What did democracy really mean in Athens? - Melissa Schwartzberg
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 мар 2015
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/what-did-de... ↵↵While we might consider elections to be the cornerstone of democracy, the Athenians who coined the term actually employed a lottery system to choose most of their politicians. Melissa Schwartzberg describes the ins and outs of the Athenian democracy, and addresses some ways in which a lottery system might benefit us today. ↵↵Lesson by Melissa Schwartzberg, animation by TED-Ed.
One of the biggest problems with modern democracy is it requires so much money to get elected that their job often becomes just fundraising.
only in countries like the US where there is a huge ratrace between candidates to have the most budget. This problem is a lot smaller in most European countries.
@@sandervossen8850 There has to be a way to fix most of these problems through reform, but I haven't seen it yet.
literally becomes a game lol of promotion and resources. "profesionals" its no longer about actual society, its about whose in power, it seems more like an oligarchy and demagogic situation right now. lol
being a politician has been a career in its own right, rather than a public service.
Yeah, democracy only works on a small scale, the bigger it grows the harder it is to tell it apart from a plutocracy
Whose else’s online assignment is this? 😂😂
Lmao
Mine
HAHAHAHA SAMEE
I’m failing
Me
Everyone in the comments is like "oh school assignment ugh" and I'm over here procrastinating school work and writing a storyline-
Thank you for this idea.
@Zackary Plain ty bestie
@Zackary Plain you better not be, my parents havent divorced or remarried... plus it would be confusing, i alr have a brother named zachary, which is the better spelling btw.
@Zackary Plain my dog died a month ago. I had her for all of my childhood. you arent being very accurate, are you catfishing me?
based
POV: ur in school rn
Ron no deberías estar en pociones con Snape?
ha ya
true
More like studyin
facts i am
Winning the Lottery equalled being chosen by the gods by Ancient Athenian standards. So people thought the gods were choosing you to serve in government back then.
Sauce?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- Sir Winston Churchill
Biran Falk-Dotan You seem to have missed the point of the lecture. Voting has nothing to do with democracy. Voting is oligarchical. Democracy requires sortition.
+Yoram Gat very true
came from the old aristocracy, elitist, not interested in what he has to say.
You mean the same Churchill that sent over on three consecutive nights carpet bombers over dresden (a town with no military significance at all) and also agreed to dropping incendiary devices along with the bombs. Dresden lost more innocent lives in the resulting firestorms than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. That guy is not someone I would listen to who cares about citizens.
Winston Churchill actually never said this. It is common for people to misquote him on this. He actually had a pretty positive view towards democracy and the electorate within.
I have always been of the opinion that all legislators and government officials should be drawn by lottery, just like jury duty. This eliminates corruption and the need for campaigning, saving tons of money as well in the process and allowing legislators to be focused on the task at-hand rather than constantly being focused on their re-election, like they currently are.
I agree, I would add drawn from a pool of qualified volunteers who pass written exams on several topics such as logic, history, geography, math, etc. If you can't think or have minimum knowledge you shouldn't be making political decisions.
While I understand what you're saying, do you think a job like that requires at least some minimum level of expertise? That would be like drawing lots to decide which passenger will fly the plane.
you have public servants to be experts, government should make informed decisions, not more@@josephstarkey8183
You ever heard of Paul Cockschott? He's an economist and computer scientist who advocates for this.
@josephstarkey8183 valid point, but there are ways to resolve this. Paul Cockschott talks about having different categories (I don't remember specifics) in which certain positions are decided by lot for those qualified (e.g. someone leading a science program would have to have that qualification - so the pool of potential leaders is limited to experts) whereas other, let's say national or local positions that require less specialization, are open to eligible citizens. It's something along those lines if I remember correctly. There are lots of other details that come to play that I'm probably missing.
Thanks for uploading, cleared some of my questions that we are learning in History class.
