Why did ancient scholars look down upon democracy and yet feared and despised tyranny?
Couldn't they see one is a remedy for the other?
The tyranny of the masses is just as bad as having a traditional tyranny.
>idiocracy
>good
>>427086
Learn this difference:
demagoguery
democracy
Should be in Plato.
>>427086
Because one isn't the remedy for the other. Democracy is just the best realistic option we have to oppose tyranny. The remedy is an intelligent, beneficent autocrat. Good luck with that though.
Because democracy either is tyranny, or naturally evolves into one.
Does anyone have any reliable information on how happy Chinese are under their oligarchy system? I can find nothing but Chinese and Western propaganda. I think one-party oligarchies might actually work.
>>427086
Democracy always leads to demagogues who become Tyrants. You need a moderate conservative aristocracy or a monarch with limited power to keep this from happening.
>>427086
Because one leads to the other; a people being tyrannized will push for representative government but after that happens the representative government becomes tyrannical.
Long live the king desu
>"tyranny"
>>427262
>representative government becomes tyrannical.
>tfw the founding fathers knew this
>tfw they gave us so many amendments that specifically ensure this doesn't happen
>tfw out of fear we threw it all away
>>428472
I still say that American-style democracy would work pretty damn well if we had stuck to the spirit of the law as well as the letter - namely restricting enfranchisement to educated white males.
>>427086
in the case of plato, it's pretty obvious why he didn't like democracy- the people of athens voted to kill socrates. tyranny of the majority is still tyranny
>>428486
BEHOLD PLATO'S KING!
No, the real reason Plato likes kings was because he hated vegetables.
Typical trait of know-it-alls who fall into the logic of "the autocrat will certainly employ my infallible version of politics"
>>428472
Actually the fault is the founding fathers themselves, the revolution itself was the event that got the ball rolling.
>okay, we just removed the aristocracy. what do?
>see, have some kind of representation. but only wealthy white men should vote so it doesn't end up in a democratic disaster
>good idea, but what about poor white men? shouldn't they have a say?
>ah alright, let them. but stop at that
>but what about the blacks we just freed, are they any less of a man? God created us equal
>fine, blacks can vote too
>now, what about women?
Et cetera. Contrary to thinking it's a fallacy, slippery slope does exist and abolishing aristocratic model of rule triggered the whole shitshow.
>>428501
>>428501
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy, it's a claim about the future that's usually impossible to prove or disprove but some outcones are more probable and supported than others
>>427086
Freedom from all tyranny is merely slavery to the self, anon.
>>427086
Plain ignorance.
Democracy is the best thing for humanity and naturally evolution propelled them to the current prosperity .
>>428482
We did stick to the spirit of the law "All men are created equal" and by men it means mankind. Giving equal rights to every person is the natural end-result. And once we learn that they are not equal affirmative action and SJW is needed to 'create equality'.
There is no way our founding fathers could have realized this but our current state is the spirit of democracy: self-destruction.
>>428715
>We did stick to the spirit of the law "All men are created equal" and by men it means mankind
Except that in context "all men" very obviously meant "all white men in good social standing" and as such that's the spirit of the sentiment. I don't deny that the essence of democracy is self-destructive but the US wasn't envisioned as much of a democracy, much less a liberal one.
>Blacks, even if free, could not be citizens of the United States until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The question of their citizenship arose during the Missouri crisis of 1820 to 1821. The Missouri constitution barred the immigration of Blacks, and some northern critics said that to prevent Blacks who were citizens of other states from moving to Missouri deprived them of protection under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. The author of that clause, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, was still alive, and denied that he, or any other Framer, intended the clause to apply to Blacks: “I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it.”
http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race
The whole article is a pretty good read no matter what side of the argument you're on because if's mostly primary sources; if you're /pol/-tier then there's plenty of evidence there for "muh ethnostate" and if you're not then it's a giant mound of evidence for claims that the founding fathers were a bunch of racist xenophobe shitlords.
>>428796
>Except that in context "all men" very obviously meant "all white men in good social standing" and as such that's the spirit of the sentiment
A bit pedantic, but in all fairness they seemed to mean "all decent educated people" which just so happened to be "white men with land and education".
