This law shows the flaw of Athens and its democracy based government because it infringed on the freedom of speech that most democracies have. The Assembly was made up of all men that were eligible to serve on the council. The Life in Athens may have been sophisticated and nimble. This made Athens a target to other countries since they thought that Athens was a week country. If Athens had more of a military based government then they wouldn’t have been attacked as many of times and maybe never lost their power in Ancient
Imagine a ship owned by someone who is blind who knows little about seafaring. Also on the ship with him are a group of sailors who are constantly quarrelling with each other about who would be most suited to captain the ship. There is also a navigator who has knowledge of the stars and is more than capable of guiding the ship to its destination safely, this is the philosopher. The sailors are trying to persuade the owner of the ship to allow them to take control, these are the sophists. They know not of seafaring, and do not have the aptitude that the navigator possesses, and are equipped only with the art of persuasion.
Athens was more worried about the comfort and culture during the time of the military battles. The oligarchy in Sparta put a war like attitude as it's first priority and it met the needs of Ancient Greece. Athens did not have the best form of government because it did not give the citizens of Greece more freedom. The Athenian democracy can not be called a true democracy because there was several flaws in the governement and how it worked. Only the
Becoming a governor in his region of Rome wasn’t good enough, he wanted to be crowned king and serve as a dictator for life, something that Rome didn’t have for five hundred years. His need for absolute power, to become greedy and to bring Rome under Monarchy corrupted him and altered his thinking. Instead of thinking about the Roman people, he was thinking about himself, and that made him a bad leader. Another reason that he wasn’t a good leader was that he was weak. Although he appeared to be strong to the commoners, he was seen as weak to his own Senate members, especially Cassius.
However, because of over generalizing the democratic populous, and arguing with a vagueness in the terms, ‘desire’, ‘passion’, ‘appetite’, and ‘spirit’, Plato’s theory proves to lack in consistency and thus weakens its validity. As well because of the elimination of social class systems and separation between government and economy, the platonic drone does not need to rule with tyranny rather he may participate in both government and economy as separate institutions in a democratic capitalist society. Finally by overlooking intellects and their normative desires to participate in society, Plato stereotypes the entire populous of a democracy and therefore makes incorrect assumptions such as that of unavoidable
He then describes various forms of government, arguing that any form of government is vulnerable to corruption, which prevents the government from advancing the public good. Politics 3.5(Book 3, Chapter 5) ends Aristotle's discussion of the citizen. In this chapter, he addresses one of the last remaining questions on citizenship: Is he only truly a citizen to whom it is open to participate in offices, or are vulgar persons also to be regarded as citizens? For Aristotle, remember, politics is about developing the virtue of the citizens and making it possible for them to live a life of virtue. We have already seen that women and slaves are not capable of living this kind of life, although each of these groups has its own kind of virtue to pursue.
Answer: A dictatorship and democracy are quite different, but they can also be similar. In a dictatorship the common people have no say in the on goings of government or the treatment of the governed. In a democracy the people DO have a say in what goes on, and they vote to make decisions. Both can be good in bad in their own ways. Some say a dictatorship is better because the people don’t know what is and isn’t good for them.
The first issue was that of what people would be involved in the government. This problem was centered on the idea of different classes of people that were in the nation. By limiting the types of people in the government however, it would limit the types of personalities that would play a role in the government. Some argued that the private men, the working class individuals who represented the majority, had no business being involved in politics and government. Thomas Gordon argued against this because he thought that if anyone would know how the government worked, it would be the private men.
He thinks that he is the only one that opposes the corrupt authority, but does not reach out to other people because he is afraid. The Party's manipulation causes each member of society to feel isolated, and causes many to accept the Party's words as the truth. When members of society feel isolated, they turn to INGSOC for answers, even if they know it is false. The personification in the passage illustrates how INGSOC controls thought by changing history. Winston personifies the past, saying that it, "was dead" (25).
That man left to his institutions and placing himself above the will of the people, will surely lead to tyranny. Burke could very well (in my opinion) be talking to the politicians of today when he said he would sound wild and chimerical or that he was not in touch with reality, but that it was them the members of parliament that were “the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians” (Burke, 1775, Speech on reconciliation with America pg 2), that they have no place among the common people grappling with everyday reality in our pursuit of happiness. I was shocked that Burke would take this stance, given the animosity felt by parliament, the once thought to be friends of the American cause “the merchants of England” and the crown (grossly misinformed). I was pleasantly surprised at his ability to put the situation on a higher plain then just a gripe by the Americans don’t want to be taxed and pay their fair share, but to bring into the English mind that maybe they have lost touch with what previous generations or ancestors had accomplished in the English constitution, and putting the financial woes of the country aside and personal feelings about the Americans aside, that there might be a better way to conciliation with the