion was nice, but lacking in any means by which to go there from where we are. I'd probably throw in rank choice voting as well.
03:47 Calling BS, as Aristotle also said, that electing a politician is by definition aristocratic and by no means democratic, what you refer to is a republic by roman standards, rather than democracy (which was settled in Athens) In a true democracy (or isonomia as this was the original name for democracy, as a form of anarchy) there‘s simply no need for representation, as this is a political form of presence, so why should people follow a demagogue or pursue for a „leader“ The struggle for political power is thereby rather a phenomenon of unfulfilled democracy (ancient greek history assumes there were aproximately 30% of athenians active members of politics (as slaves, women and Metics were excluded) and were thereby members of citizen assemblies) Rest of the video seems to be all in all antidemocratic by definition as well, creator seems to buy in into aristotle‘s antidemocratic approach, as the western thinkers and constitutions did for the last 2400yrs and used this argument to justify politics by the few, rather than by the many. To those who watch this and still make up their mind: Don‘t buy into this aristotelean-platonic idea. Both were sworn antidemocrats and pledged for a „virtuous king“, trained by philosophers (like they were - coincidence?). The whole political thinking of the west was born in this time by these people with resentments against the people/plebs. This thinking brought us to this situation. We don‘t need more of this thinking, we need the exact opposite. For further reading: Against Elections (by David van Reybrouck), The Greek discovery of Politics (Christian Meier), and the works of Richard Rorty, who understood quiet well the (uncanny) roots and shaping of our world by philosophical thinking throughout history
Excellent! I'll take up the books you suggested, and as you've pointed out, Aristotle seemed far more attuned to a monarchy (a Virtuous king trained by philosophers). An actual philosopher king.
Great video! I agree with the majority of his thinking. We can find many similarities between Aristotle ideal form of government and the Roman Republic before the Punic Wars, which was a surprisingly complex and functional form of government for that time and which could serve as a lesson to modern societies. Populist short term policies are usually a disaster in the long term as are governments lead by the sole interest of determined groups of interests, corporations and others. It's important to create mechanisms to avoid the grasp of power of any particular group of interest. The Republican system was created by the Romans first to avoid the absolut power of monarchs but with time it evolved to incorporate many aspects of distribution of power and specific requirements for public service, quite similarly as Aristotle's ideas, and more or less in the same period of time. Really interesting.
Switzerland is a undeveloped "Direct Democracy" system. To work this system need to exclude politicians from making the Law and to have a legislated system for yearly people's approval of Ministry, Supreme Judges and President. If people disapproved, "they" automatically losing the job. See the book - "Myths Lies, Illusions and The Way Out"
He had a lot to say about Switzerland. Back then, Switzerland belonged to the Helvetii people before being assimilated into the Roman Empire. The Helvetiis were a Celtic tribe. If you run a word search on The Complete Works of Aristotle, he mentions the Celts 14 times.
The mixed polity that you are proposing is not Aristotle's solution. He rather suggested that combining the two inferior polities (demo + oligarchy) could make things even worse:two bads do not make it good.
I don't read it that way. Instead, Aristotle advised to take the best from each, leave the bad out, and then combine the two. For example, that the demos should be deprived of their arms is always an Oligarchical element and not a common good. This gets tossed out and instead, "in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens." But he only advised to take the best from each because he was being practical. This is the most realistic alternative to an Aristocracy which was no longer feasible due to the larger populations. But for the polity, it was still an attempt to seek rule by the best. It is an aristocratic method to vote by raising your hand but democratic to draw lots. No one draws lots anymore.
Interesting introductory exploration of the complexities of different political systems. This may stimulate a persons interest towards political science and history. However, to draw an analogy - you can study the map to work out the best route to take - whichever route you chose, you need a sound and operational vehicle for the success of the journey. It is humanity that is flawed. No human based political system will satisfy ultimately.
The media is overlooked. Education too. A genius physicist does not necessarily have the knowledge of what makes him a vigilent citizen who understands politics and demagoguery. Philosophy, logic, social sciences should be reinforced at school. Our education system revolves around economics
This is why we have a constitutional republic. Our founders of the republic eschewed a pure democracy for the country because of the ramifications of the private sector with a lot of friends.
Politics is a type of natural selection, where only the most ruthless and greedy survives and raises to the top, and only on rare occasions such figure is capable of going beyond himself and do something altruistic. Humans as species has evolved surviving through scarcity of resources, and greed is selected as a winning trait, so it's engrained in our DNA to act selfish. This reflects in our form of government, starting every time with great ideals, and then perverting itself.
Thats just the usual "human nature" argument and it's not even that good. Human nature is a also cooperation. Your logic is basically: This is how it has always been and therefore that must be how it always should be. It has nothing to do with being "ingrained to our DNA", kindness and compassion is also ingrained into our DNA, by that logic. It's just that we have been living in an era for so long crawling out of times of chaos and misery that us humans have not have the time to form a people with good mental health that will be needed to create a better society.
@ Human nature is cooperative only in small numbers, most of us are unable to deal with big numbers, especially if it includes people who’re less and less related to us. That’s why you get very tight small communities, but human relationships are almost atomized in the big cities. Kindness is half a cultural trait, not strictly genetic. Religion has tried for millennia to teach us to be kind to others, because we’re naturally born to be afraid of strangers. That’s because in nature humans from other tribes more often than not means danger.
@@Seicks I attribute that to two biological factors: One is that oxytocin stimulates out-group suspicion as well as in-group bonding; the other is Dunbar's Limit: Our brains can only maintain detailed reputational stats for 150-200 individuals. When societies get larger, we need systems of trust metrics to know how to handle people in our orbit. And in the modern world we interact with many people we don't know, further compounding the trust challenge. Capitalism somewhat solves this problem, but it's imperfect. I don't know what might work better, though.
@@Seicksif you were right about us collaborating only in small numbers , big corporations and cities couldn't exist. The human being's success as an animal is highly corolated to it's capacity to collaborate in great numbers... and to the size of its brain, of course (ants and bees can also collaborate in great numbers, but they are too small; herds like antilopes, zebras, wildebeasts, or geese and monarch butterflies are just following each other, not collaborating).
3:15 a state in which wealth and the wealthy have all the power (like we live in now) is called a 'plutocracy', not an oligarchy. (An oligarchy is a group of large corporations who come together to exploit a market by creating monopoly conditions).
You are correct and Aristotle's defends his terminology by pointing out that although Oligarchy is rule by the few and democracy is rule by the common people, anywhere, all the time, it turns out that the few are wealthy and the common people are poor.
I don't think the wealthy should have any direct say in government, such as membership in an "upper" house. Let the middle class run the government, with the advice of the wealthy and the poor (elected advisers), chosen by popular vote.
I think, well, I agree with the idea there should a cap to personal wealth "8 men own as much wealth as the poorest half of humans" OXFAM (a few years ago)
@whatgoesaroundcomesaround920 No. Electoral vote is the only fair way to run an presidential election. Otherwise any super dense population center would simply win every election and the rest of the country has no say in its politics. That would be tyranny in action. The popular vote is an open door to a tyranny of the majority.
This video (/channel) is rather lacking in historical context I do think. It'd do you and everyone else here well to understand the works of Aristotle in the context of the Greek Polis instead of the Modern State only invented during the French Revolution, doing otherwise is to misunderstand the work and lay oneself prostate to demagogues in one's own ignorance.
In the Polity the oligarchs would just give themselves tax cuts and make the middle class support the entire country. It's no different than what we have now in the USA. I missed who controlled the oligarchs, was it the B class lawmakers or was the law totally encapsulated in the constitution. Would there be unaccountable appointed oligarchs like the SCOTUS?
There is a Political System based on this ideas - "Direct Democracy" - Where the Politicians has no rights to make the Law... And where is legislated mechanism of yearly people's approval of Ministry, Judges and President. - See the book - "Myths Lies Illusions and The Way Out"
Συγχαρητηρια!!! δεν εχασες ουτε μισο δευτερολεπτο δεν ειπες ουτε μια λεξη ασχετη η μια λεξη παραπανω και σε 15λεπτα τα ειπες ολα!!! -----στο τελος ειπες, δεν χρειαζετε οπωσδηποτε να γινουνε ολα ετσι!!! γιατι οχι και οχι μονο αυτα αλλα και ακομη περισοτερα διοτι μια τελεια κοινωνια δεν θα βλαψει κανεναν!!! μπραβο!!! αυτα πρεπει να γινουν ειναι θεμα αποφασης και μονο και φυσικα αυτα πρεπει να γινουνε πρωτα στην αμερικη και μετα στον υπολοιπο δυτικο κοσμο εσεις παντα ησασταν πρωτοποροι σε ολα και τωρα πρεπει να γινετε παλι πρωτοποροι! τωρα ειναι η μεγαλη και μοναδικη ιστορικη στιγμη τα παντα ειναι οριμα προς αυτην την κατευθηνση και τα κερδη αφανταστα για ολον τον κοσμο! μπραβο!!!
At 7.50 is the building which houses the Danish parliament which I visited a few weeks ago, if you want to learn about how adults run a country take a look at Denmark.
9:08 uhhhh nope. Our politicians (which are obviously oligarchs) are getting more and more incompetent and are also not fast at decision making. The only fast ruling form is monarchy
I'm sure some would disagree (and there are valid arguments against it) but I'd argue both are leaning towards oligarchy - though not pure oligarchies.
I've just started reading Aristotles Politics, isn't the issue with applying it to today's standards that most of his ideas relate to cities rather than nations? I'm sure they can scale, I look forward to finishing the book though and finding out 🤙🏻 thanks for the video
That's awesome, brother! 'Politics' is a fascinating read. There's definitely not a one-to-one between modern societies and Greek city-states, yet I think it's interesting how many parallels we can draw between then and now. The more I read those ancient texts (be it Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian...) the more I'm convinced we haven't changed all that much on a fundamental level.
There is another way.. select officials by qualification. Basically get candidates who qualify to do a series of tests simulating possible scenarios and calculating the effects of the choices taken by using AI, then let the candidates with the best results.do a series of interviews with the most recognized members of the intellectual elite in order to have them vote for a candidate. The winner would become the student of the previous leader for the time of his term, and at its end replace him while taking the next leader as student.
Democracy's biggest flaw is that it is essentially a collectivist system and will always create a strong man/dictator type leader. The founders of the United States understood this and rejected democracy outright. They created a republic, with a government that had separated powers, amongst other safeguards. That is why socialism finds it so hard to gain more than a foothold here, but in Europe, Central America, and South America, the going is much easier.
The problem with “democracy” is that everyone who can “fog a mirror” is allowed a vote. Democracy as such needs to be replaced by “earned suffrage”. Most people should not vote-basically because they are 1) too ignorant, and 2) they don’t contribute to the society. This will handle all that Aristotle suggested.
@johnluiten3686 Unfortunately you are right. Too many people vote without knowing a single thing about our country. Our society, system, and history is unknown by too many. You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you have shown to have a minimal level of competency about our country, especially its politics.
In Australia it is punishable not to vote ,I get very angry when I hear the reasons for voting ,,"I just put a cross anywhere,I leave it blank,,,I,m a labourer so .I vote Labour,,,,,,Well your father votes Tory darling..and he says""" prices are too high ,I.ll make this country great again ""
Yeah, but who's going to administer the tests? Who's going to write the tests? Somebody who is just as flawed, selfish and corruptible as anyone else. Those somebodys can just as easily decide that YOU should not have the right to vote. Never assume that these limits to suffrage will only apply to those OTHER people.
