FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Ok, Irami, so tell me...

   
Author Topic: Ok, Irami, so tell me...
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
...what insights into modern democracy have you gotten out of ancient Greek philosophy?

I know a fair bit about both, but I don't see ancient Greece as either an exclusive or best source for the underpinings of our system. So maybe you could enlighten me?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
Plato does a pretty good job of illustrating some big problems with modern democracy. I think I even mentioned before on this forum that Socrates' debate with Gorgias over the usefulness of rhetoric in politics is something Karl Rove should look at. While tricking the masses of a democracy to accept what you want them to accept may appear to be power, it actually is not. That is false power, because it involves getting the people to do what you want them to, yet doesn't necessary result in the ends you want (the greater good for the country, that is.)

That'd be one example I see.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
That would assume that you actually want the greater good of the country.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres,
I didn't so much qualify this well, but I'm looking for non-trivial bits of understanding of democracy that are best found through ancient Greek philosophy.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
In one of the foundation books, I think it's Prelude to the Foundation-- I read them out of order and over a decade ago-- Hari Seldon does his psychohistory on a society that has somehow preserved itself as a microcosm of the Universe. The reason being that this microcosm held a distilled version of all of the important problems that were facing the universe. Studying fifth and fourth century Greece is useful for the same reasons.

The perspicuity of the Greek language--even the existence of definite and indefinite articles-- and the organization of the polity allowed for Greek men who had very little to concern themselves with but the slings and arrows of religion and democracy and politics. You had a distinct public realm, made up of landed citizens who served as the head of their families and would emerge from their homes, their private realms, into a common sphere and discuss the affairs of the state, or statehood itself.

This was all very new in the history of the world, and since science had lagged so far behind, everything in the world was moral. The sun rose in the morning because the sun is supposed to rise in the the morning. And if it doesn't, the avenging Erinyes will right it's course. Things fall because they are made of earth are returning back to earth where they belong. Or if rocks or branches decided to go up instead of down, the avenging Erinyes will bring the thing to the ground. If someone broke a promise, you got it, the avenging Erinyes would the be enforcers. All laws, human or nature, were moral laws.

The upshot of science being so bad was that the study of character, morality, and humanity could flourish, and the fourth and fifth century B.C. Athens gave us discussions, debates and inquires leading to the birth of democracy and procedural justice by people who were figuring out the virtues and the vices of those institutions and their morally interesting faults.

Take the Oresteia, for example, the Ascheylus trilogy shows a people who were going from blood vengence as a way to right wrongs-- "you killed my father, so I must kill you in hot-blooded anger"-- to a jury trial-- "you killed your mother, now get a lawyer who is going to serve as your mouthpiece, then sit down and behave cooly like a good defendent." It's a myth about the origin of procedural justice, and it hits quite a few of the problems we currently suffer with our procedural justice system, and what kind of citizenry must we have for jury system to seem adequate. One of the more interesting aspects of that play for me is Orestes having to be taught to behave and be tamed before he is ready to undergo the trial. At the time when he murder's his mother, the guy is wild with vengence, and by the time he shows up for the trial, he is as neat and orderly in appearance and demeanor as a mid-level secretary. Why did he have to change? And who did he have to become for procedural justice(in his case, and acquittal) to become him?

Aristotle in Politics makes clear that freedom and slavery depend on the free man being emancipated from having to provide the necessities of life. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Founding Fathers were similarly emancipated. Aristotle rightly understood that no man who had to work for a living could be a citizen, and that freedom consists of status, personal inviolability, freedom of economic activity, and the right of unrestricted movement, and even craftsmen lived in a condition of limited slavery, meaning that the artisan, when he makes a work contract, disposes of two of the four elements of his free status [viz., of freedom of economic activity and right of unresticted movement].

So even now, when we talk about spreading freedom, we need to make sure that we aren't just moving the kinds of limited slavery around. I'm not talking about people across the world-- although there are international repercussions-- I'm talking about Americans. If you take Aristotle's view-- and it's not Aristotle's view as much as he is looking at nature of freedom in a democracy-- this Protestant work ethic where everyone has an obligation to go out and get a job is just an advertisement to throw yourself into limited slavery, so before we get on a horse to sell freedom, we should be honest about the Protestant freedom we are selling, because the Protestant freedom we are selling is vastly different from the Greek freedom consistent with democracy. In some ways, Saudi men are more free than whole classes of people in the United States.

