From jfgannon@cloud9.net Sat Mar 24 07:44:31 2001 Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id HAA12964 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 07:44:30 -0800 Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net (russian-caravan.cloud9.net [168.100.1.4]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.03) with ESMTP id f2OFiUb27854 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 07:44:30 -0800 Received: from jfgannon (203-180.dialup.cloud9.net [168.100.203.180]) by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8990128D39 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:44:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009101c0b47a$3538d260$b4cb64a8@jfgannon> From: "J.F. Gannon" To: References: Subject: Re: Justinian et al. / Lucian's _Dialogues of the Courtesans_ Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:47:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 > > > > >> As for the USA, I would agree that today - it hardly meets the criteria of > >> democracy. [Yet it certainly WANTS to claim title to it - and the > >> "legitimacy" associated with that concept] And that has little to do with > >> the Senate's method of election. One should not identify democracy MERELY > >> by the existence of elections. Nor to evaluate it MERELY by whether there > >> is one person, one vote. Elections - even perfectly equal elections - do > >> not a democracy make. > > > > I suggested a criterion for democracy. Each adult member of the community > > (citizen) has a vote and one vote has the same weight as any other vote. I > > offer this as a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Do you deny it > > is necessary? Can you offer a statement of a sufficient condition? > > I would deny that this is an necessary condition. Because "voting" is not > the essence of democracy. The essence of democracy is the participation - > but that is not reducible to the concept of voting. For the Athenians - you > could say it was a combination of "communing" in the Agora, attending the > Ekklesia, serving on the Jury, being eligible (and serving) in public > office, etc. This is SIGNIFICANTLY different from what we today consider > about "voting" and the idea of equality of voting. > > I think in a system of voting - applied to a democracy - one would have to > consider FIRST the purpose of the vote, to determine the standards to which > it must meat to be "democratic". So - I think one can CONCEIVE of a > democratic system, with an "unequal" body - such as the US Senate (although > I would agree that in the US context, the Senate is UNdemocratic). What is > important is the PURPOSE and FUNCTION of the institution - and that will > determine whether an equality of votes is necessary or sufficient. > > But one can also conceive of a democratic system - without voting. The > point is - democracy is not reducible to voting. Voting (even absolutely > equal voting) is neither necessary NOR sufficient for a democracy. I grant that "vote" is perhaps too restrictive. I would substitute "voice". That said ,I still regard this as a necesary condition for any system to be considered a democracy. Doubtless you will disagree. > > >> > >> One of the problems when it comes to the US, is that there is an idea that > >> the US was INTENDED to be a republic, and NOT a democracy. When this is > >> really not altogether accurate. During the founding era - the two terms > >> were often used interchangeably. HOWEVER, unfortunately, the term > >> "democracy" had inherited a "pejorative" connotation - and thus was > > equated > >> with what Polybius would eventually refer to as "ochlarchy". And so, in > > the > >> founding era of the US, one often finds people using the term "republic" > > to > >> distinguish the concept FROM "mob rule" -- but this is not the same thing > > as > >> being opposed to "democracy." Indeed - one also often finds people using > >> the term "democracy" directly to express the ideal toward which they were > >> striving. Unfortunately also, however, there were a number of "prominent" > >> persons who wanted, in reality, neither republic nor democracy. And so > >> there is much confusion about what the American form of government "was" > > and > >> "is." > . > > > > Nonsense. In NO PART of the proposal to the ratifying conventions - nor to > the expressions to the people - was the Constitution of the United States > presented as a Republic AS OPPOSED TO a democracy. That simply NEVER > happened. > > INDEED - one only has to look to the original "declarations of independence" > (I mean BEFORE the ONE we know of generally) and see the word DEMOCRACY used > quite often (look to the Charlotte-Mecklenberg declaration for example). > > As for the constitutional convention - it itself is hardly sufficient to > make such a claim anyway. Contained within that convention WAS NOT a > consensus - but a WIDE variety of views, some desiring democracy, others > opposed as much to democracy as to republics (not necessarily seeing either > as different) but desiring a monarchy -- in fact, Alexander Hamilton > proposed exactly that!). But you also forget HOW and WHY the constitutional > convention was called - it was called for SPECIFIC reasons (and was never > INTENDED OFFICIALLY nor LEGALLY EMPOWERED to CREATE a form of governmnent, > it was SOLELY expected and empowered to SUGGEST amendments to the Articles > of Confederation). What is probably MOST significant about the > Constitutional Convention is not who WAS there - but about who was NOT > there. Thomas Jefferson wasn't there. Thomas Paine wasn't there. Patrick > Henry wasn't there. So it hardly represented all of the LEADING views. > Indeed - the constitution itself BARELY passed - and then only through > severe "manipulation" -- and even that was technically ILLEGAL since it was > outside of the procedure under the Articles of Confederation. Still the Constitution is the basic law of the land. It supersedes all preceding arrangements and preferences. It was ratified by the states. There seems to have been a consensus that those entities were the ones that had the power to do so. By the way, your overuse of uppercase letters is rather distasteful. Make your points as best you can without shouting, please. > > >> That America today is NOT a democracy "in practice" - however - is not a > >> result of its not being "intended" to be a democracy. But America's > > failure > >> in practice, probably also counts against its title to being a republic. > > > > I don't follow this, I confess. The word "democracy" is much used and much > > abused. It generally taken to name a "good thing" and so everyone wants it > > on her/his side. At one point in recent German history there were: the Free > > Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the Social Democrats, and the National > > Democrats. One has not heard much of the last named lately. So what's in > > a name? > >> > > Actually - it is probably MORE often in general used to refer to a "bad" > thing throughout history -- wrongly I would argue. It is confused with MOB > rule. > > As for the claim of political parties to the term "democrat" - one only has > to look at the US - to see one party claiming "democrat" and the other > "republican" to recognize that NEITHER of them is seeking EITHER of those > ideals. > > When I refer to democracy - I do not refer to a "name" only - but an ideal. > The ideal, as I stated, of self-government in the common interest. The notion of self-government is difficult. It sounds like anarchism, i.e., each of us governs her/himself. As for a concern for the common interest, that is incumbent upon any form government. I doubt that each-one-governs-him/herself is compatible with an interest in the common good except in never-never land. Narcissists are always among us. > > This is clearly an expectation THROUGHOUT the founding/revolutionary era of > the US. I am too polite to call this nonsense, but it is at least questionable. The revolutionaries wanted the colonies to govern themselves as opposed to accepting the authority of parliament. This notion of self-government is compatible with a variety of republican arrangements. That - after that time - in practice, the system has failed to > deliver that expectation, has nothing to do with the initial desire being > for something ELSE. that was my point. > > > good? > > > Like I said - I did not. I said it is two-fold in criteria. The Common > Good - AND - Self-Government (the latter of which neither Monarchy nor > Aristocracy has). However - I would go further to argue - that in reality - > neither of the other two would in actuality ever REALLY have a likelihood of > achieving that goal of seeking the common good, and that ONLY a democracy is > likely to pursue that as its sincere end. Your "self-government" is a chimaera. Governments must make decisions. In the purest of democracies all the citizens would have a voice. But it is not to be assumed that the voices would sound in unison. Actually this sort of thinking can easily lead to claims about a General Will or some such Rousseauvian phantasy. Some self-obsessed leader will decide that she knows what the people really want, or ought to want, in the common interest. No thanks. > > > Well even on that I am not so sure. It is really most accurate to call it > Politeia - which is what he called it - and which has a meaning as a word. > An ideal form of governmnet. Not in ordinary English--and the question is one of translation--and not in Greek either, and it is a Greek word. Do you have a text? > > JFG .