There should be some qualifying criteria that are met before a person could be permitted to be a candidate for office. For example, pass a civil service exam, and a thorough vetting process. After all, it really isn't just a popularity contest.
"to be a candidate" And who enforces that for federal offices? SCOTUS won't let states do that. Too much control being given to the states then, they said.
Democracy is a facade Princeton did a study over a decade ago Americans live in an oligarchy where a small handful of billionaires have complete financial and political power over the masses Democracy always turns into oligarchy its a facade!!!!!we need a whole new system that puts the power with the masses
So true, an educated, engaged, and prosperous middle class, in tune with the wealthy for society's long-term interest, all working according to a just constitution is what any society should aim for. I also endorse the vote being granted only to those with a higher education, which, in a society with free higher education available to all, would not be as objectionable as it sounds.
If he have 2 chambers of Parliament, one of deputies chosen by people and one a kind of senat with members chosen by merrit that veto the project of popular chamber, the reforma will never be done because the senat blocks them and proposed laws will not be practical because are not by people with merit. 14:06
The problem with the description of Democracy that you use is the popular election of leaders with the assumption the number of competent candidates is few. That is a representative view of democracy and not a true democracy in which constituents run the show and quickly remove incompetent leaders.
There was a heated discussion and debate on this very topic and a very different set of guidelines were recommended. 1. Separation of administration leadership (elected representatives) and the agenda. People would vote on agenda (immigration, budgets etc) and elect representatives to best execute them. At the moment, expressing preference over individual matter is not possible thru election. 2. None of above. People will always have choice not to be represented thru an elected representative. If there were 5 candidates, people will have 6th choice ‘none of above’. Belgium had a period where they did not have an elected government due ti hung parliament, yet the country was fine. Extra ideas included banning all ‘rejected’ candidates from running next election OR having a second election with a fresh set of individuals etc. 3. Rights and Responsibility. Democracy has 2 main pillars. Rights (right to vote, human rights etc) and responsibility (tax, national service, to abide by law etc). On election, everyone talks about their right to vote but not the responsibility to have the right to vote. A vote must be earned thru tax (eg someone who paid 50% of times during last 5 years), national service (if applicable), law biding (no record to prove otherwise). This will eliminate 25-40% of voters. There were counter argument re house wife, elderly with no income etc. If there is will, there will be way. People, who does not fulfil their responsibilities, deciding the distribution of future resources sounded bizarre. If you want to get your rights, earn your rights first.
Im not sure much about the specifics or how you would realistically implement it, but I've come to the conclusion that the best form of govt would be something where the freest people are those youths at the bottom as they are still finding where their duty to society lies and its as you start to find that and climb in society, that rather than simply more power and freedom, you find the glory of your calling, but the weight of society's expectations that come with that. The leaders of your country would by far and away would be expected to live very strict lifestyles and go through MANY anti-corruption safeguards to do what they do to with pretty much constant surveilance. Does it sound brutal and oppressive? It's supposed to. This is to dissuade those who would seek such positions for mere vanity from seeing such a goal as an inviting prospect and leave those roles to those truly passionate about selfless devotion to their people.
One flaw in Aristotle’s argumentation is in determining who is the majority, something which has been made an irrelevancy by forces who have corrupted democracy by silencing the voices of the people they don’t like with their tactics of suppression. This problem with his theorizing of democracy arises because he was looking at it from the perspective of one who lived in a largely homogeneous and completely patriarchal (I.e. misogynist) society. He couldn’t conceive of the complicating factors created by a multicultural society (especially one where women get to participate) given the uglier aspects of human nature.
I don't see many differences here. Portions of society can be abused by any versions of government listed above (@6:46). The only significant forms are rule by several vs rule by all or one. Presumably several of equal power will have to agree to opress or elevate certain sectors while the one or the many will condense their will to a decision, still binding. One has no opposition, many still end up with one conclusion. The dangerous or unfair versions mentioned by Aristotle are still just as possible. Oligarchy's group can be just as oppressive of groups they find vulnerable or distasteful as a monarchy or rule by all. The real determiner in all these scenarios is the quality or personality of those in charge. Whether benevolent or malevolent is the fundamental factor. And there is no single form immune or inherently free from maniacal rule. The best one can achieve here IS A democracy, where the most must conclude the viability of a candidate, not a powerful few who may be best friends or of equal attitude. The requirement therefore, is that all of such society be of a certain education and experience, thus to recognize a tyrant or con artist. Well, we had that, until a wealthy few decided to deceive the populous with false reporting over a generation. And thus prove that instead of democracy as was concieved at the founding, this was undermined by an oligarchy with an agenda in opposition to the population as a whole. The checks and balances against this were slowly eroded in congress and by lobbyists. The LAW of this land was subverted and like a retro-virus the attackers went for the lawmaking body itself, skipping the people's rule and directly subverting power without vote or opposition.
That there is an inequality is not a problem. Many of the 99% live better than Kings of yester-year in terms of health and the amenities associated with the great wealth of today, albeit relatively concentrated. My concern would be by what means has it been acquired, justly or unjustly, honestly or dishonestly, as a result of excellence or corruption? To that end, much of the ill gotten ends rewarded by corruption could be mitigated by Aristotle's advice to remove the ability of making money out of being involved with public offices. First up, then, would be to terminate the laundering of counterfeit by the Federal Reserve into the economy which is cleaned by the tax payers and returned to the Treasury.
I've toyed with the thought of an ideal democracy--one that self-resets after a specific amount of time to its starting state (E.g., all the amendments, additional laws, departments, reset back to the 1776 state every 50 years in the U.S). This way all the bloat is cut out similar to defragging a hard drive, but the important laws, departments, and amendments would be the first to be added back in.
That Aristotle started with the worry of the wealth being redistributed back to the poor through taxation, something that's never happened ever in all of human history, he started from a wealthy person's position with such protective and preferential language. As much as I loved the Greeks, they were elitists. They believed in slavery and poverty as natural things in general, and like so many imperialists before enjoyed the benefits of a system in which laborers were deprived the value of their labors, and like today, saw the greater value of their hard work go to those above them. Labor then, like now, was not paid anywhere near the value of their labor. Honestly, labor only wants it's fair share and is okay with the owner of the business getting a little capitalization upon that labor in exchange for a place for that laborer to use his work to make that money. To say that labor would act like some greedy animal and take the whole value of their labor for themselves if they knew what value they generated is bullshit. A person should be allowed to know how much money they generate for their company. It's not capitalism, it's exploitism. If a laborer is not allowed by the system to garner some capital value off his labor, if he is not allowed to capitalize, then it is NOT capitalism, it is exploitism, plain and simple. Real capitalism would allow the laborer to know the value of their labor and to capitalize fairly off of that value. Millennia after millennia it's been the same BS from the elites, "We cannot let the unwashed masses make the decisions". Well gee, an informed mass CAN make informed decisions, but as a government you have to be willing to give your citizens the education and information they need to make those informed decisions, but when has that ever happened in all of human history either? I say that if you give the populace the information and the ability to process that information, they would choose what would best support the whole of society to keep things flowing at an easy to maintain status quo. The elites are wrong, they have always been afraid of the "poor" making decisions. They have always lived with this bizarre delusion that the masses would just walk in and pillage like savages everything and wreck it all like it was the French Revolution, which is entirely paranoid if you ask me. No, all the "poor" want is to be paid fairly for the value of their labors and to have a smooth running government. That's all the poor ever wanted in all of human history. They aren't savages, they're just people with less value to their names. They want a social structure to live under, they just want it to be fair. Every time the elites hear the word "fair" from the populace they go into a panicked frenzy that the poors are out to take everything they own and go communism or anarchy or French Revolution, which says a hell of a lot about the wealthy mindset. The upper middle class is also living under the wealthy's belief system that the masses are dangerous hordes of barbarians that would take everything the rich owned if given the chance, and while the thought crosses the minds of the poor often, it's not something we would do unless pushed to the same levels of desperation the starving French were in when they lobbed off the elites back then. Ruling out of fear of the poor and making policies to keep depriving people of the value of their labors will eventually lead to that French Revolution thing, however. Don't make us desperate enough to knock you out and you'll be just fine. The thinkers of the past, as wise as they might have been, were still upper class and owned slaves and their thoughts were determined by those positions of privileged. They othered lower classes of people and believed those classes to think like animals and not people. He based his determination that the masses could not be trusted to make decisions off of the elite's paranoia and fears of the poor masses and their biases about those people. And yes, an ignorant people cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions because you have kept the facts from them and no one can make an informed decision without all the facts, so you started out by damaging the potential for a clean democracy out the gate, Aristotle. Poor villages, disconnected from their governments by distance or otherwise still managed to function just fine without the king there telling those villages how to operate. The government did nothing for them, they did it all themselves, choosing their leaders, choosing the persons in charge of laying down the laws, no king needed. The decisions were made in the town halls by the voices of majority of elders of those villages, as that's the system they choose to live under. Somehow, without even reading or writing they managed to not melt down into thieving barbarians, thereby disproving the elite's theory that the unwashed masses would act like a hungry horde of zombies coming for that sweet elite gold if given power. Beyond that, he is fairly wise.
America should have a national economy, not a global one. The reason why middle class is shrinking is because globalism have outsourced a big chunk of their work, especially those blue collar ones, to slave labors from Yangtze river. Money is power, so excessive money brought in from outside of borders will surely disrupt a nation's political system significantly. It is also unrealistic for USA to protect property rights outside of her borders, thus a lot of international corporates have to be obedient to foreign despots whom view property protection as optional. Nationals should have the power to impose tariffs and regulations to import and foreign investment per their political need.
I never got around to reading Aristotle, but I have come to pretty much the dame conclusions. A pure, direct democracy will never work for much the same reasons stated here. Instead, a limited democracy is best in that it can keep one interest group or the other from getting pretty much entrenched in power. One main feature it must have is an enforceable catalog of minimum rights for any and all minorities, be they minorites of race, gender, economic class, or any other. Here, in the USA, we used to have a Supreme Court that could more or less be trusted to maintain such a catalog. But now it has been hijacked by a minority of wealth who wish to have ever growing power over the rest of us. I think Aristotle would agree with me that such hijacking should be at least less easy. Now, one interest group or another only need to have a sucession of freindly presidents and senate majorities to take over the Court. And this is what happened. Also, because our lawmakers require large amounts of cash to campaign effectively, our democracy, such as it is, inherently favors wealthy individuals and interests groups over all others. It's to the point that I call our country a "democratic plutocracy". I think Aristotle was wrong about demogogues. I think they are only effective in failing democracies, where the general population loses faith in the system as it presently is. I believe that if we, in the USA lose what's left of our limited democracy (which may well happen in a matter of months), this will be the main reason.
no currently democratic nation on earth is ruled by a majority vote, considering voter apathy usually means a larger percentage of citizens do not vote at all, than vote for any of the political parties participating in the election. when 40+% of eligible citizens do not vote at all, it is all but impossible for a competitive, fair election to result in any one party or candidate winning a vote share larger than that share of the citizenry whose disillusionment and disgust with whatever they see wrong in the system Usually corruption) leads them to simply not participate at all. oh, and yes, voter apathy is always a result of disillusionment and disgust with what is usually rank corruption within the system,
Even the "Tiranny" of majority can be controlled. - There is a system designed on Aristotelian principles - "Direct Democracy" - Where the Law is permanent and politicians has no rights to change it. The law can be changed by referendum with certain majority. There is legislated yearly people's approval of Ministry, Supreme Judges and President. - See the book - "Myths Lies Illusions and The Way Out" -
Fascinating. However, after this got to the "If Aristotle were here today, how would he fix..." I got a vibe that what followed wasn't based on Aristotle's teaching, but Maybe some editorial by Legendary Lore. I do think what was said is good, but it might be based on a personal understanding of Aristotle enough to make a responsible speculation of what he would say. -- I believe we should study those great philosophers. I seriously, truly own the complete works of Plato. BUT Aristotle may have said something entirely different if he knew our World Economies, Nuclear Weapons, and Smart Phones. So let's be careful about his cultural limits. We're in bizarre times.