I've been thinking lately about the Plato's Protagoras. There is a myth about Prometheus and how he gave man the mechanical arts with which to stay alive- make shoes, build houses, etc-- but he did not give man a sense of justice and reverence(Because only Zeus could give those out), and how the mechanical arts could be doled out unevenly, not everyone needed to know how to make shoes or build a house, but that every citizen needed a sense of justice and reverence for the survival of the city, and if a citizen shows himself not to have a sense of justice and reverence, the citizen needed to be put to death, for a sense of justice or reverence are a plague to the city. I find this a provocative myth, and you better believe it informs my hestitancy towards vocational education.

In the Plato's Euthryphro, Socrates shows the complication of trying to compare the disparate wills of the different gods, as opposed to trying to weigh two substances of matter. The former are incomparable, but we are forced to choose, necessarily offending a god, the latter is merely a matter of having a scale. You'd be surprised how many people are comfortable trying to measure incomparable alternatives, and blithely look pass the difficulties Plato spells out. We've even made whole disciplines out of the "science" of comparing the incomparable.

Why must Socrates be put to death for not worshipping the gods of the city? What does that say about religion and politics, and is that related to the fact that it may be hard to elect a non-Christian US president?

These are issues I've thought of off the top of my head, but in general Attic Greece is a worthy study because you get the problems of religion and democracy right at democracy's inception, and to a large extent, we've accepted the institution of democracy and procedural justice without giving enough thought to the problems with and assumptions that went along with democracy at that institution's beginning. The Greeks concerned themselves with these problems, and did so without any economic concerns to muddle their thinking.

In short, we study Ancient Greek for the same reason that Americans legal scholars study the Federalist papers.

[ August 12, 2006, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
this Protestant work ethic where everyone has an obligation to go out and get a job
No one is obliged to get a job. But neither should anyone else be obliged to subsidize them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Irami, I'm having a hard time differentiating your idealized "freedom" from a Quixotic desire for freedom from natural causes. No two individuals can live together in complete and utter freedom unless they exercise that freedom by making choices that necessarily limit it.

I must not understand your "limited slavery" bit, or if I do I can't see how it is avoidable except by creating a ruling class and making everyone else limited slaves. In other words, can you describe to me a functional society where everyone is a true, free, citizen (by your definitions)?

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I must not understand your "limited slavery" bit, or if I do I can't see how it is avoidable except by creating a ruling class and making everyone else limited slaves. In other words, can you describe to me a functional society where everyone is a true, free, citizen (by your definitions)?
KarlEd,

Democracy wasn't meant for everyone. It wasn't even meant for everyone when we founded this nation, because there all of these non-democratic things-- like cooking, cleaning, and generally earning a living-- that must be done and that are undemocratic.

This conception only becomes truly problematic with the advent of universal sufferage, where not only men of the leisure class vote, but those with the sensibilities of wives and slaves vote also.

To the Ancient Greek, letting women and slaves vote is as inappropriate as we understand letting current felons and minors vote.

In application, freedom, voting, civil service, law, and public activity-- including activity in competitions-- was supposed to be considered an ennobling aspect of human activity, but because biological life required so much labor-- someone had to cook, clean, and travail, that is, concern themselves with economics(greek for household laws)--- not everyone was expected to be a fully realized human. They, and we, needed people to labor ceaselessly in the shadows. Before we snub our nose on the ancients, I'm not sure how differently we treat illegal immigrants.

I'm not saying that this is how it should be, or that we should revert back to antiquity, I'm saying that these are legitimate problems that attend democratic institutions, and attempting universal sufferage is a huge endeavor.

Most interesting result of the breakdown of this public/free/democratic and the private/slave/hierarchical realms is that not only are there new problems that come along with expecting women and laborers to act in the public sphere-- including how do we duly educate all of them?-- the rules of economics have leaked out of the house like an invasive species and contaminated public life.

[ August 12, 2006, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for that Irami.

quote:
the rules of economics have leaked out of the house like an invasive species contaminate public life.
Can you give me some specific examples, so I can further understand your point?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
Take the greek acceptance of homosexuality. Isn't it strange to go from a homophobic society, to a homophilic society in Athens Greece, back to a homophobic society in modern times? The homophilia of Athens is directly related to its democracy.

The stark division between public and private placed all of those impulses born of biological necessity: eating, procreation, hygiene in the realm of the private. Everyone did it, everyone had to do it, and at the end of the day, you were hungry, horny, and dirty, like every other animal. Taking care of those needs was a mark of your cyclical sympathetic metabolism with nature. The sun goes up and down everyday. Waves ebb and flow. Everything that comes from the earth, goes back to the earth, wheat is made into bread consumed and shat back to the earth, to be turned into fertilizer and consumed again in a relentless cycle.