Same ikr
6 years agoo
Thank You TED-Ed i really needed to research some new things about Athens for a school project, You were the only one so far that i found that made it easy to understand as well as making it quick to! i didn't waste my time :)
Another video that, in my opinion, should be seen by all highschool students.
Nah it's more interesting if you search it yourself because you'll be bored to death if it's a explain by a teacher
I am 🤩
I’m a high school student and my teacher played this for us.
i am now in history class lol. we are learning ab politics haahha
im in 6th grade and i have to watch this lmao
It helped me a lot to understand the point of "the begin of democrcy" of my greece unit in history ¡¡¡¡¡
Ilove it, it is really well done...
This is important stuff. I was rejected from Cambridge even after acing the interview because I failed to recognise a trick question about sortition in the subsequent exam. I learnt to never underestimate the importance of classics.
wow thats crazy, sorry to hear.
What was the question?
아테네에서 민주주의의 진실한 의미에 대하여 배워보는 시간이 되었습니다. 정말 재미있는 시간이 되었습니다. 배우며 더 성장하는것을 느낍니다. 정말 감사합니다. 응원합니다!!!
i agree
english?
Is there a democracy parallel in Asia? I'm curious.
@@viniciuslessa9682They once had a dominating political philosophy called "democracy". It's not the democracy in the western sense as it means the people are central to the state so kings have a duty to put the people's interest before theirs. This is in contrast to the west's participatory democracy.
@@viniciuslessa9682 The comment is written by a South Korean (since the language is Korean, and North Koreans don't have access to yt). South Korea is ruled democratically, just like the states.
Platos argument was far more nuanced making a distinction between the good and the bad for of "democracy".
for Plato there was a distinction between Democracy and Politocracy.
For him a democracy was a society ruled by the mob, violently temperamental whose only value was that the majority (50% +1) approved of an initiative even though this decision had no real merit or would ultimately harm the whole constituency.
Whereas Politocracy was always open to the public (by ancient standards so no slaves and foreigners) but the assembly would govern for the well being of everyone, that would mean some people would have to vote in favour of things that would damage them (say higher taxes on the wealthy). Decisions would have to be unanimous as all the members of the assembly would reach the conclusion that a certain decision was the best for the well being of all within the Polis.
So why would sortition be any worse than elected representatives who are easily corrupted? I can't see how it could be any worse only a lot better. Even after selection candidates would still need to show competence in the roll chosen. In Athens those who were not fit for the task (via aptitude test) were simply deselected and someone else randomly selected. What makes any of our current politicians any smarter than your average joe?
Can u tell me the answers?
Cheeto
It seems ideal to combine random selection with election, the ability for the people to select from a set of candidates. We could:
- randomly select a set of candidates (X per office)
- give them each a fixed amount of campaign resources and don't allow fund raising
- require each to get roughly equal coverage time from the media
- ensure debates are held and rules enforced (e.g. time limits per response)
- let the affected constituents vote from amongst the available candidates
This has the advantages of random selection (no more career politicians willing to sell out to stay in office) without the downside of just assigning offices randomly. If a complete psycho is randomly selected as a candidate, odds are that there would be better candidates selected to campaign for the same office, and that should be exposed through the campaign process, giving the psycho less of a chance of of being elected. Our current system doesn't prevent this because narcissistic psychos can have huge campaign budgets and receive grossly unequal media coverage (for ratings).
What is most difficult with applying Athenian-style democracy is to have citizens willing to take part in politics on an everyday basis. Compared to them we look more like the shaded part of the circle at the end of your video. There were also other things setting them apart, like recall elections and ostracism, but I guess you can't tell everything in one video!
It's a vast topic, and we're still having debates till this day even after exploring various events surrounding people like Cicero and Suleiman (whose governmental structures gave us both the insights and perils of power balances as well as who gets to decide the fate of a body politic). Since the social contract debate, we're still wrestling with questions on where government should derives its legitimacy from, or even where rights come from.