🎯"if he knew our" doxxing, primaried moderates, blackmail, disinformation infrastructure, anonymous filibuster, foreign ownership of news media, religious tribalism, voter ennui, psychology of malignant narcissism, cult psychology, refinement of propaganda techniques over the past 100 years, foreign goals of existential revenge
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” ‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ Winston S Churchill [This world of sin and woe is male, not female.]
"the average voter" 55% read below the sixth-grade level. "is male, not female" 77M Americans, almost half of them women, do not mind having their daughters turned away from the ER when they have incomplete miscarriages, placental abruptions, and ectopic pregnancies -- risking sepsis and emergency hysterectomies.
One major problem...... When does excessive Profits and Extream Wealth become Theft ??? What % of Profit for all businesses is reasonably acceptable (this includes all taxes and hidden charges ) ??? How will this be controlled and maintained to allow growth and wealth redistribution to maintain a just, fair & balanced society and living standards for All People ??? Governments will be convertered to being Administrators not Rulers. or Law Makers.
You could never have polity as long as the means of exchange is linked to a store of value. So the only way to get to polity is to have money as only a means of exchange. Such a society would have to find other means for the store of value. We do have that today via Bitcoin but it could not be the common means of exchange. I also think we are now witnessing land hoarding so LAND has to be reassesed. I still argue for private property but altered via some of the ideas of Henry George. On the surface it seems like a contradiction but I don't think it is. I don't see much of a difference between lifetime land leasing and private property rights.
Aristotle’s system of polity combined with financial regulatory agencies that approve and monitor who qualifies for accessibility to banking credit creation.
The big problem with Democracy, is us. The quality of the voters, determines the quality of the government. If the voters are moral, alturistic,and intelligent, then you get a moral altruistic intelligent government. If, however, the voters are immoral, narcissistic, conspiracy theorists, well you can see where I'm going with this. What I'm saying is, we're screwed. we don't have it in us. Back in the 1970's I thought we did, but I was wrong. I look forward to seeing How our successors solve the problem.. A.I. or Cocroaches, or maybe hyper intelegent wombats... who's to say. I wish them lots of luck!
It's quite theoretical because all Western countries are still in an oligarchy. So the question is more about how do you get to that into a polity (assuming it's what people want). Right now people don't vote on anything at all, so there is no chance of majority rule at all so it's a non issue really. What's the issue is a bunch of elites that only work for themselves. They won't become aristocratic suddenly, so the only fix is probably democracy to get rid of them. Then we can start thinking about fixing democracy. And no, for those that think the US or China are polities, they aren't even close.
Voting rights restricted based on age, service, childbirth etc don’t guarantee any degree of informed citizenry. I’d cautiously propose that you should need to pass a test in order to vote (kind of like having a license to drive), with regular ‘maintaining registration’ tests needed every 5-10 years or so, focusing on current and predicted economic issues, previous attempted solutions and proposed solutions with the same information prospective leaders have available to them, so people can truly ask questions or vote based on shared knowledge, not empty promises. The test should include identifying ‘bullshit language’ that implies without committing in a way that would incur liability, etc. The issue with that of course, is who watches the watcher? Who determines the test? Surely it would be inevitable that ‘revisions’ would skew it to normalise and promote any one way of doing things in order to lead people around by the nose just as they are now through (bad-faith, not all) mandatory education, religion, social leaders, etc. Still, some degree of proving you’re paying attention and care enough to sit the test - even a 60/70% pass rate being enough to qualify to vote - would help improve the number of educated voters. And you don’t have to be lucky enough to survive combat or childbirth first. Also, a TOTAL BAN on rallies or competitive political speeches might be a good idea. Get the rah-rah emotion out of politics. Put everything in print. We have screen readers now, so it won’t exclude people with low literacy skills, and it makes it easier to assess/analyse, research and compare promises/lies etc.
Also, total ban on political donations. And the publication of any political promises/plans to be a centrally-controlled government resource. We have the internet now, we have free access at libraries, there is no need for million dollar attack ads blasting us 24/7 on TV to subliminally promote Loser A over Moron B. Federally funded independent groups to actually TRACK events, economics, promises made and kept and broken and why would also be good.
"At least in theory"... yes, the ideal is to have competent leaders who prioritized the good of the many over the good of the few. How to get them is the rub. Vaclav Havel comes to mind (head of the Czech Republic). One of the key impediments to that is a gotcha press out for Paparazzi thrills. Couple that with endless campaigns, and, well I know I'm sick of this one, and will be glad when 11/5/2024 is in the rearview mirror. The Brits have it much easier with really short campaigns.
17:36 , It seems we were very close the the ideal. The difference being one class decided to subvert the FIRST amendment, a LAW of this land. And when THEY are held accountable, we may have a lasting and stable system. Greed is inherent in this group, and no humanitarian concerns seem to prevent this. It isn't the poor or the working class, or even the poorly educated that failed the United States in 2024. It is the wealthy.
A unique case that we may mirror, though not perfectly, what Aristotle's polity would be China of present, which is ironic since the Western MSM and academia often characterize her as a non-democracy. Let's think about it: Though the CPC is the ruling party to govern indefinitely as per the current PRC Constitution, what is the crux of partisan politics anyway? The word "party" originates from the word "part", ie. part of a society, thus a party serve represent a part of the society. The CPC began by representing the Chinese Proletariat working class, but over the century since its founding in 1921, has incorporated other classes of the Chinese society. Today, even rich business owners can join the CPC, becoming its party members. The CPC today is no longer a "party" anymore but reformed into what is akin to a collective monarchy, which is what Aristotle's most ideal system is in theory that you have mentioned, since a good monarch needs to cater to all of society and just cater to parts of the society like what "parties" do. Secondly, contrary to popular Western belief that there is no voting and election in China, there in fact are elections all the time, but on smaller regional scales across different times and places. For the national system, it is akin to a tiered voting system where eligible voters at the grass-root level (need not be CPC members, but in reality more often than not the CPC members would vote as they are more well-informed about the subject due to the convenience of being in the party structure) vote for district or village deputies (again, need not be CPC members), who would in turn vote for city or county deputies, who would then in turn vote for provincial deputies, who would then in turn vote for national deputies that would congregate every year at the National People's Congress (NPC) to legislate laws. In between the elections and legislations, the deputies at various levels are given time to discuss, to argue and debate, to propose alternatives and amendments with one another, as well as seek consultative advice from other experts and retired deputies. There are also time for other institutions in Chinese society to conduct surveying and public opinion gathering prior to formulation of laws, surveys conducted by grass-root community councils (who also take complaints and whistle-blowing from disgruntled people), public service units (the police, public educators, public health servants, etc), the other 8 political parties that are tasked to assist the CPC's governance and also members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference that serves an advisory, review and feedback institution, and even private entities such as businesses, religious and charity groups. And members of the NPC is also by no means a elitist club, as many deputies are also of lower income classes and professions, such as rural peasants and urban construction workers. Then there is the CPC intra-party system itself: CPC party members number more than 90 million, accounting for about 6.5 percent of the entire Chinese population. The CPC membership entry rule is very strict, with preparatory institution such as the Youth Leagues for teenagers and Young Pioneers for people even younger, that provides a place for would-be future party members to study and get educated enough in order to qualify for their future responsibilities. Upon admission into the CPC, ordinary members are just like anyone in Chinese society, only a few amongst them can become cadres and/or move up further in the Party structure. This process is vetted by the CPC's Organization Department, what is akin to the HR of a firm. It reviews lower level cadres' performance at regional lower level organizations, such as the district, village, city or county level party councils (after about a decade of working there), and if their performance is good enough, the cadres can then move up to provincial level party councils for further testing and review (another decade long), and if they are still good enough, then they can be promoted into the Central Committee (another 10 to 20 years on average), and then further could be voted by and elected for the Politburo and even ultimately into the Standing Committee that is the highest leadership positions. That is how the current CPC General Secretary Xi Jinping came to this position. Eric X. Li made a TED talk about this 11 years ago explaining this and you can find it here on TH-cam: th-cam.com/video/s0YjL9rZyR0/w-d-xo.html The CPC's Organization Department serves the purpose of that you mentioned as a process to vet who is eligible to vote. Of course this process is not free from corruption since the Organization Department and Central Committee are also comprised of humans; humans who are all susceptible to corruption. May if A.I. replaces humans to do the job, it may be better, but the problem with A.I. today is that they can't think outside the box to meet unpredictable challenges and crises in the future. The CPC cadres can also be transferred over to the national system to govern a region, but the regional deputies would still have the authority to authorize, it not veto, the CPC's recommended candidate, as with some previous cases in which the deputies of the national system finds questionable qualities and/or characters with the candidates. Thus these creates checks and balances that Aristotle talked about to prevent abuse of power and corruption. China's system is not perfect as far as its real-life practice goes, but relatively speaking, it works much better than the rest of the world (with a few other exceptions) judging from the results of China's development over the past few decades.
Sounds like the Swiss came closer to Aristotle version of democracy and many other nations presently do. The USA, however, is probably 75% of the way where I Rasado envisioned his ideal democracy. Some tweaks would need to be made into the AMERICAN system before it reached our style full vision.
In essence, as people like Jefferson and Adams and Hamilton and Washington had all ready Aristotle and Cicero and the other classics from Livy to John Locke, the United States - like many modern nations - uses these principles as the foundation of their political systems. And they still fail all the time. No system can work if the people in a society are not devoted to each others' liberty and prosperity. If the society promotes selfishness. division and violence, then no political system can succeed for long. It's the basic paradox of the State: People need rulers because a mass of individuals cannot rule itself. However, if people cannot rule themselves, then how can we expect a few of them - the State - to make decisions for everyone else?
This show does a good job of explaining why our modern Oligarchs are eliminating the middle class. They're scared of them.
But the middle class is part of it. They iterate that woke, 68, green, feminist agenda. It's origins are in the middle class, elites now recruited out of them or take advantage of it.
Also RO YALS are nothing more than old Oligarchs.
Less competition
They used to be scared. Now our country commits genocide and don't give a damn that nobody wants it
We, the people, are all working class.
Class division is a tool of the ruling class, as are all divisions, promulgated by their propaganda (media).
How are the inheriting offspring of the wealthy qualified?
Aristotle had to operate and probably support the paradigm he lived in.
Whatever you try, lying is the great corrupter. Without a consensus on lying being unacceptable, collapse is guaranteed.
The best thing that anyone can do for the truth is to speak it. Friends of the truth can be friends of ours.
I have always said that any lie is one to much. People need to be held responsible for any lies that are told and I don’t mean a slap on the wrist. Lying has become a national issue that has to be dealt with from the top down . If a lie costs you to lose money and power you may not be so fast to tell a lie .
Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers was sued for lying about her political opponent being a child porn producer. Feb 1, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rogers, stating that politicians have MORE RIGHT TO LIE than ordinary citizens.
lying is only permissible when you elevate the political class above the law (which they determine and enforce only when it suits them)
get rid of the political class and replace it with nothing. let people be accountable on an even playing field, and watch as lying evaporates over night
if you think consensus or unity is the solution, then you dont understand human nature (we compete by nature) and are just repeating the empty platitudes the government whispers to placate you into thinking your vote matters. nationalism is just tribalism writ large. unity is an illusion.
Watched this play out at large scale with high stakes, didn't we.
"A politician's success is measured by his ability to get elected. If he's good at that, he doesn't have to be good at anything else." - Solomon Short
The U.S. election just proved that statement
@@douglasbillington8521Don the Con for the win!!!
@@douglasbillington8521
So then Putin proves that too?
Wrong!
Nor the USA nor the Russian Federation are real democracies...
A real democracy is like a pregnant woman... Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant... There is no in between...
@douglasbilington8521
So then Putin proves that too?
Wrong!
Nor the USA nor the Russian Federation
are real democracies..
A real democracy is like a pregnant
woman... Either you are pregnant or you
are not pregnant... There is no in
between...
I wrote a paper on institutional direct Democracy.
I consider my implementation a true democracy.
If that is all the politician is good at he is a complete failure
Deleting the middle class and replacing it with corporate money was the turning point in America.
Yes. I remember them justifying it. "We will move factories to China and better jobs will replace them in the US". Instead, China simply became powerful and middle America became a wasteland.
It’s unstable. Unsustainable. All we really have to do is nothing, and wait for it to just collapse under the weight of its contradictions.
The problem is that once a population has been demoralized, the population usually stays that way. Until it's colonized
The turning point in America was the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression.
@@moodrahkamite818Demoralized according to whom?
The US constitution, as originally written, addressed these problems, and was written by men knowledge of history ( including being studied in Aristotle), and who had these same concerns. The problem is that the American people have not remained an educated population ( ignoring the founders’ warnings ) and the constitution has been altered to negate some of the protections against the dangers of democracy ( 17A ).
19th!
I'd call it wishful thinking.
The reality is you can't have what they desired using a made up social construct like race.
Do you have any idea how many times that fake race thing is our Constitution? We should be embarrassed.
Anyway
Democracy and conquest were supposed to be opposites.
Like left-wing and right wing.
Both required to keep the other in check to maintain balance.
That was the basic narrative behind democracy BTW.
History nerd.
The 'evil' monarchy was supposedly flawed because it heavily relied on conquest.
Rationalized conquest isn't a democracy to begin with.
If you go down the right history rabbit hole you can find when the narrative or definition of what a democracy is changed.
It's happened more than once.
Always to rationalize conquest instead of actual democracy.
17th
Commerce Clause
General Welfare
Biggest problem with the US constitution, as originally written, is this... it's not worth the parchment it's written on and, most importantly, any adult democracy regularly examines whether it's founding principles are still fit for purpose. Rather than kowtow before that piece of rubbish in a dazzled state and bleat about being the greatest country since the beginning of the universe (or before), how about taking a good look in the mirror?
Bro thats a lie and a myth. The founding fathers were a group of powerfull oligarchs that overthrough a monarchy. Like when the romans got rid of kings.
The system the founding fathers developed was based on the early roman republic in which the patricians(founding father elites) dominated politics over the plebs(anglo-american christians) while growing their individual wealth via land and slave ownership(in america african slaves).
Myth myth myth.
The founding fathers were upset that they were getting taxed by the british but had no parliamentary majority in london.
If you study eaely roman republic with the social wars it is very similary to why the americans had the war of independence.
Americans are watching this and thinking 'This means US!'
Nope. Sorry. It doesn't. Several key aspects of Aristotle's Polity have been abandoned in the post-war era.
And if they hadn't been,Trump would never have a political career.
Personally, I admire Socrates' take on democracy: That is should not be limited to any one demographic or by any arbitrary criteria like home ownership. Rather, that anyone wanting to vote should be able to pass a basic civics and knowledge of current events test. And if they fail, they would be turned away from the polling station until the next election.
On this continent half the eligible voters would lose their eligibility and have to educate themselves to regain it.
Agreed. The US used to resemble a Polity more than it does today.
The U.S was supposed to be a polity, but the oligarchs figured out how to dumb down the public and turn them into their tools for oligarchic interests. Thus we are a bastardization of oligarchy and democracy where the oligarchy pretends to acceed to the will of the majority, but just does the bare minimum and makes long term plans to rob the nation. They turned half the population into slaves without them being any the wiser knowing that they would block any attempt at change and then created controlled opposition (the Republican Party, more specifically it's more centrist part) to be safe
If you require a civics test to determine who can vote, you are putting power into the hands of those who judge the civics test, and those who can complete them. Which may not seem so bad at first glance. However, the US had a history of using insanely hard "literacy tests" to prevent black people from voting, thus allowing Jim Crow laws to be enacted throughout the south. Granted, white people did not have to take these tests. But if they did, then most of them would fail, leading to society being governed by a small, powerful elite. Even if they are an educated small, powerful elite, they are still human beings, still subject to callousness, greed, and thus supporting policies that enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else.
The great thing about a true democracy, one in which every vote truly counts, is that it's more difficult to enact policies that enrich the few at the cost of the many. Democracy is not a good system of government in and of itself but a defense against tyranny.
Aristotle is advocating for a Democracy that is ruled by elected representatives (Meritocracy) that are bound to a Constitution (Rule of Law). That is the VERY definition of the United States of America. Our founding fathers were quite familiar with Aristotle's writings.
@@christopherdaffron8115 Yeah well, things have gotten a lot worse since the founding fathers.
It's important to note Aristotle made a distinction between democracy and polity, a polity is a good version of a democracy. Modern people use the word democracy as a catch all term to mean a polity, a democracy or a republic.
Democracy today is communism from The Republic by Plato; equality of property, equality of sexes, rule by academics.
Democracy, aka the majority rule, has always been the most cherished tool of oligarchy, from the moment the rich discovered that it can be bought. "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." --- Emma Goldman
If voting didn't matter. they wouldn't make it so difficult to vote. 😜
Trouble is, candidates must be vetted and approved by the corporate class, in much the same way that the CCP decides who may hold office. The decisions crucial to the ruling class are made long before the election takes place. 🤨
"Whether am I in the right or not, there is no judge but me. You may only judge whether or not you endorse my right, and whether it exists as a right for you also." - Max Stirner
You dont keep power with money. You keep power with murder or fear of it. Plain and simple.
@@ThatGuySyndrome Money buys all things, including people with guns. 🤨
@@serversurfer6169 harder to buy loyalty.
I've read Aristotle 's "Politics " and it was a revelation. He studied all the city-states in Greece and some in nearby countries. His conclusion was that all forms of government have the same basic flaw. There is no sure way to allow only the best people to govern. Aristotle thought that the wisest, most virtuous men should be chosen from all the classes of citizens; the nobles, merchants, farmers, soldiers and artisans. But all he could do was to advocate that only the finest quality of men should be admitted to government. He emphasized that education of the young should stress civic virtues like integrity, duty, and prudence. Greed and desire for power should be regarded as evils to be shunned.
America today has abandoned the idea of educating the young in civic virtues, or even civics. We have allowed the greedy and corrupt to form an oligarchy, which is now in the final stages of relieving the public of their last dollars.
Your channel deserves to grow much more rapidly in terms of subscribers. Really fascinating content. Well done!
That's so nice of you to say 🙏
@@redfraggle77 lets make that happen.
You seem to be one of those who don't understand the problem behind success and popularity : they are the most important factors of corruption!
"It was the wettest hurricane in terms of water."
Yes I particularly enjoyed how you suggested the closest thing to an ideal society was one that was based on an ethnic hierarchy where the white population essentially acted as an oligarchy yes this would definitely make so much sense it's so inherently stable I wonder how come it doesn't exist anymore gee what a head scratcher 😂
I wonder if these programs would've been so profoundly received 8 years ago if not on you tube then. For myself it has my attention now for obvious reasons.
That programs related to Aristotle are more prevalent today is caused by The Complete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford Translation, Edited by Jonathan Barnes, in 1984. This completes the project requested by Oxford professor Benjamin Jowett in his will after he died in 1893. The first translation took about 50 years to finish, then Barnes went back and improved it. The best thing he did was to replace the 1925 Mure translation of Posterior Analytics with his own 1975 translation. This is the 2nd best thing that has happened to Logic since Aristotle invented Logic. It renders Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology obsolete. She could not have written that book had she read the superior translation but it was not available then.
This last 100 years is Aristotle's 5th wave of acceleration. Each previous wave lasts for several centuries.
When I read Plato’s Republic and knew Aristotle was his prize student I knew neither was an advocate of “democracy”.
its "our democracy"
It's a largely irrelevant fact, these dudes lived in democracies and tyrannies. The video literally begins with a statement saying Aristotle often disagreed with Plato.
Plato was aware enough of his flaws a person, in fact his biggest critic aside from Aristotle (lmao) and at times Diogenes, was himself. His best student is also the guy who went on to dismantle his theory of forms.
They are for sure agreeing on some things, but you can't find in them a bad reason that isn't there for good reason.
They had seen the disaster of the Peloponesian War. In Athens democracy derailed and degraded into mob rule. This caused Athens to lose the war. Athens never fully recovered. Of course they were not fans of unrestricted democracy.
@@luizmonad777 U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 4. We are not a “democracy”. We never have been except in the minds of democrats.
@@BygoneT When the term “democracy” is used repeatedly to try and warp history one begins to see the relevancy in historical terms. Being dismissive is another form of cognitive myopia.
A democracy needs 2 things…internal Accountability and external Transparency. Both of these are (should) be the same thing. The “people” should see clearly their elected leaders policies, opinions,laws,judgments and what direct effect they have. There should be laws to force truth and transparency on all leaders and political influencers and required sworn public testimony for all involved. This requires first an honest “spectrum” of delivering this true information to the masses who are themselves also legally required to be truthful and transparent. Checks of power should be built into serving the public with mandated balancing power intervals like term limitation and corporate de-monopolization with removal from power and public trial impeachment for violations of transparency and accountability. Voting should be required rewarded and “informed” voting rewarded even more-so.
For starters, you should be forced to present a budget if you run for Election.
What if we moved the power of approving laws to the citizens and make the house and senate just law making bodies that have to then be voted by the people for approval
What is a democracy? Democracy is rule by the many, the poor. What is Oligarchy? Oligarchy is rule by the few, the wealthy. Both of these descriptions have one thing in common. Neither speaks to the character of the rule, but both of these fall under the same Genus of character; corruption. Democracy needs one thing. Replacement by rule by excellence. The Common Good desires rule by excellence, not corruption. What you call rule by excellence is whatever you call it, polity, constitution, aristocracy, anarchy (? , lol), but it is the character of the rule that can bring about justice and domestic tranquility.
@@WolvesOfApollo On November 5th the poor didn't win.
Situations are transparent only when viewed with an educated mind. The US education system is very poor and this made possible the election of Trump against all logic. Now the US oligarchs will be able to damage education even more.
I recall reaching several of the same conclusions about democracy as a child. Analytical minds put to task and abstracted from distinct personal interest can solve many issues.
After that first sentence, I thought you were going to go in a very different direction.