Nothing done in the home was meant to last. Nobody sang songs of or heralded the arrival of dinner. An artisan could do one better, because at least he could make an object that could be taken out of the cycle of nature and last for the world, earn a place in immortality that way. It would take longer for the cruel hand of nature to consume a table than it would for nature to consume a loaf of bread, and it's easier to see the kernel of wheat in the bread than it is to see the tree in a table.

The table could be a public thing.

The most public things were speech and public action, for they were communicable, and could live in the mind of a people. They showcased a human's emergence as an individual of consequence, that nature could not snuff out, speech and action dignified man and gave him a shot at immortality. The efficiency of speech or action did not matter, only the chance for the speech or action to earn a place in immortality.

Economics, or the laws of the household, are born out of efficiency and biological necessity, producing goods that are immediately consumable, destroyed, and forgetten.

The public competitions and speeches in the polis were for men who exalted their humanity and character and tried to carve out a place in immortality in the minds of men.

Homosexuality between men in the polis was common because men felt closer to each other there, in a more important way, than they were to the women with whom they went home to procreate with out of biological necessity.

Plato's Symposium, his great discourse on Love, assumes that true love, that more human closeness that comes from being part of a community, is what happens between men in a polis, and whatever goes on at home is of a lesser, bestial quality propelled by nature for the continuation of a species, a pleasant drudgery like eating.

The modern claim that homosexuality is bad because it is not natural is an example of the laws of economy leaking into the public sector, and that's none more apparent then when people say that men shouldn't be together because they can't procreate. The greeks would look at us and say that were exalting our animal side at the expense of our humanity.
___________

That's just one issue. When Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid," to answer a question as to the number one priority for this nation, rather than truth, beauty, or the individual quest for immortality, he showed himself to be yet another forgettable president, as opposed to say Kennedy, who with 1000 days and few good speeches, earned his way into history and heartened a generation.

Another example of economics holding too much sway is when we think of people as consumers, and play to their base biological needs rather than to their capacity for dignity. Economy comes into play when we take morality out of picture and just speak in terms of necessity, force, pressure, law, and efficiency, as opposed to character and dignity. This is why Newtonian science tends towards economy.

There is a reason Athenian democracy didn't last too long. When your public life is full of men concerning themselves with truth, beauty, and morality, it's easier for a country with a stronger, tougher army to come in and wipe you out.

Economics is concerned with the efficient production of consumable, employable, useable goods.
Depending on what kind of democracy we are, that's fine. If we are the kind of factionalized democracy that only exists for the efficient flow of goods, a society privileging economics in all public relationships is appropriate. It's a smash and grab and take everything that you can because you can under the law sort of nation. My gut says that that'll lead to a very forgettable nation. Kind of like all of those Daniel Steele books, commercially viable but bereft of dignity.

If we cast off the yoke of economy, or at least boldly relegate it to our third or fourth priority, then we have a chance at becoming great, in a vulnerable, beautiful way, depending on our care and wisdom, kind of like Hart's Hope.

There isn't an easy answer. It's a central question. Do you aim to be safe, secure, and ultimately forgettable when you go into the ground, or do you take the chance, and all you get is a chance, no guarantees, to exalt something grander. It's a question we ask ourselves individually, and it's a question we must ask ourselves as a nation. (Secretly, I think Christians get a cheat because they get to live a forgettable economic life on earth, thinking that God will reward them with immortality in heaven for their moral mediocrity, but that's my opinion.)

There are smarter people who have written better essays on economy and politics. I think that Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition is one of the better books I've read on the subject. But a serious study of the issue involves reading Plato's Ion, Protagoras, Euthyphro; or Aeschylus' Oresteia. It's not easy, but the study is illuminating.

[ August 10, 2006, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
So, and I'm almost sure I don't understand this correctly, you disgaree with modern democracy and think we should move towards an oligarchy of slave owners?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
No.

Here is a quote from my first post.

quote:
I'm not saying that this is how it should be, or that we should revert back to antiquity, I'm saying that these are legitimate problems that attend democratic institutions, and attempting universal sufferage is a huge endeavor.
I actually don't think that we are currently a democracy with universal sufferage, nor do I believe that being a majority rule democracy is the most important feature of our government, especially if we understand each citizen to be merely a self-interested unit, and the voting process to be a rude measurement of economically self-interested units.