Given how we select people to decide the fate of the accused, I can see how adding a political lottery would make sense. There is hardly any doubt, however, that a lottocratic system would add a new layer of representation - even in our current forms of government - and bolster civic engagement when participants are well-prepared and compensated to undertake such tasks.
The resurgence of admiration towards Athenian-style democracy seem to began during the interwar period, with Hannah Arendt being a firm believer in people engaging with each other in the public realm. Having regular discussions on important topics, even in our downtime, would arguably be crucial to give meaning to our institutions, but a lot of us are in a position not to bring them up because our actions seem to have less meaning under our current political landscape, which to Arendt puts us in a vulnerable position.
@@Peter_Siri Exactly. It is the political lottery that led to the open nature of Athenian Democracy. With election by vote the easiest way to enact political change is to vote, but with election by lottery the easiest way to enact political change is to convince as many people as possible of your position. Personally, I think the best political system would be a constitutional democracy with a bill of rights. Too bad when people hear the term democracy they automatically think election by vote instead of the original definition of the word.
Ostrichism sounds fun
One thing feeds into the other. If we had athenian style democracy, it would foster a culture of being involved in politics, everyone would be thinking about how they would improve their society in case they get sorted
With our current system many people dont give a damn, since they feel nothing they do will really matter anyway
A good complement to this talk is the Princeton Study ("Testing theories of American Politics", 2014) which demonstrates the US is no democracy, but an oligarchy. (probably the same for all other countries who claim they are democracies, but we miss the statistical studies to prove it). The illusion we live in a democracy comes from the fact that oligarchs and ordinary people sometimes share the same interests, and from "social class-blind" topics like gay rights (the evolution of the way homosexuals have been perceived in the last decades is more or less similar in the richest, poorest and middle-class parts of the population.).
unbelievable animation! :D .. good job!
I prefer the lotteries where you win lots of cash rather than have to do lots more work.
Jury duty is still around...in common law countries anyway.
I've long said, we should make federal office like jury duty. Nice to see history bears this out.
I feel like the best democracy would be kind of like the one in Athens; all people would have the right to propose a law or speak to the crowd, but a group of people chosen by citizens would be able to make the final decision through voting.
That would be utter chaos.
You're an idiot and you missed the entire point of the Athenian democracy.
We would have World War III in a matter of weeks.
Totally agree big bad wolf
It's just a lil more complex than that tho. I live in England, UK and if a petition gets 10,000 signatures- BY LAW the government has to respond and if it gets 100,000 then it gets a debate. Technically when it hits 100,000 the petition is "considered" & not guaranteed a debate but literally all of the petitions that hit this are debated plus some others that MPs agree with/find interesting and may have less than the minimum. In terms of referendums, technically it is a 'suggestion' here but to ignore the outcome would be political suicide & trust me, there would be riots. I do like the switzerland system much more tho, much more set in stone :) Politics hurts my head haha
The only qualification for gaining public officer in the U.S. appears to be how much money you can raise.
US democracy needs a reboot ASAP.
yes
No what been broke for 230 plus years can't be fixed
@@ronaldomontero3624in an ideal world it could be fixed.
Very informative and easy to understand. Thanks!
To successfully achieve your goal, I believe that relying on a single idea won't suffice. Instead, it's essential to strategically plan out a course of action and tactfully handle any obstacles that may arise along the way. I believe it's the people who truly define this system. Autocracies or democracies? It depends on who's operating systems that matter. I think that every culture should value having strong mental and emotional well-being, which allows individuals to be adaptable, wise, and brave in their everyday lives.
WHY DOES EVERY HISTORY TEACHER ASSIGN US TO WATCH THIS VIDEO ANS ANSWER QUESTIONS ON IT LMAO 🤣
I smirk when people think we have a “Democracy” here in America. The word isn’t even mentioned once in our Constitution.
Its the shortest codified constitution in the world, of course it won't.
This was a big help in understanding today
It’s hella funny that all the comments are about school cus this is an assignment for me too lol
Who else hates this school assignments.
