5 ms·

The oldest democracy today is ~200 years old, and a modern democracy [1] for much less - 100 years. Still, we have been talking about democracy for at least 230

The oldest democracy today is ~200 years old, and a modern democracy [1] for much less - 100 years. Still, we have been talking about democracy for at least 2300 years. If Plato had the answers, we should have learned by now. I think the jury is still out on wether this is just a matter of "bad implementation", or long-term democracy is an impossibility without degenerating into a dystopia. Also, funny way to "pick apart" Plato's ideas from a modern lens - e.g. accepting that we need a caste of thoughtful leaders while at the same time rejecting eugenics, because we have seen what it leads to, even though it's the logical conclusion of the former. [1] No barriers regarding race or gender right to vote.

diegoholiveira 6y ago
> If Plato had the answers, we should have learned by now. The passage of time doesn't implies moral progress, unlike natural sciences who progress is only forward. What I'm want to mean by this is: we'll do the same mistakes again and again and again.
- totetsu 6y ago
  Democracy however defined, is ongoing work for all involved.
- llamaz 6y ago
  Have you been reading John Gray too?
- prox 6y ago
  Every generation learns anew, so that is one of the reasons why this occurs. At best you have a mentor who is at max 100 years old. Books can be informative, but it is no substitute for people actually being part of history. Especially if you frame it in the lens of power dynamics and the ownership of wealth. Those in power are connected to those with wealth and their ethics and politics determine to a great extend what happens.
Fishysoup 6y ago
Eugenics isn't the logical conclusion of the "leader caste" because we know that not only is it deeply unethical, it also doesn't work. We don't really know what makes someone "better", we don't know how to do it, and we don't even know how to define "better". Stephen Hawking contributed an enormous amount to society despite having a devastating genetic condition. Note, correcting devastating conditions in newborns (somatically, not in the germline - i.e. for individuals, not their descendants) might be OK, the only issue is where you draw the line. If you correct for sickle cell anemia or cancer prone-ness, should you also correct for depression? (assuming we ever figure out how to do that). I think you have a good point about democracy maybe not benig the full answer. It seems to be a very flexible/enduring system so far (more so than e.g. fascism or communism), but technology might poke huge holes in it regarding free will (manipulating people's emotions to vote for someone, for example). Yuval Harari talks about this a lot in "21 ideas for the 21st century".
- vkou 6y ago
  To veer off the topic of eugenics a little. > We don't really know what makes someone "better", we don't know how to do it, and we don't even know how to define "better". All of your problems go away if we use a "better" definition of "better". What makes someone a "better" leader? That they were educated and raised in a "better" way. What makes that way "better"? Well, it should be evident - it, after all, produces "better" leaders. True, it does lead to a kind of circular thinking, but that's allright - a lot of ink gets spilled to justify subjective preferences on objective grounds, like the ones I just described. If people can feel utterly convinced that by applying such circular criteria, they can demarcate that one piece of music is objectively better than another, surely those people would feel just as justified to use such circular criteria to decide that one leader's education, and upbringing, and social background is objectively better than another. As long as you can let current leaders pick future leaders, you will indeed have a definition of "better". You might not like that definition very much, though.
  - Fishysoup 6y ago
    Yeah I'm also pessimistic about misleading thinking + demagoguery. I do think that there's a good contingent of society that has a decent bullshit detector though. I guess we'll find out.
gonzo41 6y ago
Consider a democracy without capitalism. That's a combination I can't recall being tried. I think personal wealth and the associated detachment it gives people from thinking they are part of the masses is a problem for democracy.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Plato addresses that notion, although he (outdoing Lycurgus) proposes aristocracy without capitalism. (The Dictator's Handbook would say the difference between aristocracy and democracy is in the size of the selectorate, a distinction which is quantitative but not necessary qualititative.) another take on guardians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsR4O4W0w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsR4O4W0w
082349872349872 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Charter_of_1291 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Charter_of_1291 (Modern democracy only since 1971. Before you laugh, consider that we've now had 5 different female presidents from 3 different parties. Yes, consensus takes a while to achieve, but it also facilitates implementation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23415639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23415639 ) One can, of course, argue the continuity between the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy and the current confederation. (especially due to Napoleon, whose infrastructural, legal, and social improvements we kept even after getting rid of his people, at the end of his interregnum) However, there have also been substantial changes in the selectorate of the US between the 13 colonies and today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
082349872349872 6y ago
> If Plato had the answers, we should have learned by now. Plato's rebuttal (virtue can't be taught or learned, but occurs): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0178%3Atext%3DMeno%3Asection%3D93e http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... et seq Bonus clip (can virtue be recalled?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIq4Az-M9Ts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIq4Az-M9Ts (thank you Chekhov)

diegoholiveira 6y ago

> If Plato had the answers, we should have learned by now. The passage of time doesn't implies moral progress, unlike natural sciences who progress is only forward. What I'm want to mean by this is: we'll do the same mistakes again and again and again.

