3 ms·

Democracy's flaws have been studied for thousands of years. You can find a very detailed critique from Plato for example. All of his arguments are still true to

by pell 8y ago

Democracy's flaws have been studied for thousands of years. You can find a very detailed critique from Plato for example. All of his arguments are still true today. The problem is that there really isn't a better alternative when it comes to letting people self-govern on a big scale. Plato's solution was a government of the ones who had the complete truth, but he himself was doubtful whether such an administration would be realistic and flawless.

jonbarker 8y ago
And now the best proxy for 'the complete truth' seems to be the entrepreneur who built the largest AI enabled platform with the most engaged users. As long as that person is benevolent, we are all OK?
sls 8y ago
The Greek historian Polybius (ca. 200 BCE) observed characteristic weaknesses of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. He theorized that the Roman mixed constitution in which powers were separated was a key factor in the success and stability of Rome. His thought influenced the American founders both directly and indirectly. It's interesting to observe how the institutional and technological changes since the American founding, and the systemic problems we easily note, align with his discussion. He theorized that each of the unmixed systems had weaknesses that led them to eventually be supplanted by another form, initially well-administered, which too would in time succumb to its inherent weaknesses. The mixed form resisted this cycle. So to the extent that the polity "un-mixes" the arrangement of powers, e.g. making the Senate directly elected instead of chosen by state legislatures without making a corresponding anti-democratic change, the system becomes more exposed to the cyclic risks associated with the unmixed state that was favored.
drexlspivey 8y ago
Here is a video explaining why Socrates didn't like democracy. tldr: demagoguery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk
- zerostar07 8y ago
  In ancient athens it seems people were quite aware and wary of this. Aristotle considered elections a non-meritocratic, an oligarchic process. In Athens, most of the offices were appointed by lot, and only some of the highest offices were elected. Worth noting that the word democracy had the meaning of "power to the many", which is different from its modern definition as "majoritocracy"
  - drexlspivey 8y ago
    In ancient Athens only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military duties were able to vote, roughly 20% of the population. This seems pretty oligarchic today but it was a massive improvement in the council of elders that used to rule before that. Historia civilis has a great video on the constitution of ancient Athens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgMTsQXg3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgMTsQXg3Q

by pell 8y ago

jonbarker 8y ago

And now the best proxy for 'the complete truth' seems to be the entrepreneur who built the largest AI enabled platform with the most engaged users. As long as that person is benevolent, we are all OK?

sls 8y ago

The Greek historian Polybius (ca. 200 BCE) observed characteristic weaknesses of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. He theorized that the Roman mixed constitution in which powers were separated was a key factor in the success and stability of Rome. His thought influenced the American founders both directly and indirectly. It's interesting to observe how the institutional and technological changes since the American founding, and the systemic problems we easily note, align with his discussion. He theorized that each of the unmixed systems had weaknesses that led them to eventually be supplanted by another form, initially well-administered, which too would in time succumb to its inherent weaknesses. The mixed form resisted this cycle. So to the extent that the polity "un-mixes" the arrangement of powers, e.g. making the Senate directly elected instead of chosen by state legislatures without making a corresponding anti-democratic change, the system becomes more exposed to the cyclic risks associated with the unmixed state that was favored.

drexlspivey 8y ago

Here is a video explaining why Socrates didn't like democracy. tldr: demagoguery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

zerostar07 8y ago
In ancient athens it seems people were quite aware and wary of this. Aristotle considered elections a non-meritocratic, an oligarchic process. In Athens, most of the offices were appointed by lot, and only some of the highest offices were elected. Worth noting that the word democracy had the meaning of "power to the many", which is different from its modern definition as "majoritocracy"
- drexlspivey 8y ago
  In ancient Athens only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military duties were able to vote, roughly 20% of the population. This seems pretty oligarchic today but it was a massive improvement in the council of elders that used to rule before that. Historia civilis has a great video on the constitution of ancient Athens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgMTsQXg3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgMTsQXg3Q