I think the presidency and Cabinet positions should be reserved for experts, but maybe the Senate and House could stand to be filled through a lottery, with strict rules that laws can't be passed if the legislators don't understand them (to prevent the lawyers from taking over).
Alternatively, you could keep an elected upper house for the same purpose
In Politics, Aristotle wrote, "... the appointment of magistrates by lot is democratic, and the election of them oligarchic...." Selecting public officials by lottery (i.e. sortition) is the defining characteristic of democracy. If you don't, it's not democracy.
Fact:
No sheep herder who relies on his sheep to sustain his living has ever set the sheep free or asked them their opinion.
Yeah but I don't particularly want to be a sheep, myself.
lol true
That's why Greece's version of democracy is superior to the american democracy
@@user-ht3tp3uj4v far superior in ever way
Fact:
Both politicians and their fellow citizens are people, neither group are sheep.
I feel that all systems of government are disastrously flawed, because people are disastrously flawed in of themselves and will inevitably corrupt anything they labor to create indefinitely.
very informative!!
I didn’t pay attention and this is due at the end of class, thanks
ahh playdough
great phillosopher
yet still just a toy
arie brons
a large sceptic
yet really malleable
+arie brons Sounds a lot like haiku coming from Charlie Brown :D
I just understood that now XD
arie brons lol playdoh
I think some people make it overly complicated. I just think we should set time to discuss each topic and put everything to a vote. Include everyone who is old enough to vote, of any skin color, of any class, of any gender, and of any sexual orientation. Really put the power and say in the hands of the people that live in and are affected the most by the changes. Cut out middle men and just ask the people what they think. Many times, they have the best insight.
It is a nice presentation but it contains a rather glaring error by saying that Plato was against sortition. In his final, posthumous work, The Laws, Plato spends several chapters on how he would implement sortition in the planned city.
Excellent. Thank you!
Can you guys do a video explaining what a republic is and how it's different from a democracy? What is the U.S., a republic or a full democracy?
It is a republic as the sovereign power derives from the people, the people are to own the government of the US and it is not the private property of any individual or class. Inherited political power (at least de jure, de facto it is more limited although it is possible to bypass it with luck) is prohibited, as are all titles of nobility. All civil officers of the US are subject to removal upon them being found unsatisfactory by a certain degree, a monarch can't usually be removed once installed even if they were chosen by a group of people like the Holy Roman Emperor.
The US is a democracy, as the power to retain office and the powers with it are derived from having the confidence of a relatively large fraction of the population. Not nearly as many as countries like Finland, but still much larger than the amount by which the US could be restricted to a certain class alone and a relatively large fraction of the benefits in society have to flow to the population without the ability to allocate them only to those who support you (such as highways). It's not as much of a fraction as many other countries like Finland as I mentioned, but enough to be called a basic democracy.
I think your voice is starting to grow on me ted ed
Plato was right: lottery politics results in rule by the fools most of the time. But current methods result in rule by the tricky, since most people are easily fooled. Why be ruled at all?
We are too many on this planet and cannot live without being ruled (to some degree).
izybit izybit What does the amount of people in a population have to do with rules?
George Cataloni
Everything actually. If you do not have "unlimited" resources and land you will have to compete with others for the same resources and piece of land.
This means that either the strongest (person/group) will win or the weakest will seek a fair ruling. This protection will come from a type of government or military power.
izybit izybit You're referring to protection. Why can't people just work together voluntarily if they want protection, instead of forcing some people to pay for protection they do not want?
George Cataloni
Well, it's not only about protection. It is also about making decisions that will affect in the long run a lot of people around you.
If, for example, I want to dump my waste in the river the people next to me will have to deal with it. Or, if I want to create a dam in my land the people down the river will not have access to said river anymore.
Without a "command center" that listens to everyone's opinion before making a decision (and forcing its execution) the problems will pile up really fast.
If people "work together" you get the equivalent of the small city states of Greece or, worse, a bunch of local tribes that "hold the absolute truth" and will fight to enforce their opinion.