The entire voting procedure of a majority rule democracy is one of those procedures of suspicious moral worth that needs to be examined to begin with.

[ August 10, 2006, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
So far as I can tell, this:
quote:
Aristotle rightly understood that no man who had to work for a living could be a citizen, and that freedom consists of status, personal inviolability, freedom of economic activity, and the right of unrestricted movement, and even craftsmen lived in a condition of limited slavery, meaning that the artisan, when he makes a work contract, disposes of two of the four elements of his free status [viz., of freedom of economic activity and right of unresticted movement].
Is necessarily endorsing slavery of some for the benefit of a priviledged class. If that's not what you meant, could you explain to me what you did mena?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is a reason Athenian democracy didn't last too long. When your public life is full of men concerning themselves with truth, beauty, and morality, it's easier for a country with a stronger, tougher army to come in and wipe you out.
What? The Athenians weren't spending their time sitting around, peacefully minding their own business, concerning themselves only with truth, beauty, and morality. I mean, some people were, and those things were topics of interest for the polis, but I think that you're painting too simplistic and idealized a picture both of Athens and of the geo-political situation that led to the Athenians' eventual defeat at the hands of the Spartans.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote from Irami--

"When Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid," to answer a question as to the number one priority for this nation, rather than truth, beauty, or the individual quest for immortality, he showed himself to be yet another forgettable president, as opposed to say Kennedy, who with 1000 days and few good speeches, earned his way into history and heartened a generation. "

According to my readings, most presidential scholars see Kennedy as a very average president. His semi-deification is like that of Charles Darwin's--substantially undeserved.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
MrSquicky,

That paragraph was simply to show that what we think of as democratic freedom can be reasonably construed as limited slavery, and that an equally appropriate conception of freedom, the kind which Aristotle describes, is markedly different.

Noemen,

And the founding father's weren't all arm-chair intellectuals who had never toiled a day in their life, but the character of both nations and the quality of work produced would have been different if the Greek voting class and the founding fathers spent 10 hours a day slaving in a coal mine.

_____

The issue isn't whether we think that Greeks or the founders were democratic, it's that they considered themselves democratic, with that earnest and fantastic capacity to forget to care about the humanity of everyone who was laboring.

I, personally, think that we are similarly blessed with that selective vision in our "democracy," and I think that there are practical reasons for doing this that need to be addressed if we are to go forward and attempt a true universal democracy. I also think that there are good reasons to scrap the whole enterprise.

quote:
According to my readings, most presidential scholars see Kennedy as a very average president. His semi-deification is like that of Charles Darwin's--substantially undeserved.
And MLK was just a preacher. I used to go to a meeting of young civil leaders. The membership changed from week to week and invariably, anytime a thorny situation arose a new member would quote an excerpt of a Kennedy speech, completely unaware that two weeks ago, another new member had quoted Kennedy to address a different problem. With Kennedy and with King, their esteem is wholly dependent upon what they had the wisdom and courage to say. When one speech can not only create the peace corp, but entice thousands of people to join, then you are doing okay in my book.

[ August 10, 2006, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
But you said that you agree that people can't be citizens if they had to work for a living. What is that supposed to mean then?

edit:

Also, a great many of our Founding Fathers also worked for a living. Ben Franklin spring immediately to mind. Thomas Paine is another noteworthy example.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
Democracy takes time and attention. It's not just a matter of showing up and punching a ballot, but as time and energy are finite, and if you have to labor to survive, that labor can and often does exhaust your time and corrupt your attention such to make you an inadequate citizen.

If citizenship depends of freedom, and freedom depends on the emancipation from the necessities of labor, the person who is living to work, to eat, to sleep, maybe watching a little of reality television to break up the monotony, isn't free and may not be adequate to the demands of citizenship.

I don't want to restrict the vote any farther, but I do think that before we ship our version of democracy and freedom all over the world, and if we are to address the problems of democracy and freedom at home, we should to take a hard look at the demands of citizenship and freedom.

[ August 10, 2006, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

I don't want to restrict the vote any farther, but I do think that before we ship our version of democracy and freedom all over the world, and if we are to address the problems of democracy and freedom at home, we need to take a hard look at the demands of citizenship and freedom.

