The question of democracy

[Dill]

(03-13-2018, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now, this isn't a new problem that had been discovered. Aristotle wrote about this same dilemma in Politics. What was fun was that in reading this book, my copy of Politics was on the shelf right in front of me, so I pulled it down to look this stuff up. Really fascinating. Aristotle, in Book VI, chapter 5, says that "poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy." He goes on to argue that the way to even out this power dynamic, to help a democratic society thrive, is to reduce the inequality among the people. That if the system is set up to reduce the differences (not eliminate them) then it will protect that opulent minority from the majority.

If I remember correctly, for Aristotle, "democracy" is the degenerate form of what is translated to English as "constitutional government."  Democracies go bad because the masses are able to use the law to extract wealth and property from the rich, which undermines the economy and polity, leading to anarchy and tyranny.  Constitutional governments balance out the power differential between rich and poor by progressive fines and sharing of state offices. But they are the most unstable of the three "good" forms of government, the other two being Kingship and Aristocracy.  Critical in all forms of government is the role of "virtue," which includes the ability to look beyond private interests to see the common good and act for it. For purposes of this discussion, I add that none of these forms of government is based upon a capitalist economy, and all of them use laws to promote good, virtue, justice and happiness.

(03-13-2018, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So here we have two competing ideas on how to protect the minority from the majority. Madison and the other framers opted for reducing democracy, and Aristotle's argument was that we should reduce inequality. My questions for discussion on here are: Which do you prefer? Is this a false dichotomy and there are other ways? If so, how? Should there be a mixture and where do you think that mixture should lie?

I hesitate to say they were "reducing" democracy, given voting requirements already prevalent in the original states. 

To answer your question, reducing democracy is the most impractical of your options, with its echoes of previous gender- and race-based limitations on voting. Left liberals, centrists and some right wingers in this forum will not go for it. In any case, a "rabble" legally extracting wealth from the rich is not the problem with U.S. democracy.

So I am for reducing inequality. Aristotle's simple solutions (e.g. progressive fines) won't work for a democracy the size of ours and based upon a capitalist economy which generates a wealth gap far in excess of anything experienced in ancient Athens. Three points, off the top of my head: We need first of all progressive taxation, with these monies then plowed back into the nation to enhance equality of opportunity, with job-training adapted to the economy and education which is not simply job training, among other things. Further, restrictions on money in politics, and finally, a more equitable and dignified election process, which would enable voters to assess competing political programs and their results. Perhaps the latter would set up virtue as a standard, in a limited American capitalist version.