Individualism in Athenian democracy Another interesting insight into Athenian democracy comes from the law that excluded from decisions of war those citizens who had property close to the city walls - on the basis that they had a personal interest in the outcome of such debates because the practice of an invading army was at the time to destroy the land outside the walls. A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot', which finds its origins in the ancient Greek word ἰδιώτης (idiōtēs), meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word eventually acquired its modern meaning. In his Funeral Oration, Pericles states: 'it is only we who regard the one not participating in these duties not as unambitious but as useless.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy as you can see the word idiot is derived from the idea of someone not concerned with affairs of the state. these are the people who don't vote (in the modern sense is valid) in this case or most importantly don't think if they do vote , they let someone else do their thinking for them and hence end up in the grip of a government that does stupid things. if the idiot does vote he puts into place someone just like him, not concerned with affairs of state someone who blindly marches off to war because someone has told him its a good idea. pericles was a darned fool with a silver tongue espousing democracy whilst doing everything in his power to become first amongst equals, or the first citizen. he got a war going he couldn't finish and died of a plague whilst athens was under siege. if you don't vote to get these idiots out then you will curse yourself for another 4 years.
Interesting concept. Something to think about. Been a long time since I was in school and studied Greek and Roman history. But would appear to still have validity in today's world.
In a democracy to play the fool on the odd occassian and to posses a silver tong can be indispensable tools in the pursuit of office and policy. To be elected to office and thence to become the first amoung equals is whole point of the democractic process for the political classes particularly in Greece at that time. To get to the point Bush is no Pericules, he has no silver tongue, Indeed his tongue seems to paralized by early onset dementia than anything else. In any case the war is probably the consequence of institutional forces that Bush is mealy a tool of. Yet people will vote for him. I am to pissed to continue
you're right bush has no silver tongue as such he just has many people who are essentailly fifth columnists in the government weakening the american people (and their integrity) - who do his talking for him. the day the american people wake up from this nightmare ...... eventually they will its just a matter of when, history says it has to happen.
like i posted in another thread here... i don't vote, and that does not make me an "idiot" either! your compairing cabbages to chickens when using an example of atheian democracy of about 3,000 years ago to the u.s.a. of today. athens was a dictatoship of the majority that oppressed the minorities. those sides that lost a vote were at times put to death by the majority. THAT IS ONE HELL OF A DAMM GOOD REASON TO FIND A WAY TO GET OUT OF VOTING IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE MAJORITY DOES THINGS! that is why athens all during the "golden age" of greece had repeated uprisings by the minorities. due to the failure of athenian demorcarcy to become a more open and accepting society, and the victory of the athenian outcasts, who started to form the concept of the republic, and a real open society. the u.s.a. is a republic and not a democracy! (at least what is left of the republic.) the majority cannot kill and oppress the minorities here in the u.s.a. (in principle at least.) just yesterday in calaforina we saw where the oppression of the majority (democracy = majority vote.) was overturn by that state's supreme court (republic = state consitution.) consitutional republics are shitty governments. (i'm speaking here of REAL republics; not FAKE republics like the sovite union was!) yet, in all of human history they are the best system we have come up with so far, i hope we can come up with some better system in the future. in our system of government, here in the u.s.a. quite offen you can bring about change by not voting but, by using other means. it was those other means that brought about change yesterday in california.
So your main concern for the world today is whether or not same sex couples can enter into a legal definition of marriage? You must really doubt your manhood. While we have entered into false wars over false threats, your main concern is that a monogamous union of two people is valid under law...what next want to bring up abortion and a woman's right to choose to carry a fetus for 9 months, while the male/sperm donor seeks no responsiblity? All the while we continue to bomb and conspire to own the world's resources. Next you'll bring up flag burning. Or is it what light bulbs are used in individual homes? I suggest you continue not to vote.
please do not twist my words around, and please do not make ad hominem remarks toward me or others. i have treated you with respect, i request that you treat me with respect too. once we pull out of the near east those nations will go into full scale civil war. think you seen bloodshed and exploted resources now... you have seen nothing yet! i agree that the neocons fucked up things real well over there! not smart to add fuck up on top of fuck up. a way out of that shit with out making it even worst... i have no answer for that and i freely admit it to! i don't lie to anyone like two major parties and their canadates have been doing. they have no answers! what they have been saying in supple ways is this... we are stuck and must stay the course untill...? voting will not change a damn thing on that matter, because the political will is not there to change matters. things will change though only by indirect/unoffical means that wave is growing right now. the direct/offical means are are stagent, and i see no hope of change there. i would love to be proven wrong on that observation! how long before we have a tidely wave is of change is anyone guess... i hope it is not too long in striking!