You don't want to, but do you think its neccesary?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
Necessary? No. Will the whole world collapse if we don't? No, I don't think so. I'm not a doomsday theorist, and I think that economy will hold the world together even when dignity flees. Furthermore, I think that some unilateral, external power restricting the vote will cause more harm than good.

The world and democracy will endure in some form, whether the populace is free or bound by chains or labor. I do think that the world and democracy will go on with a little bit more virtue if this conversation were generally diffused among the voting masses. Then again, it's possible that we(as a member of the voting mass) are too busy producing, marketing, and selling widgets for our daily bread to listen.

[ August 10, 2006, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure that I'm reading what Irami is saying exactly right. But here's my takeon what he's driving at:

Its not possible to be a fully functioning member of democracy if you have to labor for you living in certain ways. As long as we don't understand that, then our democracy can never function ideally. Until we understand our own democracy, and its flaws, it doesn't make sense ot try to export it.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
That's my take on it too, and I can certainly see his point. Further, I think we've lost any sense of humility as a country, and that we've bought into the idea of American superiority to the point that we no longer define our country as striving for the best (if we ever really did), but define "the best" as whatever our country strives to do.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
Here is an excerpt from a white house press release: Guest worker program

quote:
Second, new immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our country. If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job.

Third, we should not give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in the citizenship process or disadvantage those who came here lawfully, or hope to do so.

Fourth, new laws should provide incentives for temporary, foreign workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired.

Today, I ask the Congress to join me in passing new immigration laws that reflect these principles, that meet America's economic needs, and live up to our highest ideals.

I cut out the first point because it was a long statement about making sure that we don't let in terrorists as guest workers.

But does anybody see how this could be construed as an example of America fulfilling it's economic needs by welcoming in a slave class. By Aristotle's light, we are withholding status(these people aren't allowed the benefits of universal sufferage) and freedom of economic activity(if the worker wants to quit, or change jobs to one that pays well, or one that is in competition with a citizen, then the worker can't or is deported.)

There is a certain class of work that is unfulfilling, inhumane, relentlessly labor intensive, and economic. In Athens, that work was blithely shipped off to women and slaves so that the men were left to engage in non-labor activities and play at being democrats.

Since we are endeavoring at universal Democracy, getting all of this labor done becomes a more ticklish issue. I think that the morality of universal democracy poses an interesting the problem for labor in society.

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
It's so unfulfilling and inhumane that they'll break any law they have to to come over here and do it.

They're not Slaves.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm talking about the opinions of people who have studied the presidential administrations of every president since Washington. The more they study them, the less they deify Kennedy. I think you probably don't study presidents as a primary field. That's not an insult. Most people who haven't looked into the history of presidents deify him.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In application, freedom, voting, civil service, law, and public activity-- including activity in competitions-- was supposed to be considered an ennobling aspect of human activity, but because biological life required so much labor-- someone had to cook, clean, and travail, that is, concern themselves with economics(greek for household laws)--- not everyone was expected to be a not-fully realized human. They, and we, needed people to labor ceaselessly in the shadows. Before we snub our nose on the ancients, I'm not sure how differently we treat illegal immigrants.

I'm not saying that this is how it should be, or that we should revert back to antiquity, I'm saying that these are legitimate problems that attend democratic institutions, and attempting universal sufferage is a huge endeavor.

I find this very insightful.

One thing that gives me hope about our civilization is that we handle a lot of the thankless work using automation, and it seems possible that one day human labor won't be needed for any of this work.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
citadel
Member
Member # 8367

 - posted      Profile for citadel   Email citadel         Edit/Delete Post 
Very provocative thread. Gives me a lot to think about.

quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
It's so unfulfilling and inhumane that they'll break any law they have to to come over here and do it.

They're not Slaves.

Well it largely depends on how you define your terms, in this case the term "slave"

According to Dictionary.com a slave is:
"One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence"

According to Dictionary.com abject means:
"Brought low in condition or status.
Being of the most miserable kind; wretched: abject poverty."

I think many of illegal immigrants working in the fields 10-12 hours a day doing back breaking work in the Central Valley in CA is some of toughest any person can do. It's 100 degrees or hotter for much of the summer.

We talk about how people are living below the poverty line because minimum wage is too low. Well these workers don't get minimum wage. They live in poverty without access to decent health care in some cases. They have no voting rights though they are of voting age. They can't get a better job because it's illegal to do it. I can see these can be seen slaves.

Not all illegals fit this mold, but some do. And they qualify for what we could call a slave class.

Yet they chose to come here because they believed the conditions in the native land were worse.

Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2