If at this point you want to argue that all people on planet earth can "work together" I will just say that you are completely naive. Humans have a brain that allows them to do whatever they want if they decide it and those decisions are heavily affected by feelings. With this perk (feelings are really useful actually) comes the small problem of immoral/selfish/criminal behavior which is the reason non-lobotomized people will never manage to create a utopian society without someone enforcing the ideal behavior (something like the movie Equilibrium comes to mind).
I do however believe that some day (probably 200-1000 years from now) humans will gain access to "unlimited" resources (through advanced technology and space exploration) and at that point they will have to decide if utopia or dystopia is what they want to live in.
PS.: This is of course only my opinion but I know that it is the truth and that's the only thing that matters.
love your videos TED - Ed!!!
Fantastic one..
I'm from Greece so I can understand all the words ! We are taught that in school
aww so lucky! You can probably read a lot of old literature, or the new testament
@@geraldinethomas463 yeah, so lucky! I consider Ancient Greek/Koine Hellenon as the best language ever
3:29 I like that hand gesture XDDD
Great resource
I love how we all have this assignment
Can you make a video explaining how Xenu came into power? Thanks
I say that the best form of government should be ran by... computers. preferably Win98
Joseph Fox Better then Vista
Setting laws...
Scanning...
ERR_
FILE NOT FOUND_
RESETTING...
*beep*
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
ERR_404-
Press any button to terminate PC...
SHUTTING DOWN
"Well shit."
+Joseph Fox perhaps it wouldn't change much, after all, you'd still have a large number of people complaining about PC.
Well, yes, except for the fact that unless this is a true AI (which can get dystopian in it's own way) the programming for that computer would have to have been written by someone who could very easily slip in their own biases.
Nora El Naby alright so we will have to suffer a bunch of meme references in government documents and we might have doom level designed buildings thats the price to pay to have a giant computer dictate our entire lives I say better then (insert Democratic process here)
The founding fathers dreaded the thought of our country becoming a democracy
John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
This is why they gave us a republic and not a democracy where were ruled by law and not by people.
Amen brother.
Democracy rules by law, not by the people. People approved a law, and america's founding fathers (as you call them - never got this term) gave you a Republic because it's easier to rule the people, not because is more just. Not to mention that a Republic is more flexible and receptive to all kinds of corruption, and your founding fathers were ...politicians who you idealized.
@nanda erdhani The terms Republic and Democracy dont fit together. Democracy is one thing and Republic another; they're two different political systems. The US has a Republic, period. Leave Democracy outside when you argue on your political system. The modern usage of the term "Democracy" is false, and aims to mislead people from realizing that they dont have any part into any decision the state makes for them and their future.
Also, *it is false* to compare two defferent eras; the fact that women didnt vote in the Athenian Democracy means nothing; it's an insignificant detail.
Finally, even a fascist regime can protect minority's rights. One can find proofs of that in regimes in the middle east and north Africa. You just dont realize that the decisions are not being made by you, but by a small group of people. This is true for all types of political systems, except of Democracy. What you obviously fail to realize is that a Republic always was a veiled Oligarchy. Nonetheless one has to admit that in the long run, a Republic is more suitable and efficient for modern states, though this is true under certain conditions.
@@papertoyss Considering the only alternatives to democracy are oligarchy (Rule by an unelected few), and autocracy (Rule by one man), if republics are indeed completely separate and mutually exclusive with democracy, then 70% of the world is effectively a dictatorship and lacks any form of elections. Obviously that is not the case, and in all Western countries, we do participate in the democratic process through electing our representatives who should, at least in theory, represent our respective interests.
And that's why America ended up being an oligarchy.
Direct democracy rules.
Markus and how many nations that used it back in the day, survive to this day, using that system? 🧐🤔🤔🤔LOLOL
Thanks for including Hebrew subtitles even though I personally don't need it.
?