totetsu 6y ago
Democracy however defined, is ongoing work for all involved.
llamaz 6y ago
Have you been reading John Gray too?
prox 6y ago
Every generation learns anew, so that is one of the reasons why this occurs. At best you have a mentor who is at max 100 years old. Books can be informative, but it is no substitute for people actually being part of history. Especially if you frame it in the lens of power dynamics and the ownership of wealth. Those in power are connected to those with wealth and their ethics and politics determine to a great extend what happens.

Fishysoup 6y ago

Eugenics isn't the logical conclusion of the "leader caste" because we know that not only is it deeply unethical, it also doesn't work. We don't really know what makes someone "better", we don't know how to do it, and we don't even know how to define "better". Stephen Hawking contributed an enormous amount to society despite having a devastating genetic condition. Note, correcting devastating conditions in newborns (somatically, not in the germline - i.e. for individuals, not their descendants) might be OK, the only issue is where you draw the line. If you correct for sickle cell anemia or cancer prone-ness, should you also correct for depression? (assuming we ever figure out how to do that). I think you have a good point about democracy maybe not benig the full answer. It seems to be a very flexible/enduring system so far (more so than e.g. fascism or communism), but technology might poke huge holes in it regarding free will (manipulating people's emotions to vote for someone, for example). Yuval Harari talks about this a lot in "21 ideas for the 21st century".

vkou 6y ago
To veer off the topic of eugenics a little. > We don't really know what makes someone "better", we don't know how to do it, and we don't even know how to define "better". All of your problems go away if we use a "better" definition of "better". What makes someone a "better" leader? That they were educated and raised in a "better" way. What makes that way "better"? Well, it should be evident - it, after all, produces "better" leaders. True, it does lead to a kind of circular thinking, but that's allright - a lot of ink gets spilled to justify subjective preferences on objective grounds, like the ones I just described. If people can feel utterly convinced that by applying such circular criteria, they can demarcate that one piece of music is objectively better than another, surely those people would feel just as justified to use such circular criteria to decide that one leader's education, and upbringing, and social background is objectively better than another. As long as you can let current leaders pick future leaders, you will indeed have a definition of "better". You might not like that definition very much, though.
- Fishysoup 6y ago
  Yeah I'm also pessimistic about misleading thinking + demagoguery. I do think that there's a good contingent of society that has a decent bullshit detector though. I guess we'll find out.

gonzo41 6y ago

Consider a democracy without capitalism. That's a combination I can't recall being tried. I think personal wealth and the associated detachment it gives people from thinking they are part of the masses is a problem for democracy.

082349872349872 6y ago
Plato addresses that notion, although he (outdoing Lycurgus) proposes aristocracy without capitalism. (The Dictator's Handbook would say the difference between aristocracy and democracy is in the size of the selectorate, a distinction which is quantitative but not necessary qualititative.) another take on guardians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsR4O4W0w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsR4O4W0w

082349872349872 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Charter_of_1291 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Charter_of_1291 (Modern democracy only since 1971. Before you laugh, consider that we've now had 5 different female presidents from 3 different parties. Yes, consensus takes a while to achieve, but it also facilitates implementation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23415639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23415639 ) One can, of course, argue the continuity between the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy and the current confederation. (especially due to Napoleon, whose infrastructural, legal, and social improvements we kept even after getting rid of his people, at the end of his interregnum) However, there have also been substantial changes in the selectorate of the US between the 13 colonies and today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

082349872349872 6y ago

> If Plato had the answers, we should have learned by now. Plato's rebuttal (virtue can't be taught or learned, but occurs): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0178%3Atext%3DMeno%3Asection%3D93e http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... et seq Bonus clip (can virtue be recalled?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIq4Az-M9Ts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIq4Az-M9Ts (thank you Chekhov)