I sometimes wonder if the ancient people that must've read Aristotle's politics collectively decided to lobotomize their ofsprings after reading it, because I don't get how humanity could be this shit at politics when we have the best guide to deal with them in that book but everyone ignores it
Like most economists, Aristotle came up with theories that sound great on paper but don't work in reality. One not only needs to understand politics or economy, but also sociology and more importantly the meaning of life.
@@marctheriault5531 So what does/can work in reality? Serious question.
Aristotle's works were quickly lost, relatively so, and the first translation directly from Greek to English was not done until 1776, by William Ellis. This is why the Constitution of the United State resembles the instructions that Aristotle advised. Thomas Jefferson and other founders had this translation in their libraries.
@@WolvesOfApollo wow nice Ți-l about the US constitution
@@yoyoma17 Good question, but I'm afraid the answer will disappoint you: nothing can work, at least for the near future, which means in my lifetime and yours. The human being, like all other animals, is evolving in general (with upward and downward periods), but it still has too many flaws to create an harmonious society. Even the most conscious members of our species can't live together in harmony (read about the history of Auroville in India and Findhorn in Scotland, the two highest spiritual communities in the world, it's not nice). And evolution is VERY slow. So, whatever system you crate, with whatever people you create it, disharmony will set in permanently after a while. We are still too emotional, too greedy, too naive, too selfish, too ambitious to live in harmony together.
Fascinating: it seems we are going through every phase of these different forms.
"Americans always do the right thing in the end, after trying every other option first." ~ Churchill
Would you want to live in a Polity?
Anarchy ftw🎉
Absolutely, if it meant that the population as a whole became more educated and involved and less politically tribal.
Too many variables should be fine tuned, meaning that too many things could go wrong. I would prefer an enlightened monarchy, or even better, an aristocracy, like in the prime days of Rome.
Sounds like that was the vision the Founding Fathers of America had in mind, almost bit by bit. I believe it all began to rot when the greatest safeguard against a tyrannical federation, state secession, was removed from the original Constitution, as there was no longer a major threat against a tyrannical Federation other than the 1st and 2nd ammendments, which have constantly been attacked upon since Lincoln spit a lead ball with his forehead.
At least his excuse could be that he didn't have the brains to foresee he would greatly help ruin this nation, but there's none for all of his successors that allowed his change to the American law book remain. _Oh, and before anyone thinks this is defending the evil of slavery,_ *no*- it was a despicable enterprise of the oligarchy, that was ironically doomed to crumble the moment the Industrial Revolution landed in America, and this great nation would've been far better off without it. Never trust the Dutch³.
@@darylwilliams7883he din say all that extra shit you added on. Simple question, yes or no!?
Great video. Worthy of periodic review. Thank you!
Except that the "democracy" Aristotle talked about was a randomized council democracy with direct voting about their proposals in the main assemblies. The demagoguery only comes in at this direct stage. By the classical definition, modern "representative democracy" is a very classical oligarchy. And your proposal is just for a form of stratified fascism.
Representative democracy is not a democracy because citizens do partake in the political process. And the problems Aristotle talked about apply well America. There's no shortage of the same criticisms aimed it.
@@christineyoung8345 The worst aspect of all these idealistic critics is the missing materialist and economic dimension. Democratic Athens employed strong taxation and practical obligations for their oligarchs, while modern "democracy" no matter how it's set up, works as a tool to enable rentier oligarchy.
Food for Thought: The first British monarch to ever care about the Little People was Queen Victoria (reigned 1837-1901). She expressed interest in how the peasants were doing early in her reign. Her advisors laughed at her, trying to help her realize "We don't care about them.". I suggest that Good rulers have come on the scene only recently. Of Course, you'll find exceptions, BUT I think many of those old-time "Loving Monarchs" are the ones who wrote the history.
-- THEN, Thomas Jefferson said democracy can't work if the people aren't educated. Okay... How many of you remember your eighth-grade civics class? Most people learn "something," pass the test then go directly back to not knowing the three pillars of government, or that the President can't MAKE anything happen. With our highly polarized two-party system (which actually isn't part of "Democracy,") I'd venture to say that YOU think half the people are stupid. (I personally suspect it's more than half.)
-- And as Aristotle said, democracies vote for what's appealing at the moment. We demand that the government give us more of "something" that costs money. WE don't want to pay higher Taxes. That can only mean that the government sells Bonds. MOST people can't grasp that THAT directly means WE want something nice, and we demand that our CHILDREN pay for it. If you don't understand this then you should not be allowed to vote.
One point about Bonds. In countries where we have control over minting (printing) and destroying currency (taxes), bonds are necessary to absorb the surplus that we produce as society and that the lower class cannot afford to consume. It's just a social contract to have wealthy people to not lose their money while keeping the currency (not the money) well valued. Otherwise, too much currency would be out there.
Our kids will pay our pensions and our bonds. But bonds will be paid out to the elite in its majority while the meager pension will be paid out to social contributors.
Power does not corrupt, it reveals. If they were corrupt when given a lot of power, they were very likely to always be that way.
I see two problems: i) How, or by which criteria, would we select the leaders by merit? (Presently everybody can accumulate votes to qualify), and ii) How would we protect the law in order not to be changed at will of the ones in power?
The video explicitly states that the chamber "selected by merit" (rolls my eyes) has veto power. In oyher words, it is really an oligarchy
@@f0rtytw0mccarte39 There is a distinction to be made between aristocracy and oligarchy. The first one is "ideally" educated according to the principles of what they called "virtue", the primordial one being courage (not bravery), like the courage to question oneself on his beliefs and ideas, and addictions.
The answer to your question is in the end of the book - "Myths Lies Illusions and The Way Out" The key is to take away from politicians the rights to change the law. - This is the idea of "Direct Democracy" where is legislated yearly approval of each minister and Supreme Judge. If not approved by the people, the Minister, President, or Judge AUTOMATICALLY loosing the job!
You can't, no political system is immune to corruption. In fact it is inevitable that any political system eventually becomes corrupt purely because most people that seek political power will be doing it for their own reasons and it is absolutely inevitable over time that more and more of them get in
@@sleeper9638 I think that you are mixing up the system of "Democracy" where we have to elect a "Honest" people and give them all the power without any mechanism to keeping them accountable. Ask yourself how "They" using the most corrupt and non-loyal people and these non-loyal people is serving them well? The System is the one, which determining the loyalty of the politicians. Such System exist, but "They" pretending that there is no such things as accountability legislation's and System, which making the politicians loyal to the people!
Historically, the countries that followed similar precepts tended to do well.
Polity.
A polity system is balanced, stable, merit-based and democratic.
Underlined by ethical, well-thought-out and inclusive laws that apply to everyone.
But the laws have to be good! Then we have to define what is good common to everyone...
“But above all every state should be so administered and so regulated by law that its politicians cannot possibly make money.” Aristotle, The Politics, line 1308b33
This is the most important line in all of what is called Aristotle with respect to removing corruption from government.
Apply this to his discussion of Justice in Book V, Part 5, of Nicomachaean Ethics regarding the definition of money and then have a look at Article 1, Section 8, Item 6, of the Constitution of The United States:
“Congress shall have the power to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”
If Aristotle, were advising today, he would tell you that this is the fastest route to justice; stop the counterfeiting, stop the laws of confiscation, and remove the ability to make, take, or fake money out of being involved with public offices.
And the Republicans made Jimmy give up his peanut farm.
Thanks!
Thank you, brother 🙏
Podcasts like this make me want to pull my hair out. Sounds sooooooooooooooooooooooo reasonable.
TedTalk culture
A large middle-class is just decentralized wealth.
The core of Aristotle's proposals seems to avoid centralizing power in the hands of the few(either by oligarchss/aristocrats, monarchs/dictators or demagogues sweeping large swaths of the populus with little stakes their way).
EXCELLENT VIDEO!!
Thank you very much, brother!
There would be no need for term limits if all politicians thought as President Washington did. After his first term, he did not want to serve again but was overwhelmed by the requests of him to serve again. After that, he wanted nothing to do with serving again.
"The short tenure of office prevents oligarchies and aristocracies from falling into the hands of families; it is not easy for a person to do any great harm when his tenure of office is short,
whereas long possession begets tyranny in oligarchies and democracies."
-Aristotle, The Politics, 1308a16
@@WolvesOfApollo Senate seniority means power to the Senator's state. Good luck getting terms limits into the Senate.
"not easy"
2016: Actually, it's super-easy. Barely an inconvenience.
"overwhelmed by the requests"
Biden got 81M votes in 2020. Some think this a sign of foul play, not considering that people don't just vote for. They also vote against.
I'm certainly open to suggested improvements. The conclusion was nice, but lacking in any means by which to go there from where we are.
I'd probably throw in rank choice voting as well.
03:47 Calling BS, as Aristotle also said, that electing a politician is by definition aristocratic and by no means democratic, what you refer to is a republic by roman standards, rather than democracy (which was settled in Athens)
In a true democracy (or isonomia as this was the original name for democracy, as a form of anarchy) there‘s simply no need for representation, as this is a political form of presence, so why should people follow a demagogue or pursue for a „leader“
The struggle for political power is thereby rather a phenomenon of unfulfilled democracy (ancient greek history assumes there were aproximately 30% of athenians active members of politics (as slaves, women and Metics were excluded) and were thereby members of citizen assemblies)
Rest of the video seems to be all in all antidemocratic by definition as well, creator seems to buy in into aristotle‘s antidemocratic approach, as the western thinkers and constitutions did for the last 2400yrs and used this argument to justify politics by the few, rather than by the many. To those who watch this and still make up their mind: Don‘t buy into this aristotelean-platonic idea. Both were sworn antidemocrats and pledged for a „virtuous king“, trained by philosophers (like they were - coincidence?). The whole political thinking of the west was born in this time by these people with resentments against the people/plebs. This thinking brought us to this situation. We don‘t need more of this thinking, we need the exact opposite. For further reading: Against Elections (by David van Reybrouck), The Greek discovery of Politics (Christian Meier), and the works of Richard Rorty, who understood quiet well the (uncanny) roots and shaping of our world by philosophical thinking throughout history
Excellent! I'll take up the books you suggested, and as you've pointed out, Aristotle seemed far more attuned to a monarchy (a Virtuous king trained by philosophers). An actual philosopher king.
Any system can and will get corrupted, that's why the best system is the one that's easiest to get out of
Well put.
Great video!
I agree with the majority of his thinking.
We can find many similarities between Aristotle ideal form of government and the Roman Republic before the Punic Wars, which was a surprisingly complex and functional form of government for that time and which could serve as a lesson to modern societies.
Populist short term policies are usually a disaster in the long term as are governments lead by the sole interest of determined groups of interests, corporations and others.
It's important to create mechanisms to avoid the grasp of power of any particular group of interest.
The Republican system was created by the Romans first to avoid the absolut power of monarchs but with time it evolved to incorporate many aspects of distribution of power and specific requirements for public service, quite similarly as Aristotle's ideas, and more or less in the same period of time. Really interesting.
I wonder what Aristotle would say about Switzerland
nothing. he's dead.
@@thehellyousay That's exactly why he used the world "would",,,
It's declining over there also. I mean democracy is. I hear the bankers and other lobbies have a bigger say lately.
Switzerland is a undeveloped "Direct Democracy" system. To work this system need to exclude politicians from making the Law and to have a legislated system for yearly people's approval of Ministry, Supreme Judges and President. If people disapproved, "they" automatically losing the job. See the book - "Myths Lies, Illusions and The Way Out"
He had a lot to say about Switzerland. Back then, Switzerland belonged to the Helvetii people before being assimilated into the Roman Empire. The Helvetiis were a Celtic tribe. If you run a word search on The Complete Works of Aristotle, he mentions the Celts 14 times.