Reminder that the modern "representative democracy" was created by Jean Jacques Rousseau and he name it Elective Aristocracy, he said that the best government is an Aristocracy, the government of the best but it required to emanate from the masses, and that a real political system cannot be a pure form of the 3 basic systems (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) it had to be a combination, so Rousseau combined Aristocracy and Democracy to form Elective Aristocracy, then some corrupt politicians (USA founding fathers) rebranded Elective Aristocracy as Representative Democracy clamming some nonsense that Aristocracy is just like Democracy only with a second degree of purity.
Right to vote should be like how we license a doctor. He/she should pass series of tests/exams in order to become eligible to vote for future leaders.
👆👆Have to figure out what kind of tests, exams in detail. W/o that, it seems unlikely to be accepted.
@@kepspark3362 it could be as simple and tricky as well like. "It's a campaign period. Will you vote for a politician because he gave you a bag of rice?" "Will you vote for a politician because he's good looking or a former star?" "Will you vote for a politician because it's in your tradition to vote for their family?" I tell you, many citizens will fail this. Hiring a new leader should not be based on subjective or rushed reasons, rather objective.
@@alrizo1115 Okay. Seems reasonable so far. Any more ideas? After all, only if we conceive a system in extreme detail, we'd realize if it could work or not & even others find it acceptable. Otherwise it'd be just an ideal idea & ignored.
I live in the state of Missouri we have tried putting term limits in the state legislature. It has been a mixed bag. To quote the Post-Dispatch, "On the positive side, the law prevents a lawmaker from accumulating too much power and regularly brings in new members with fresh ideas.
But on the down side, inexperienced legislators have less knowledge of complicated issues and often start looking for their next political post soon after they arrive in the Capitol."
If you want the whole article you can find it here:
www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-term-limits-debated/article_da8898f9-6c32-53a1-bdb9-4d45fdee78f7.html
The US has weaker legislatures than many others around the world. They are stifled by the risk of gubernatorial vetoes, the lack of influence over the selection and tenure of the executive, often very badly funded legislative research services and staff, campaign finance laws that make them constantly campaigning and soliciting financial aid, very long campaigns that happen very frequently, short session lengths, strong control by party leaders, often gerrymandered elections and even when not gerrymandered, still with the inherent trouble of first past the post elections, and also being of relatively low size in many states compared to the population. California has 80 assembly members and 40 senators for a state with more people and more GDP than Canada with 338 members of parliament and 105 senators. Most states also have very bad transparency and ethics rules, vulnerable ethics commissions, and so on.
And also, the type of party discipline in the US makes politicians very focused on individuals and not consistent policies. A party can easily change it's opinion on just about anything just based on who happens to be chosen as their leader, with little consistently, little opportunity to do research, and poor consensus. Legislators can in contrast often with relative ease vote yes or no on the actual issues as they are brought to the legislature, meaning that any lack of knowledge they personally have in a topic is exacerbated.
The US also is very polarized and has a lot of things stacked up on it's plate from decades of neglect, like the healthcare financing system, college tuition rates, income inequality, infrastructure crumbling, and so much more that it's often hard to know where to begin, whereas if the US had been keeping pace with things over time and doing things consistently, tackling each of these issues as they came up, the US would have a lot less work for legislators to do, or at least less for them to have to decide right now.
"Unlike representative democracy today..." Yeah, it's so unlike it because the Athenians were aware of electoral systems and literally considered them to be oligarchy. "Representative democracy" has always been an Orwellian distortion of the original concept.
my pov rn: trying to do late work for history before the marking period ends
180 dislikes are from Athenians that watched this video and recognized that what they thought it was going to be a good democracy, Ted-Ed is taking it as an example for telling us to don’t follow they’re steps
Would I be able to use a few seconds of this clip for a school video??
Credit given of course!
Who got this as an assignment for class in 6th grade
Actually the elected generals were not just military commanders, but also distinguished politicians! Well, most of them! Themistocles or Pericles, for example! The institution of the "10 generals" was the elected Goverment- the executive power!
