Athenian Democracy

This, to me, is an interesting summary of Athenian Democracy

http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=5

Crudely summarized by me as follows: (don't take my word for it, read it.)

1] Anyone(male) could not only speak at Assembly, but listen as well. In fact, it was an obligation for all(including female)to listen at Assembly, to be informed. But only Athenian Citizens could vote. However, the non-egalitarianism of ideas was strictly enforced; 'bakers' who stood up to put forth on the topic of 'building' were loudly laughed away by the crowd, intent as it was to self-police the strength of its Democracy. If you stood up at the Assembly to speak, you damn well better have an informed something to say.  There was no egalitarianism of opinion.

2] Membership in the roles of Athenian Citizenry was achieved after two years of military training/service, passing through the Ethebes.   Of the many occupants of Athens, many of whom who could speak at Assembly and had an obligation to listen at Assembly,  only a fraction were Athenian Citizens with voting rights.  And it was possible to lose that status.  See 3.

3] Idiots who passed that hurdle could lose their right to vote for being idiots. Idiocy included debt to the state. This was common sense; if someone was already bleeding the state, then giving them the power to ask for more blood was not regarded as a reasonable thing to encourage, and so, it was explicitly forbidden.

4] Athenian Citizens who passed those hurdles were paid to participate in debates in the Assembly; not just the poor, but including the poor, who passed those hurdles.   This was paid for by penalties on those with debts to the state.

If American democracy was anywhere near Athenian Democracy, what is the possibility that we ever see the spectacle of an Obama in office?

Compare the above with the modern 'correct historical narrative' retelling of Athenian Democracy; pure democracy of 'The People.'  The cherry picking from history.  Cleanup in aisle nine?

Remove the gender bias, and me and the wife would move to that Athens in a heartbeat.

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/15, 9:54am)

The Progressives campaign to herd everyone even remotely human into a voting booth (two or three times per election if possible) has, as Fred has pointed out, nothing to do with a love of democracy and everything to do with an almost carnal hunger for power.  Registering and then getting all these un-Athenian individuals to vote only works if they vote for the Progressives, the ones who brought them to the dance.  They think it is because the person who asked them to the prom finds them attractive and cares for them.  And that is where these three things tie together:

1. Get everyone to vote,
2. Trash the constitution and any concept of natural rights replacing these beliefs with a utopian view of unlimited democracy,
3. Use class warfare, identity politics, lots and lots of lies, and redistribution to ensure that the majority of the votes come from supporters infused with partisan hatreds and fears.

All of these can only be done efficiently to the degree that Progressives establish these two conditions:

1. One is that Progressives lie through their teeth.  They have to convince blacks and hispanics that their opponents are all racist, convince women that their opponents are all misogynists keeping women in an oppressed state, empower parasites and cronies with the belief that redistribution is a right, and reassure anyone listening that the constitution is out of date, that the majority supports their view and it is okay to vote away the rights of those opponents because there really are no such things as individual rights (only entitlements and the application of 'social justice'), only the rights of a majority and besides, opponents are evil one-percentors, racists and oppressors.  
   
   
2. The second is that having told some real whoppers, again and again, Progressives need the media to be on their side enough to not give away the giant ponzi scheme of false promises.  And even they can't help unless Progressives have used the educational system to precondition the masses to receiving these deceptions dressed up as valid talking points.  In other words, the entire progressive scheme rests upon weaving together a web of dishonesty.  

In pragmatic terms, this can work - at least so far it has.  But there is no way around the fact schemes built on dishonesty fail when exposed.  It might be a real wet dream of true Progressives that all of the population becomes so stupid, ignorant and pathetic that they'll like being lied to and used.  But that's not going to happen.  All but the tiniest minority are not going to like seeing the actual means and ends of Progressivism.  They'll want to find something that would justify putting up with that, and the deeper they look the less value there is.  End of wet dream.  Even the Progressives know this in their dark little hearts, because they try so hard to get everyone in debt to or totally dependent upon the government - like it was a race to nail everyone down before they find out it is scheme.  It explains the fears and the hatreds they have (like women or blacks with libertarian beliefs, like voter IDs, like a Tea Party movement, etc.).

If there is still a possibility of reversing this trend that has slowly, but surely been moving us towards the end of liberty, it can only be done with an effective exposure of all that the Progressives do that is dishonest - exposing it as dishonest.  Exposure of the very method of using deception.  Exposure of the their little bag of tricks - which is nearly unlimited in the content to which it can be applied, but very limited in the general structures (like the Trojan Horse type of legislation, like the use dividing people into classes and special groups to turn them against each other, etc.)

When in an open debate you don't just counter a specific argument, but go further to show a deep and all encompassing dishonesty in the purpose of the other debater and the way they structure each of their key arguments, you have destroyed them totally.  Dishonesty is NOT a good foundation for a debate style, or a political movement.  There is nothing weaker  or more pathetic than repeated attempts to justify lies that are already seen as lies, especially when the ugly motives for those lies is also clearly seen.

16 (income tax) and 17 (direct election of senators)

Peter/Steve:

I'd agree with those, too, but the intent was clearly to target the 'archaic' Bill of Rights.       But that is part of Peter's point, I think; it is exactly the willy nilly rot of the constitution via amendments such as those that is making the parchment moth eaten.

Apparently, there are parts of the original BoR that are perceived as standing in the way of Progress and are in need of culling.

Which two of the first ten do you think these Common Coremunists are targeting?

regards,

Fred

Steve:

It's like "The Second first, and then any other at their liesure."

regards,

Fred

Peter:

And I'd agree, if the process was open ended, and not 'guided' by some state school instructoid or worse, some Ivy Leager.

Is there someone here who believes such assignments are delivered as open ended exercises?

Where in the history of Naked Sweaty Apedom have we naked sweaty apes ever resisted the urge to foist our political agendas?

regards,

Fred

Athens had a silver mine at Laurium. It was worked by slaves who were owned by the city. The silver was paid to the citizens.  They got an annual lump sum by reporting to their home tribe neighborhood.  They also got paid to goto the Assembly.  In fact, over time, they voted to pay themselves more for that.  They also got paid to goto war. Such payments were in line with general wages, about the same as a rower on a trireme, a drachmon per day. (Contrary to story, galley rowers were not slaves.)

In other cities, citizens were also required to show up at the gynmasium and work out every day.  That was because of the requirement for military duty. When citizens went to war, the people who voted on that were the ones showing up on the field.  (We ought to do that today.)