The mixed polity that you are proposing is not Aristotle's solution. He rather suggested that combining the two inferior polities (demo + oligarchy) could make things even worse:two bads do not make it good.
I don't read it that way. Instead, Aristotle advised to take the best from each, leave the bad out, and then combine the two. For example, that the demos should be deprived of their arms is always an Oligarchical element and not a common good. This gets tossed out and instead, "in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens."
But he only advised to take the best from each because he was being practical. This is the most realistic alternative to an Aristocracy which was no longer feasible due to the larger populations. But for the polity, it was still an attempt to seek rule by the best. It is an aristocratic method to vote by raising your hand but democratic to draw lots. No one draws lots anymore.
Usually mixing differences produces sumpn better. Ex: Hallie (spell?) Berry.
Interesting introductory exploration of the complexities of different political systems. This may stimulate a persons interest towards political science and history. However, to draw an analogy - you can study the map to work out the best route to take - whichever route you chose, you need a sound and operational vehicle for the success of the journey. It is humanity that is flawed. No human based political system will satisfy ultimately.
Now do one on Singapore!
The media is overlooked. Education too. A genius physicist does not necessarily have the knowledge of what makes him a vigilent citizen who understands politics and demagoguery. Philosophy, logic, social sciences should be reinforced at school. Our education system revolves around economics
Which school of economics? Marx or the Austrian School of economics?
@@IdleDrifter Physicists would suggest the decision should be based on the evidence.
Absolutely chilling! The accuracy!
You are doing an important job. its is very timely!
This is why we have a constitutional republic. Our founders of the republic eschewed a pure democracy for the country because of the ramifications of the private sector with a lot of friends.
Our Founders viewed the EC as a backstop as well. That intent has, too, gone the way of the dodo.
"with a lot of friends"
or a lot of --doxxing-- --primarying-- --blackmail-- leverage.
There you have it... our middle class in the U.S. has been severely weakened over the past 50 years by the oligarchs. $ re-distribution upward.
Politics is a type of natural selection, where only the most ruthless and greedy survives and raises to the top, and only on rare occasions such figure is capable of going beyond himself and do something altruistic. Humans as species has evolved surviving through scarcity of resources, and greed is selected as a winning trait, so it's engrained in our DNA to act selfish. This reflects in our form of government, starting every time with great ideals, and then perverting itself.
As Frederic Bastiat observed in the 19th century, "The state is a great fiction by which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else."
Thats just the usual "human nature" argument and it's not even that good. Human nature is a also cooperation.
Your logic is basically: This is how it has always been and therefore that must be how it always should be.
It has nothing to do with being "ingrained to our DNA", kindness and compassion is also ingrained into our DNA, by that logic.
It's just that we have been living in an era for so long crawling out of times of chaos and misery that us humans have not have the time to form a people with good mental health that will be needed to create a better society.
@ Human nature is cooperative only in small numbers, most of us are unable to deal with big numbers, especially if it includes people who’re less and less related to us. That’s why you get very tight small communities, but human relationships are almost atomized in the big cities.
Kindness is half a cultural trait, not strictly genetic. Religion has tried for millennia to teach us to be kind to others, because we’re naturally born to be afraid of strangers. That’s because in nature humans from other tribes more often than not means danger.
@@Seicks I attribute that to two biological factors: One is that oxytocin stimulates out-group suspicion as well as in-group bonding; the other is Dunbar's Limit: Our brains can only maintain detailed reputational stats for 150-200 individuals. When societies get larger, we need systems of trust metrics to know how to handle people in our orbit. And in the modern world we interact with many people we don't know, further compounding the trust challenge. Capitalism somewhat solves this problem, but it's imperfect. I don't know what might work better, though.
@@Seicksif you were right about us collaborating only in small numbers , big corporations and cities couldn't exist. The human being's success as an animal is highly corolated to it's capacity to collaborate in great numbers... and to the size of its brain, of course (ants and bees can also collaborate in great numbers, but they are too small; herds like antilopes, zebras, wildebeasts, or geese and monarch butterflies are just following each other, not collaborating).
WELL DONE! Thank you.
3:15 a state in which wealth and the wealthy have all the power (like we live in now) is called a 'plutocracy', not an oligarchy. (An oligarchy is a group of large corporations who come together to exploit a market by creating monopoly conditions).
You are correct and Aristotle's defends his terminology by pointing out that although Oligarchy is rule by the few and democracy is rule by the common people, anywhere, all the time, it turns out that the few are wealthy and the common people are poor.
Your definition in parentheses is for an oligopoly, not an oligarchy.
Another interesting word is "kakistocracy."
I don't think the wealthy should have any direct say in government, such as membership in an "upper" house. Let the middle class run the government, with the advice of the wealthy and the poor (elected advisers), chosen by popular vote.
I think, well, I agree with the idea there should a cap to personal wealth
"8 men own as much wealth as the poorest half of humans" OXFAM (a few years ago)
So what happens to the middle class? Once they become upper class? They just lose their right
@@19ate4
Yes! It's pretty clear that rich people try to buy favors from politicians
@whatgoesaroundcomesaround920 No. Electoral vote is the only fair way to run an presidential election. Otherwise any super dense population center would simply win every election and the rest of the country has no say in its politics. That would be tyranny in action. The popular vote is an open door to a tyranny of the majority.
Enjoyed this walk with you today, through Sense and Sensibility.
We will do it again friend.
Managed to keep me out of the Madening World.
Robert.
Thanks for a beautiful 'breakdown' of permutations for gummermint
This video (/channel) is rather lacking in historical context I do think. It'd do you and everyone else here well to understand the works of Aristotle in the context of the Greek Polis instead of the Modern State only invented during the French Revolution, doing otherwise is to misunderstand the work and lay oneself prostate to demagogues in one's own ignorance.
"in the context of the Greek Polis"
or to point out modern counterexamples.
In the Polity the oligarchs would just give themselves tax cuts and make the middle class support the entire country. It's no different than what we have now in the USA. I missed who controlled the oligarchs, was it the B class lawmakers or was the law totally encapsulated in the constitution. Would there be unaccountable appointed oligarchs like the SCOTUS?
It’s a great sounding system - but working it all out, and getting to there from where we are now would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
wanna go back to feudalism? Much simpler
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 dont wanna, but can see the possibility of it coming
certainly won't be possible if no one tries.
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 We're running into techno-feudalism.
There is a Political System based on this ideas - "Direct Democracy" - Where the Politicians has no rights to make the Law... And where is legislated mechanism of yearly people's approval of Ministry, Judges and President. - See the book - "Myths Lies Illusions and The Way Out"
Aristotle came to realize that everybody other than himself was dumb.
Συγχαρητηρια!!! δεν εχασες ουτε μισο δευτερολεπτο δεν ειπες ουτε μια λεξη ασχετη η μια λεξη παραπανω και σε 15λεπτα τα ειπες ολα!!! -----στο τελος ειπες, δεν χρειαζετε οπωσδηποτε να γινουνε ολα ετσι!!! γιατι οχι και οχι μονο αυτα αλλα και ακομη περισοτερα διοτι μια τελεια κοινωνια δεν θα βλαψει κανεναν!!! μπραβο!!! αυτα πρεπει να γινουν ειναι θεμα αποφασης και μονο και φυσικα αυτα πρεπει να γινουνε πρωτα στην αμερικη και μετα στον υπολοιπο δυτικο κοσμο εσεις παντα ησασταν πρωτοποροι σε ολα και τωρα πρεπει να γινετε παλι πρωτοποροι! τωρα ειναι η μεγαλη και μοναδικη ιστορικη στιγμη τα παντα ειναι οριμα προς αυτην την κατευθηνση και τα κερδη αφανταστα για ολον τον κοσμο! μπραβο!!!
Check your Greek spelling man, you are an embarrassment.
But the laundromat has to be closed once and for all. See my reply to RogerBartlet5720
At 7.50 is the building which houses the Danish parliament which I visited a few weeks ago, if you want to learn about how adults run a country take a look at Denmark.
9:08 uhhhh nope. Our politicians (which are obviously oligarchs) are getting more and more incompetent and are also not fast at decision making. The only fast ruling form is monarchy
Very curious to know what system would the UK be regarded as having were Aristotle asked , ...and in the case of the E U .. the same question ...
I'm sure some would disagree (and there are valid arguments against it) but I'd argue both are leaning towards oligarchy - though not pure oligarchies.
@TheLegendaryLore I would definitely agree with that .
too bad the human condition kinda poops on any system via greed and corruption
I've just started reading Aristotles Politics, isn't the issue with applying it to today's standards that most of his ideas relate to cities rather than nations? I'm sure they can scale, I look forward to finishing the book though and finding out 🤙🏻 thanks for the video
That's awesome, brother! 'Politics' is a fascinating read.
There's definitely not a one-to-one between modern societies and Greek city-states, yet I think it's interesting how many parallels we can draw between then and now. The more I read those ancient texts (be it Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian...) the more I'm convinced we haven't changed all that much on a fundamental level.
I agree with you that we haven't changed that much, there's maybe even an argument that we've regressed in some ways 😅
Thanks for the reply mate 👍🏻
There is another way.. select officials by qualification. Basically get candidates who qualify to do a series of tests simulating possible scenarios and calculating the effects of the choices taken by using AI, then let the candidates with the best results.do a series of interviews with the most recognized members of the intellectual elite in order to have them vote for a candidate.
The winner would become the student of the previous leader for the time of his term, and at its end replace him while taking the next leader as student.
Democracy's biggest flaw is that it is essentially a collectivist system and will always create a strong man/dictator type leader. The founders of the United States understood this and rejected democracy outright. They created a republic, with a government that had separated powers, amongst other safeguards. That is why socialism finds it so hard to gain more than a foothold here, but in Europe, Central America, and South America, the going is much easier.
Democracy is the worst form of Tyranny. Aristotle.
the tyranny of the ignorants
No, he points out at great length in Book 3 of the Politics why democracy is the least worst presentation of tyranny.
@WolvesOfApollo I'll have go back, but, I am fairly certain it's the worst because you can't get rid of the Demos.
Awesome video
The problem with “democracy” is that everyone who can “fog a mirror” is allowed a vote. Democracy as such needs to be replaced by “earned suffrage”. Most people should not vote-basically because they are 1) too ignorant, and 2) they don’t contribute to the society. This will handle all that Aristotle suggested.
@johnluiten3686 Unfortunately you are right. Too many people vote without knowing a single thing about our country. Our society, system, and history is unknown by too many. You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you have shown to have a minimal level of competency about our country, especially its politics.
In Australia it is punishable not to vote ,I get very angry when I hear the reasons for voting ,,"I just put a cross anywhere,I leave it blank,,,I,m a labourer so .I vote Labour,,,,,,Well your father votes Tory darling..and he says""" prices are too high ,I.ll make this country great again ""
Yeah, but who's going to administer the tests? Who's going to write the tests? Somebody who is just as flawed, selfish and corruptible as anyone else. Those somebodys can just as easily decide that YOU should not have the right to vote. Never assume that these limits to suffrage will only apply to those OTHER people.
There should be some qualifying criteria that are met before a person could be permitted to be a candidate for office. For example, pass a civil service exam, and a thorough vetting process. After all, it really isn't just a popularity contest.
"to be a candidate"
And who enforces that for federal offices? SCOTUS won't let states do that. Too much control being given to the states then, they said.