Of course that is the difficult side of things. If we use sortition and I think we should, then somehow we have to take control of both the military and Government's secrete services. Their numbers will fight like wild banshees to keep their powers and secrets, secret.
Fascinating
lets do this again :D minus the negative bits
We do it's called Jury duty. And look how enthusiastic people are to do that!
I think people would be more excited over making laws than coming to a verdict on the kid who killed his neighbour
+Erik Jarl Yes, "I want a law for free water", I want a free roof because a tree fell on mine.
@Fluffy Kat So do you think there is a better system then jury service for trials? Which one would you recommend. Of course sortition won't be perfect but, it will be an order of magnitude better than a bunch of corrupt self serving politicians.
at exactly 4:00 the poster in the baground....
Professional politicians would just be a continuation of division of labour. We don't elect or choose by lottery police officers (except sheriffs in some areas) or dentists. Some countries have stronger democracies than the broken US system. New Zealand, Sweden, and Switzerland are good examples. Parties form naturally as like-minded people join together. By utilising this, parties can prevent demagogues that only want power and not to do the will of the people (represented through a party or coalition). Parliamentary systems provide the most safeguards, IMHO.
Thanks this really helped with my assignment
Government and democracy in athens changed over time and depending on the era looked very different. As i understand it at some point after the oligarchs and tyrants were expelled, society was divided into ten tribes and each tribe had thirty something units called demes and e ery citizen belonged to deme and each deme held its only council with elected leadership and powers to make bylaws something like a town council or HOA board. Each tribe elected or appointed ( or maybe this is where a lottery came in) 50 officers to represent the in the boule (not the general assembly of which all citizens could attend); the boule being more like a peoples House of Representatives. 50 x10= 500 people. Previously the boule was 100 super rich billionaires, 100 billionaires, 100 millionaires, and 100 common citizens. This insured the plutocracy got its wishes as they do today. But the new democratic and representative boule elected or appointed administrators such as ceremonial archons. The boule set the agenda for the general assembly, moderating its discussion. And within the boule was an executive committee which ran all the day to day. This board was fifty people elected or maybe chosen by lottery from each tribe in turn, serving one month. To say there entire government or even congress was purely lottery isnt true. We would definitely benefit from a lottery today but it must be among highly educated citizens with backgrounds in the humanities( this is the purpose of humanities), and certified in civics, geopolitics, constitutional studies, landmark supreme court decisions, true history, alternative economics, sustainable development, environmental history, ecology, climate science, studies in democracy and sociology and “critical race” facts! This would be a standard exam, the only standard exam, administered at the end a four year degree in humanities and required to graduate. With this degree graduates are rewarded with the right to vote and participate in government. The congress should be one body made of professor emeritus, and graduated citizens chosen by lottery. This certificate must be required to participate. But humanities education must be free. And businesspersons must be banned from participating. The must be a wall of separation between business and democratic government. All else is doomed to failure. Moreover all business/industry must be worker cooperatives- No personal ownership except of small local businesses and artisans. Corporations must be banned forever! Corporations aren’t people. And the media must be independent and community owned. All donations/bribes to civic officers shall be forbidden and punishable by no less than ten years in prison to life and all assets and wealth confiscated and ostracism of the givers and receivers.
who has to do this for school and is super bored?
Here for the big test I have
the average person swallows 8 lobsters in their sleep each year.
???
????😐😐😐
You mean a day?
With my budget, make that 2 lobsters.
The average sucks
anyone wanna send me the notes
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:08 🏛️ Socrates and Democracy Skepticism
- Socrates, portrayed by Plato, expressed skepticism about democracy in Ancient Athens.
- In Book Six of The Republic, Socrates uses a ship analogy to highlight the flaws of democracy.
- Socrates argued that voting is a skill that requires education, and without it, democracy could lead to irresponsible decisions.
01:30 ⚖️ Socrates's Trial and Wisdom in Voting
- Socrates faced trial in 399 BC, accused of corrupting the youth; a jury sentenced him to death.
