• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chomsky and Aristotle on the Common Good

Jacksprat

Banned
Joined
Aug 7, 2022
Messages
7,471
Reaction score
3,815
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Aristotle took it for granted that a democracy should be fully participatory (with some notable exceptions, like women and slaves) and that it should aim for the common good. In order to achieve that, it has to ensure relative equality, “moderate and sufficient property” and “lasting prosperity” for everyone.

In other words, Aristotle felt that if you have extremes of poor and rich, you can’t talk seriously about democracy. Any true democracy has to be what we call today a welfare state—actually, an extreme form of one, far beyond anything envisioned in this century. (When I pointed this out at a press conference in Majorca, the
headlines in the Spanish papers read something like, If Aristotle were alive today, he’d be denounced as a dangerous radical. That’s probably true.)


https://1motorcyclist.files.wordpres...orld-works.pdf
 
James Madison, who was no fool, noted the same problem, but unlike Aristotle, he aimed to reduce democracy rather than poverty. He believed that the primary goal of government is “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” As his colleague John Jay was fond of putting it, “T he people who own the country ought to govern it.”
 
Aristotle took it for granted that a democracy should be fully participatory (with some notable exceptions, like women and slaves) and that it should aim for the common good. In order to achieve that, it has to ensure relative equality, “moderate and sufficient property” and “lasting prosperity” for everyone.

In other words, Aristotle felt that if you have extremes of poor and rich, you can’t talk seriously about democracy. Any true democracy has to be what we call today a welfare state—actually, an extreme form of one, far beyond anything envisioned in this century. (When I pointed this out at a press conference in Majorca, the
headlines in the Spanish papers read something like, If Aristotle were alive today, he’d be denounced as a dangerous radical. That’s probably true.)


https://1motorcyclist.files.wordpres...orld-works.pdf
Any free society will result in hierarchies that naturally develop and it has nothing to do with predation or unfairness or any other such thing.
 
Any free society will result in hierarchies that naturally develop and it has nothing to do with predation or unfairness or any other such thing.
Of course it does.
 
Of course it does.
You'll have to clarify what you're referring to with your comment as it could be referring to the statement as a whole or it could be taken to say that you think the hierarchies are caused by predation and unfairness.
 
Any free society will result in hierarchies that naturally develop and it has nothing to do with predation or unfairness or any other such thing.
Those hierarchies are to be prevented. That is the aim of political science.
 
Those hierarchies are to be prevented. That is the aim of political science.
Why would you prevent them? That's nothing more than stifling free will, property rights, and innovation.
 
Well, you're wrong. There's just no way around it. One child can put effort into their schoolwork and get better grands, the other won't. One person can put more effort into sports and another won't. One person can innovate something new, another won't.

The idea that hierarchies are a result of unfairness and predation is ignorant of reality.
 
Why would you prevent them? That's nothing more than stifling free will, property rights, and innovation.
Those hierarchies destabilize society. How to address the haves vs have-nots and equalizing the weak to the the powerful is the central theme of political and social philosophy, morality, and why we have equal rights.
 
Those hierarchies destabilize society. How to address the haves vs have-nots and equalizing the weak to the the powerful is the central theme of political and social philosophy, morality, and why we have equal rights.
They build societies. A society that has no hierarchies can only be achieved through tyranny.
 
They build societies. A society that has no hierarchies can only be achieved through tyranny.
Groups of people with a common survival instinct to build/create a better life build societies.

Societies achieved through tranny are either feudal or fascist.
 
Groups of people with a common survival instinct to build/create a better life build societies.

Societies achieved through tranny are either feudal or fascist.
Communist societies, as you wrote above, are always tyrannical. In a free system some will excel while others do not, mostly via their own choices and actions. That doesn't mean there can't be any social safety net measures but it does mean that people need the freedom to excel and innovate.
 
Communist societies, as you wrote above, are always tyrannical. In a free system some will excel while others do not, mostly via their own choices and actions. That doesn't mean there can't be any social safety net measures but it does mean that people need the freedom to excel and innovate.
The idea of a communist society that is tyrannical is an oxymoron because communism is a group of people who unite willingly. Russia, China, North Korea, and others were never communist. North Korea claims to be a democratic republic, as did Easy Germany, despite the fact that they were/are.

People have the freedom to excel and innovate in the US and every western country.

Communism has only ever existed as small communes in the protection of large societies. Groups such as the kibbutzes in Israel and anarchist societies in Spain before the 1937 revolution.
 
The idea of a communist society that is tyrannical is an oxymoron because communism is a group of people who unite willingly. Russia, China, North Korea, and others were never communist. North Korea claims to be a democratic republic, as did Easy Germany, despite the fact that they were/are.

People have the freedom to excel and innovate in the US and every western country.

Communism has only ever existed as small communes in the protection of large societies. Groups such as the kibbutzes in Israel and anarchist societies in Spain before the 1937 revolution.
This perfectly demonstrates that you do not understand communism.
 
Well, you're wrong. There's just no way around it. One child can put effort into their schoolwork and get better grands, the other won't. One person can put more effort into sports and another won't. One person can innovate something new, another won't.

The idea that hierarchies are a result of unfairness and predation is ignorant of reality.
You seem to be ignoring the whole topic.
 
You seem to be ignoring the whole topic.
This IS the topic. It's the assumption that hierarchies are a result vs their absence and what that means.
 
This IS the topic. It's the assumption that hierarchies are a result vs their absence and what that means.
I fail to see what hierarchies have to do with the topic of the thread.
 
I fail to see what hierarchies have to do with the topic of the thread.
Do you not know what a hierarchy is? It's literally what the topic is. It's your entire OP.
 
Do you not know what a hierarchy is? It's literally what the topic is. It's your entire OP.
Topic is how democracies distribute power. What does a hierarchy have to do with it?
 
This perfectly demonstrates that you do not understand communism.
I do understand communism. I also know the difference between propaganda and fact. Authiortian governments that claim to be communist are doomed to failure, usually within 3 generations.

communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.


Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction.


I have a minor in political philosophy and I've taught poli-sci as an adjunct professor. . It wasn't my major only because there are no real jobs for a major. Why do you think this forum is so much fun for me?

My major was design engineering.
 
Back
Top Bottom