For what it's worth, the world seems to be teetering on the edge of a shift to oligarchy and despotism, often attained by the "will of the people".
Democracy is a facade Princeton did a study over a decade ago Americans live in an oligarchy where a small handful of billionaires have complete financial and political power over the masses Democracy always turns into oligarchy its a facade!!!!!we need a whole new system that puts the power with the masses
I think current western democracy could work as is, under the condition that all classes have a minimum degree of actual education.
So true, an educated, engaged, and prosperous middle class, in tune with the wealthy for society's long-term interest, all working according to a just constitution is what any society should aim for. I also endorse the vote being granted only to those with a higher education, which, in a society with free higher education available to all, would not be as objectionable as it sounds.
If he have 2 chambers of Parliament, one of deputies chosen by people and one a kind of senat with members chosen by merrit that veto the project of popular chamber, the reforma will never be done because the senat blocks them and proposed laws will not be practical because are not by people with merit. 14:06
Those with children can vote…?
Is this a promo pop propaganda for Project 2025?
The problem with the description of Democracy that you use is the popular election of leaders with the assumption the number of competent candidates is few. That is a representative view of democracy and not a true democracy in which constituents run the show and quickly remove incompetent leaders.
Wait, first the experts are accountable and then all of a sudden they are a separate chamber with veto rights. That sounds strange.
Balance of powers/people, citizenry obligations or buy-in, and office limitations -are all required in Aristotle’s democracy model?
Tyranny, whether by majority or minority is still tyranny.
What if the emperor had bone spurs?
There was a heated discussion and debate on this very topic and a very different set of guidelines were recommended.
1. Separation of administration leadership (elected representatives) and the agenda. People would vote on agenda (immigration, budgets etc) and elect representatives to best execute them. At the moment, expressing preference over individual matter is not possible thru election.
2. None of above. People will always have choice not to be represented thru an elected representative. If there were 5 candidates, people will have 6th choice ‘none of above’. Belgium had a period where they did not have an elected government due ti hung parliament, yet the country was fine. Extra ideas included banning all ‘rejected’ candidates from running next election OR having a second election with a fresh set of individuals etc.
3. Rights and Responsibility. Democracy has 2 main pillars. Rights (right to vote, human rights etc) and responsibility (tax, national service, to abide by law etc). On election, everyone talks about their right to vote but not the responsibility to have the right to vote. A vote must be earned thru tax (eg someone who paid 50% of times during last 5 years), national service (if applicable), law biding (no record to prove otherwise). This will eliminate 25-40% of voters. There were counter argument re house wife, elderly with no income etc.
If there is will, there will be way.
People, who does not fulfil their responsibilities, deciding the distribution of future resources sounded bizarre. If you want to get your rights, earn your rights first.
Im not sure much about the specifics or how you would realistically implement it, but I've come to the conclusion that the best form of govt would be something where the freest people are those youths at the bottom as they are still finding where their duty to society lies and its as you start to find that and climb in society, that rather than simply more power and freedom, you find the glory of your calling, but the weight of society's expectations that come with that. The leaders of your country would by far and away would be expected to live very strict lifestyles and go through MANY anti-corruption safeguards to do what they do to with pretty much constant surveilance. Does it sound brutal and oppressive? It's supposed to. This is to dissuade those who would seek such positions for mere vanity from seeing such a goal as an inviting prospect and leave those roles to those truly passionate about selfless devotion to their people.
One flaw in Aristotle’s argumentation is in determining who is the majority, something which has been made an irrelevancy by forces who have corrupted democracy by silencing the voices of the people they don’t like with their tactics of suppression. This problem with his theorizing of democracy arises because he was looking at it from the perspective of one who lived in a largely homogeneous and completely patriarchal (I.e. misogynist) society. He couldn’t conceive of the complicating factors created by a multicultural society (especially one where women get to participate) given the uglier aspects of human nature.
I don't see many differences here.
Portions of society can be abused by any versions of government listed above (@6:46).
The only significant forms are rule by several vs rule by all or one.
Presumably several of equal power will have to agree to opress or elevate certain sectors while the one or the many will condense their will to a decision, still binding. One has no opposition, many still end up with one conclusion.
The dangerous or unfair versions mentioned by Aristotle are still just as possible. Oligarchy's group can be just as oppressive of groups they find vulnerable or distasteful as a monarchy or rule by all.
The real determiner in all these scenarios is the quality or personality of those in charge.
Whether benevolent or malevolent is the fundamental factor.
And there is no single form immune or inherently free from maniacal rule. The best one can achieve here IS A democracy, where the most must conclude the viability of a candidate, not a powerful few who may be best friends or of equal attitude.
The requirement therefore, is that all of such society be of a certain education and experience, thus to recognize a tyrant or con artist.
Well, we had that, until a wealthy few decided to deceive the populous with false reporting over a generation.
And thus prove that instead of democracy as was concieved at the founding, this was undermined by an oligarchy with an agenda in opposition to the population as a whole.
The checks and balances against this were slowly eroded in congress and by lobbyists.
The LAW of this land was subverted and like a retro-virus the attackers went for the lawmaking body itself, skipping the people's rule and directly subverting power without vote or opposition.
The middle class is all most nonexistent thanks to the top one percent that holds the most wealth . That being said how do you solve this inequality ?
That there is an inequality is not a problem. Many of the 99% live better than Kings of yester-year in terms of health and the amenities associated with the great wealth of today, albeit relatively concentrated. My concern would be by what means has it been acquired, justly or unjustly, honestly or dishonestly, as a result of excellence or corruption? To that end, much of the ill gotten ends rewarded by corruption could be mitigated by Aristotle's advice to remove the ability of making money out of being involved with public offices. First up, then, would be to terminate the laundering of counterfeit by the Federal Reserve into the economy which is cleaned by the tax payers and returned to the Treasury.
I've toyed with the thought of an ideal democracy--one that self-resets after a specific amount of time to its starting state (E.g., all the amendments, additional laws, departments, reset back to the 1776 state every 50 years in the U.S). This way all the bloat is cut out similar to defragging a hard drive, but the important laws, departments, and amendments would be the first to be added back in.
The GOP has been pushing for another Constitutional Convention for some time. Can you guess why?
That Aristotle started with the worry of the wealth being redistributed back to the poor through taxation, something that's never happened ever in all of human history, he started from a wealthy person's position with such protective and preferential language. As much as I loved the Greeks, they were elitists. They believed in slavery and poverty as natural things in general, and like so many imperialists before enjoyed the benefits of a system in which laborers were deprived the value of their labors, and like today, saw the greater value of their hard work go to those above them. Labor then, like now, was not paid anywhere near the value of their labor. Honestly, labor only wants it's fair share and is okay with the owner of the business getting a little capitalization upon that labor in exchange for a place for that laborer to use his work to make that money. To say that labor would act like some greedy animal and take the whole value of their labor for themselves if they knew what value they generated is bullshit. A person should be allowed to know how much money they generate for their company. It's not capitalism, it's exploitism. If a laborer is not allowed by the system to garner some capital value off his labor, if he is not allowed to capitalize, then it is NOT capitalism, it is exploitism, plain and simple. Real capitalism would allow the laborer to know the value of their labor and to capitalize fairly off of that value. Millennia after millennia it's been the same BS from the elites, "We cannot let the unwashed masses make the decisions". Well gee, an informed mass CAN make informed decisions, but as a government you have to be willing to give your citizens the education and information they need to make those informed decisions, but when has that ever happened in all of human history either? I say that if you give the populace the information and the ability to process that information, they would choose what would best support the whole of society to keep things flowing at an easy to maintain status quo. The elites are wrong, they have always been afraid of the "poor" making decisions. They have always lived with this bizarre delusion that the masses would just walk in and pillage like savages everything and wreck it all like it was the French Revolution, which is entirely paranoid if you ask me. No, all the "poor" want is to be paid fairly for the value of their labors and to have a smooth running government. That's all the poor ever wanted in all of human history. They aren't savages, they're just people with less value to their names. They want a social structure to live under, they just want it to be fair. Every time the elites hear the word "fair" from the populace they go into a panicked frenzy that the poors are out to take everything they own and go communism or anarchy or French Revolution, which says a hell of a lot about the wealthy mindset. The upper middle class is also living under the wealthy's belief system that the masses are dangerous hordes of barbarians that would take everything the rich owned if given the chance, and while the thought crosses the minds of the poor often, it's not something we would do unless pushed to the same levels of desperation the starving French were in when they lobbed off the elites back then. Ruling out of fear of the poor and making policies to keep depriving people of the value of their labors will eventually lead to that French Revolution thing, however. Don't make us desperate enough to knock you out and you'll be just fine. The thinkers of the past, as wise as they might have been, were still upper class and owned slaves and their thoughts were determined by those positions of privileged. They othered lower classes of people and believed those classes to think like animals and not people. He based his determination that the masses could not be trusted to make decisions off of the elite's paranoia and fears of the poor masses and their biases about those people. And yes, an ignorant people cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions because you have kept the facts from them and no one can make an informed decision without all the facts, so you started out by damaging the potential for a clean democracy out the gate, Aristotle. Poor villages, disconnected from their governments by distance or otherwise still managed to function just fine without the king there telling those villages how to operate. The government did nothing for them, they did it all themselves, choosing their leaders, choosing the persons in charge of laying down the laws, no king needed. The decisions were made in the town halls by the voices of majority of elders of those villages, as that's the system they choose to live under. Somehow, without even reading or writing they managed to not melt down into thieving barbarians, thereby disproving the elite's theory that the unwashed masses would act like a hungry horde of zombies coming for that sweet elite gold if given power. Beyond that, he is fairly wise.
America should have a national economy, not a global one.
The reason why middle class is shrinking is because globalism have outsourced a big chunk of their work, especially those blue collar ones, to slave labors from Yangtze river.
Money is power, so excessive money brought in from outside of borders will surely disrupt a nation's political system significantly.
It is also unrealistic for USA to protect property rights outside of her borders, thus a lot of international corporates have to be obedient to foreign despots whom view property protection as optional.
Nationals should have the power to impose tariffs and regulations to import and foreign investment per their political need.
I never got around to reading Aristotle, but I have come to pretty much the dame conclusions. A pure, direct democracy will never work for much the same reasons stated here.
Instead, a limited democracy is best in that it can keep one interest group or the other from getting pretty much entrenched in power.
One main feature it must have is an enforceable catalog of minimum rights for any and all minorities, be they minorites of race, gender, economic class, or any other.
Here, in the USA, we used to have a Supreme Court that could more or less be trusted to maintain such a catalog. But now it has been hijacked by a minority of wealth who wish to have ever growing power over the rest of us.
I think Aristotle would agree with me that such hijacking should be at least less easy. Now, one interest group or another only need to have a sucession of freindly presidents and senate majorities to take over the Court. And this is what happened.
Also, because our lawmakers require large amounts of cash to campaign effectively, our democracy, such as it is, inherently favors wealthy individuals and interests groups over all others.
It's to the point that I call our country a "democratic plutocracy".
I think Aristotle was wrong about demogogues. I think they are only effective in failing democracies, where the general population loses faith in the system as it presently is. I believe that if we, in the USA lose what's left of our limited democracy (which may well happen in a matter of months), this will be the main reason.
Switzland has a direct democracy since more than 100 years. Works well there.