If we pull out of the near east, they will decide their own fate. Of course Bush had promised to protect Israel. Why don't we let Israel protect themselves? For years the US has funded Israel. Voting can change a whole lot, we can demand that no more US lives be lost in this. Full scale war...why did they wait for our intervention. Time to let them fight it out. Time to let the neocons put their own money behind their wars.
What is you are fighting, same sex marriage, abortion, the fact that women are thinking people? What are you more afraid of, the fact that your masculinity is compromised, or have you looked at the facts? Tidely Wave...is that the new marketing pharse...you better forget that.
I may have misread his post, but the gist of his arguement was that 'pure' democracies, like the one practiced in athens (where the citizens vote on every issue) can denegrate into brutal states where majorities oppress minorities. Constitutional Republics, on the other hands, have systems where the majority aren't allowed to have un-checked power over the minorites. He used the example of gay marrage to point out how despite the majority wanting to deny a minority their civil rights, a court system and a constitution disallowed it... he seemed to be advocating gay rights, not denying them.
i don't take the ramblings of non voters seriously, they have lost grasp of one key concept - voting is your only power within the framework of society. if you don't use it as an individual you can't complain or moralise about society because you refuse to take part in its nuture. whilst this may make you angry the facts speak for themselves and many millions of people will exercise that one and only right as citizens that they have - for their own good and for the good of the country. you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink - which in the case of the non voter, is apt.
first let me say this... thank you eugene, for steping in here and clarifiying what i was trying to say. this just proves that, sometimes in a disscusion two people may have problems understanding what each other are trying to say, and sometimes a third party can help disfuse what could turn into a really bad drama, and cause a whole group of people a great deal of pain! gardner, let me be the first to say, i am sorry if my style of thinking, on what i was trying to say did not come out clear, to understand what i was tyring to get across. i wrote in good faith and ment no ill will toward anyone. after reading eugene's post i can see that you were acting in good faith as well. now guy, let me ask this of everyone here. what is going on here? am i, just so damn dense that i cannot write well enough, to make myself understood on what i'm trying to get across? from past experence on hip forums, and in other groups on the web i have been in, the vast majorty of people understand what i am saying; sometimes they ask for clarification on what i have said, but they still like me as a person. only one or two times have there been miscomunication, as has happen on this thread between gardener and myself. i'm thinking, most likely, i have hit on a raw nerve of some people, when i point out what we belive an open society is, and how the system works. i think this is what has been the major part of all this controversy, and some of it has to do with my writing. bill moyers has just had a book published entitled "the end of democeracy," and howard zinn is about to have a book pulished entitled "anarchy should not be a dirty word." here you have two people on the left of our political system; moyers, a liberal and zinn a radical. both state in their books' that the voting process no longer works in the u.s.a. the voting process is what is called 'a formal system.' both moyers and zinn are warning all of us that the formal system (voting) has been co-opted by a ruling elite of statist capitalism corporations, and the only way to break the ruling elite contoal of the voting process, and return the voting system to the people of the of the u.s.a. is to use means of the "informal system." all large systems brance into two smaller systems. 1. the formal system. 2. the informal system. when ever one of these two smaller systems breakdowns, there is extreme danger of the larger system breaking down too. both moyers and zinn are saying and doing the same things i am doing... we are using the informal system in fighting to take back the formal system (voting process) from the corporate elite. moyers, zinn and, myself are all fighting to keep the u.s.a. an open and free nation. guy, both of us and eugene too, all agree our nation is going down hill fast, and is doing one hell of alot of evil things here at home, and overseas. we are all three of us, working toward the same goals; we just disagree on how to go about it. there is no one right way... there are a number of right ways to do it. it seems to me we all are working together in good faith, and as i said, we just disagree how best to go about it. could we please just agree to disagree, and admit we all love our country in just a different way? peace... ok?
having come from a country where poor people were essentially outlawed from voting i quickly realised that the voice of the people had been taken and replaced with compliance. i realised that voting gives the average person the greatest power that they will ever wield over their own destiny. with no disrespect how hard is it to just shuffle down to the voting booth? you could always vote for a joke party to show your displeasure.
I agree to not vote is stand back and let someone else take responsibility. Write in your dogs name if nothing else it proves you were there.
We no longer have a constitutional republic because of the Patriot Act. But as voters we can return to one. But not through not voting. That's how the Patriot Act and this President came into power. If your interpretation is correct then yes I misinterpreted his original post. I apologise. Thanks for the clarification. Guess I am so used to normal media hype I over reacted.
