To add to that, the rule by the many was no remedy for the ills of oligarchy, according to Plato, because ordinary people were too easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians. There are varying degrees of controversy over which of Plato 's works are genuine, and in what order they were written, due to their antiquity and the manner of their preservation through time. Plato generally had a negative view of democracy, but he proved why by introducing some real problems with democracy. Plato had many arguments to support his view. He believed that only philosophers can rule and become kings and on the other hand, the lower class did not have his attention.
In short, pluralism for Mouffe is radical. She restricts extreme forms of pluralism but how can we distinguish the extreme from non-extreme is unclear. Although she would have said the procedure of distinguishing these forms, her model transforms into something like Habermas’. Even so her model of democracy is very important think from different angle because the notion of adversaries and agonistic pluralism make possible to think differently from political theorists such as Habermas and Rawls. They aim at reaching consensus but Mouffe thinks that consensus is not necessary for democratic politics what people need is agonistic pluralism to live side by
Furthermore, would creating one authoritarian organisation enable democracy or rather destroy it? Would reducing the political actors be a democratization practice after all? We can see where the argument of not desirability enters along with non-feasibility. Last but not least as Archibugi (1998) reasons in the book ‘Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies In Cosmopolitan Democracy’ “there is no actual guarantee that the greater coordination in world politics will be informed by the values of
The idea of the world represented in the novel, is exactly the world that Orwell did not wish the future to be. However in terms of the control mechanisms that have occurred due to the rule of a single party, Orwell’s best attempt to create awareness for this imperfect future was to create one where the privacy and freedom of humans is placed in jeopardy and in actual fact non-existent. Newspeak probably is the key component, while it does not immediately silence the idea of rebellion and freedom, it does narrow the thoughts of society into a single minded one. Some may call it hypnosis; others call it conforming to a normal. Newspeak refers to the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell.
Correspondingly, it is believed that the bottleneck and limitations lie on the implementation of the voting system itself. Democracy as an ideal construct is fine all by itself. So the problems can only arise when mankind tries to make it work in the real world. When originally conjured, there was no way to foresee the advancement in technology that we have today. Then it's merely proposed that we made use of said technology to the betterment of the process.
This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106).
While Confucius would emphasize the good of the old sage-kings, Han Feizi emphasized that it was not virtue that allowed any sage-king (which the Legalists hardly believed in to begin with) but rather a combination of “timeliness of seasons, the hearts of the people, skills and talents, and position of power” (Chan p. 254). Without these attributes, no amount of virtue can resolve disorder. Legalists, rather than focus on resolving disorder with virtue and filial piety, would therefore look at a leader’s ability to enact law and enforce statecraft. Han Feizi writes “if the ruler has no statecraft, he will be ruined . .
However, this is tied directly to the fundamental understanding of democracy in that citizens have the power to influence their sovereign through becoming the sovereign (through majority decisions). Democracy is good. Democracy is bad whenever the majority abuses its freedoms to serve individual desire. In other words, the characteristics of a democracy are solely dependent on its citizens and there might be more of a convincing reason to believe that both Plato and Aristotle’s criticisms are a result of human nature, instead of democracy itself. IV.
This mandate supposedly improves people’s well-being, but it fails at accomplishing that goal. If all the law does is strip people’s rights, and doesn’t even fulfill its main purpose, then it shouldn’t be enacted. The supposed benefits aren’t worth the trouble, which is why the law is a bad
When talking about empires, a negative connotation of being oppressed is usually present. Living in the modern age, we tend to consider democracy as the “rightest form of government”. However, democracy is not simply “freedom for all” or “the will of the people” for ancient empires. It was a complex, delicate system that sometime people overlook its inherent fragility. Many democratic states, such as ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, failed to keep the promise of freedom for all and ended up in failure.