- Socrates advocated for an intellectual democracy, where only those who had thought deeply about issues should vote.
- He warned against the dangers of giving the vote without connecting it to wisdom, fearing the rise of demagoguery.
02:53 🎭 Demagoguery in Democracy
- Socrates highlighted the dangers of demagogues exploiting the desire for easy answers in elections.
- He imagined a debate between a doctor and a sweet shop owner, illustrating how voters might be swayed by superficial promises.
- Socrates warned against electing leaders based on charisma rather than rational thinking, as seen in Ancient Athens' experiences.
Made with HARPA AI
👍
have a huge test on this all 5 videos and 3 packets
This is my edpuzzle assignment
One of my ideas many years ago.. :)
Fun fact
You were assigned to do a slide presentation on limited representative democracy
Yes, I think we should have election by lottery, but not directly to hold office but to have a chance to run for office.
It wouldn't take much change to our present system. Instead of a bunch of rich people deciding for themselves with a few thousand signatures, why not just let anyone who is qualified to hold the office submit their name as a candidate in the lottery stating which office and party they intend to run for? 4 candidates would be picked for each party and they would get equal funding from their party during the primary. Its simple and fair because it isn't dependant on wealth and limits the primary candidates to 4 making it less expensive as well as introducing diversity of ideas and oppinions.
In addition we need national referendums on most federal legislation including military adventures and declarations of war.
If Demosthenes operated in a system like representative democracy rather the system that existed in Athens and Attic region in general, then he would have been successful against autocratic Macedonians
can someone post summary for this?
Is it me or does this man sound like producer Jack Ferry from Not too deep ???
Here for school 🤠
nice vid ty
Anyone else have this for Mrs.Butz’s class?
I have a test tomorrow 😅
wow they had it right. Lets do that.
Imagine you are just casually walking down the street and then some random dude just told you that you won the presidential position.
Why not both?
Socrates and Plato's Republic are a very important guide about Democracy. But Socrates and Plato's Republic were indeed prophetic and still remain topical until today. The degeneration of Democracy leads to Demagoguery and Demagoguery will lead to Tyranid.
well, in ancient Athens, the word democracy was coined as a derogatory term for the system called Isonomia, which is the one we call direct democracy today. By the way, mess in the Ecclesia has been solved in different ways in different places because oh surprise democracy isn't an exclusive invention of Greece. In other places the Ecclesia isn't an event in a central square, it is a whole process of a few months of continuous dialogue among the population. Until the population agrees on what solution is best, and guess what, in our representative democracies (not their real name) that are supposed to be faster, take in average 3 years to produce and formulate a new law, which takes public debate, polling, fund collection from the plutocrats as well as their permission and thus our representative democracies act more like slow aristocracies because they are about convincing the people a solution is best, not about reaching a solution democractically.
Perhaps mixing the two concepts could provide a greater outcome. Perhaps people are selected at random for a chance at an election. Then the people can ask qualifications and difficult questions of those selected in debates. This however would require people to be more informed about how their local governments are run and most people dont care at all
You now the saying, today you're the oldest you've ever been but youngest you'll ever be thats what progress to democracy is
Correct me if Im Wrong but to win a seat in the house of lords in the UK you have to be specialized in something. I read that somewhere.
I wish our US senate was like that. I think most are just career politicians, children of rich businessmen, and lawyers. Only a few are Doctors.
Pretty sure you can be in line for lordship as well?
@@twinkletoes7755 True, but I heard they changed it so anyone born after the law was passed would no longer have the privilege. They would have to have some kind of professional knowlege, and since most lords now are in their 70's its been decades since they had kids, so the law would most likely apply to their grand kids.
@@williampennjr.4448 Nice, ya learn something new every day!
history class rn while listening to youngboy ▪️
thx
What is the principles of democracy given by athens?
Dibs for the history assignment
Who else is here from school 😂 lmao whyyyy!!?!??
How come democracy is to walled in today?