At least the tirany of majority satisfies the majority of people in contrast with tyrany of the one, or the few.
the majority are easily led
@@paulinebell4873 prove that statement.
no currently democratic nation on earth is ruled by a majority vote, considering voter apathy usually means a larger percentage of citizens do not vote at all, than vote for any of the political parties participating in the election. when 40+% of eligible citizens do not vote at all, it is all but impossible for a competitive, fair election to result in any one party or candidate winning a vote share larger than that share of the citizenry whose disillusionment and disgust with whatever they see wrong in the system Usually corruption) leads them to simply not participate at all.
oh, and yes, voter apathy is always a result of disillusionment and disgust with what is usually rank corruption within the system,
just a touch of voter regret in the UK
Even the "Tiranny" of majority can be controlled. - There is a system designed on Aristotelian principles - "Direct Democracy" - Where the Law is permanent and politicians has no rights to change it. The law can be changed by referendum with certain majority. There is legislated yearly people's approval of Ministry, Supreme Judges and President. - See the book - "Myths Lies Illusions and The Way Out" -
Fascinating. However, after this got to the "If Aristotle were here today, how would he fix..." I got a vibe that what followed wasn't based on Aristotle's teaching, but Maybe some editorial by Legendary Lore. I do think what was said is good, but it might be based on a personal understanding of Aristotle enough to make a responsible speculation of what he would say.
-- I believe we should study those great philosophers. I seriously, truly own the complete works of Plato. BUT Aristotle may have said something entirely different if he knew our World Economies, Nuclear Weapons, and Smart Phones. So let's be careful about his cultural limits. We're in bizarre times.
🎯"if he knew our"
doxxing, primaried moderates, blackmail, disinformation infrastructure, anonymous filibuster, foreign ownership of news media, religious tribalism, voter ennui, psychology of malignant narcissism, cult psychology, refinement of propaganda techniques over the past 100 years, foreign goals of existential revenge
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill
[This world of sin and woe is male, not female.]
"the average voter"
55% read below the sixth-grade level.
"is male, not female"
77M Americans, almost half of them women, do not mind having their daughters turned away from the ER when they have incomplete miscarriages, placental abruptions, and ectopic pregnancies -- risking sepsis and emergency hysterectomies.
The US has shot this theory to pieces.
One major problem......
When does excessive Profits and Extream Wealth become Theft ???
What % of Profit for all businesses is reasonably acceptable (this includes all taxes and hidden charges ) ???
How will this be controlled and maintained to allow growth and wealth redistribution to maintain a just, fair & balanced society and living standards for All People ???
Governments will be convertered to being Administrators not Rulers. or Law Makers.
You could never have polity as long as the means of exchange is linked to a store of value. So the only way to get to polity is to have money as only a means of exchange. Such a society would have to find other means for the store of value. We do have that today via Bitcoin but it could not be the common means of exchange. I also think we are now witnessing land hoarding so LAND has to be reassesed. I still argue for private property but altered via some of the ideas of Henry George. On the surface it seems like a contradiction but I don't think it is. I don't see much of a difference between lifetime land leasing and private property rights.
Aristotle’s system of polity combined with financial regulatory agencies that approve and monitor who qualifies for accessibility to banking credit creation.
The big problem with Democracy, is us. The quality of the voters, determines the quality of the government. If the voters are moral, alturistic,and intelligent, then you get a moral altruistic intelligent government. If, however, the voters are immoral, narcissistic, conspiracy theorists, well you can see where I'm going with this. What I'm saying is, we're screwed. we don't have it in us. Back in the 1970's I thought we did, but I was wrong. I look forward to seeing How our successors solve the problem.. A.I. or Cocroaches, or maybe hyper intelegent wombats... who's to say. I wish them lots of luck!
It's quite theoretical because all Western countries are still in an oligarchy.
So the question is more about how do you get to that into a polity (assuming it's what people want).
Right now people don't vote on anything at all, so there is no chance of majority rule at all so it's a non issue really.
What's the issue is a bunch of elites that only work for themselves. They won't become aristocratic suddenly, so the only fix is probably democracy to get rid of them. Then we can start thinking about fixing democracy.
And no, for those that think the US or China are polities, they aren't even close.
China is pretty close to a polity tbh
Voting rights restricted based on age, service, childbirth etc don’t guarantee any degree of informed citizenry. I’d cautiously propose that you should need to pass a test in order to vote (kind of like having a license to drive), with regular ‘maintaining registration’ tests needed every 5-10 years or so, focusing on current and predicted economic issues, previous attempted solutions and proposed solutions with the same information prospective leaders have available to them, so people can truly ask questions or vote based on shared knowledge, not empty promises. The test should include identifying ‘bullshit language’ that implies without committing in a way that would incur liability, etc.
The issue with that of course, is who watches the watcher? Who determines the test? Surely it would be inevitable that ‘revisions’ would skew it to normalise and promote any one way of doing things in order to lead people around by the nose just as they are now through (bad-faith, not all) mandatory education, religion, social leaders, etc.
Still, some degree of proving you’re paying attention and care enough to sit the test - even a 60/70% pass rate being enough to qualify to vote - would help improve the number of educated voters. And you don’t have to be lucky enough to survive combat or childbirth first.
Also, a TOTAL BAN on rallies or competitive political speeches might be a good idea. Get the rah-rah emotion out of politics. Put everything in print. We have screen readers now, so it won’t exclude people with low literacy skills, and it makes it easier to assess/analyse, research and compare promises/lies etc.
Also, total ban on political donations. And the publication of any political promises/plans to be a centrally-controlled government resource. We have the internet now, we have free access at libraries, there is no need for million dollar attack ads blasting us 24/7 on TV to subliminally promote Loser A over Moron B. Federally funded independent groups to actually TRACK events, economics, promises made and kept and broken and why would also be good.
Can you please make a philosophy videos,of any rand work.
I've thought about doing some videos on modern-day ideologies, including Marx and Rand. Although, that would be poking a hornet's nest 🤔
ayn rand was not a philosopher. philosophers tend to live by their principles, first off.
@@thehellyousaylogic fail.
"At least in theory"... yes, the ideal is to have competent leaders who prioritized the good of the many over the good of the few. How to get them is the rub. Vaclav Havel comes to mind (head of the Czech Republic).
One of the key impediments to that is a gotcha press out for Paparazzi thrills. Couple that with endless campaigns, and, well I know I'm sick of this one, and will be glad when 11/5/2024 is in the rearview mirror. The Brits have it much easier with really short campaigns.
17:36 ,
It seems we were very close the the ideal. The difference being one class decided to subvert the FIRST amendment, a LAW of this land. And when THEY are held accountable, we may have a lasting and stable system.
Greed is inherent in this group, and no humanitarian concerns seem to prevent this.
It isn't the poor or the working class, or even the poorly educated that failed the United States in 2024. It is the wealthy.
A unique case that we may mirror, though not perfectly, what Aristotle's polity would be China of present, which is ironic since the Western MSM and academia often characterize her as a non-democracy. Let's think about it:
Though the CPC is the ruling party to govern indefinitely as per the current PRC Constitution, what is the crux of partisan politics anyway? The word "party" originates from the word "part", ie. part of a society, thus a party serve represent a part of the society. The CPC began by representing the Chinese Proletariat working class, but over the century since its founding in 1921, has incorporated other classes of the Chinese society. Today, even rich business owners can join the CPC, becoming its party members. The CPC today is no longer a "party" anymore but reformed into what is akin to a collective monarchy, which is what Aristotle's most ideal system is in theory that you have mentioned, since a good monarch needs to cater to all of society and just cater to parts of the society like what "parties" do.
Secondly, contrary to popular Western belief that there is no voting and election in China, there in fact are elections all the time, but on smaller regional scales across different times and places. For the national system, it is akin to a tiered voting system where eligible voters at the grass-root level (need not be CPC members, but in reality more often than not the CPC members would vote as they are more well-informed about the subject due to the convenience of being in the party structure) vote for district or village deputies (again, need not be CPC members), who would in turn vote for city or county deputies, who would then in turn vote for provincial deputies, who would then in turn vote for national deputies that would congregate every year at the National People's Congress (NPC) to legislate laws. In between the elections and legislations, the deputies at various levels are given time to discuss, to argue and debate, to propose alternatives and amendments with one another, as well as seek consultative advice from other experts and retired deputies. There are also time for other institutions in Chinese society to conduct surveying and public opinion gathering prior to formulation of laws, surveys conducted by grass-root community councils (who also take complaints and whistle-blowing from disgruntled people), public service units (the police, public educators, public health servants, etc), the other 8 political parties that are tasked to assist the CPC's governance and also members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference that serves an advisory, review and feedback institution, and even private entities such as businesses, religious and charity groups. And members of the NPC is also by no means a elitist club, as many deputies are also of lower income classes and professions, such as rural peasants and urban construction workers.
Then there is the CPC intra-party system itself: CPC party members number more than 90 million, accounting for about 6.5 percent of the entire Chinese population. The CPC membership entry rule is very strict, with preparatory institution such as the Youth Leagues for teenagers and Young Pioneers for people even younger, that provides a place for would-be future party members to study and get educated enough in order to qualify for their future responsibilities. Upon admission into the CPC, ordinary members are just like anyone in Chinese society, only a few amongst them can become cadres and/or move up further in the Party structure. This process is vetted by the CPC's Organization Department, what is akin to the HR of a firm. It reviews lower level cadres' performance at regional lower level organizations, such as the district, village, city or county level party councils (after about a decade of working there), and if their performance is good enough, the cadres can then move up to provincial level party councils for further testing and review (another decade long), and if they are still good enough, then they can be promoted into the Central Committee (another 10 to 20 years on average), and then further could be voted by and elected for the Politburo and even ultimately into the Standing Committee that is the highest leadership positions. That is how the current CPC General Secretary Xi Jinping came to this position. Eric X. Li made a TED talk about this 11 years ago explaining this and you can find it here on TH-cam: th-cam.com/video/s0YjL9rZyR0/w-d-xo.html
The CPC's Organization Department serves the purpose of that you mentioned as a process to vet who is eligible to vote. Of course this process is not free from corruption since the Organization Department and Central Committee are also comprised of humans; humans who are all susceptible to corruption. May if A.I. replaces humans to do the job, it may be better, but the problem with A.I. today is that they can't think outside the box to meet unpredictable challenges and crises in the future.
The CPC cadres can also be transferred over to the national system to govern a region, but the regional deputies would still have the authority to authorize, it not veto, the CPC's recommended candidate, as with some previous cases in which the deputies of the national system finds questionable qualities and/or characters with the candidates. Thus these creates checks and balances that Aristotle talked about to prevent abuse of power and corruption. China's system is not perfect as far as its real-life practice goes, but relatively speaking, it works much better than the rest of the world (with a few other exceptions) judging from the results of China's development over the past few decades.
Sounds like the Swiss came closer to Aristotle version of democracy and many other nations presently do. The USA, however, is probably 75% of the way where I Rasado envisioned his ideal democracy. Some tweaks would need to be made into the AMERICAN system before it reached our style full vision.
In essence, as people like Jefferson and Adams and Hamilton and Washington had all ready Aristotle and Cicero and the other classics from Livy to John Locke, the United States - like many modern nations - uses these principles as the foundation of their political systems. And they still fail all the time.
No system can work if the people in a society are not devoted to each others' liberty and prosperity. If the society promotes selfishness. division and violence, then no political system can succeed for long. It's the basic paradox of the State:
People need rulers because a mass of individuals cannot rule itself. However, if people cannot rule themselves, then how can we expect a few of them - the State - to make decisions for everyone else?