The point being it was more about you just don't open the vote to fucking everyone without expecting a shitfest, the fact that the people who got to vote looked and acted just like the founders was a matter of convenience. I'm pretty convinced the founders truly did believe that "All men are created equal", they just weren't too interested in hashing out exactly who were "men" and who weren't.
>>428796
Jefferson actually planned to put something in the Declaration against slavery, but chose not to out of fear that slaveowners would rally to the British.
>why didn't Jefferson free his slaves?
He couldn't free them except in his will because Virginia law forbade it. He taught them trades so they could make money on their own and left them the means to when he died.
>>428521
so what then is freedom from both the tyranny of the self and the tyranny of the other?
in the ultimate sense.
>>427178
it happens sometimes
most likely to happen in a monarchy desu
>>428937
tldr mang
>>428937
Only taxpayer's should be able to vote in a republican democracy.
Discuss.
>>429809
A pointless restriction, everybody pays sales tax.
only landed males of 25+ years of age who pay income tax should be able to vote, and only after serving in a civil service (Defence force/government job)
>>429778
You really should read Sade/Marat after Trotsky. It isn't about Trotsky being right, it is about enjoying Weiss' joke.
>>431615
I'm here for history desu. The most recent book I read about humanities was pic related.
Other people can argue about Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism.
While I'm interested to learn, I don't think I could digest it.
I'm just here to spam my reactionary memes and talk about how terrible the French Revolution was.
>>427086
>pure democracy
>not a form of tyranny
>>431622
>I'm just here to spam my reactionary memes and talk about how terrible the French Revolution was.
Can you fucking kill yourself? Also, look up Zhao Enlai being misquoted on the French revolution.
If you can't digest Weiss' pap play put as a film, how are you going to digest the estates general?
>>427094
Except more people get their way.
>>431712
No one gets their way in a true democracy. Everybody gets screwed in some fashion or another.
>>431660
Idk who Weiss is m8.
>>431715
What makes a democracy true?
Having the people represent themselves in the government, rather than by proxy? Or to speak for themselves in the agora? Having no government between people? At what point does the democracy stop being a political organization?
>>431715
>true democracy
eh
>No one gets their way in a true democracy.
What about the demagoge? The charismatic and the cunning? If you'll always be someone's dog, why not someone you'd choose to follow rather than the guy you were handed to?
>>431749
>implying people can make rational, effective choices
Democracy promotes the most manipulative sociopaths to delude the public into electing then.
Parliamentary systems combat this a bit by electing the party, and the leader of the party is kind of seperate. But Republican democracy is shit after its expanded soviernty.
>I'll give you the ability to vote as long as you vote for me
Cheap shots.
>>427232
Chinks hate the shit out of commies but they're getting better quality of life and its improving so they're not gonna rock the boat until shit gets bad under communism
Well the old Chinamen thoughts anyways
>>431812
China isn't communist doe.
Ding Xiao Dong made sure of that.
>>427086
democracy = mob rule
Most philosophers generally agree that you can't legislate morality and values, it ultimately depends on the individual being willing to sort their shit out.
An analogy for democracy might be convincing muslims to stop female genital mutilation or stop a psychopathic kid from torturing animals through the power of argument. Democracy prevents them doing it to you, and that's great and all, but it is still not ideal, is it.
>>431791
>Democracy promotes the most manipulative sociopaths to delude the public into electing then.
Say a guy has the right to rule from the start and the public will delude itself into obedience.
>>431877
>delude
>implying there isn't a right to rule
>implying that they cannot compete properly for the right to rule
>>431935
>being this spooked
Not even memeing. I mean spook in the sense that Stirner used it.
The guy in the fancy suit only owes most of his power because the people around him believe he has this power and/or deserves this power. When we admit this, why submit to a less than advantageous arrangement? (That isn't to say that concessions are off table.)
The notion that there is such a thing as "proper" competition is laughable when the one making the rules is competing.
>>431985
>a nobles power isn't real
>implying voluntary egoism is actually right
>>432023
>a nobles power isn't based on perception of status
>implying aristocracy is actually "noble"
Important to consider the difference between modern republics and the direct democracy that cities like Athens occasionally practiced. The latter is very inefficient and hard to get things done with, so often dictators would rise up and not be opposed just because they were actually getting things done.
