Aristotle and democracy (What means the term "free men"?)
Aristotle said, that the right to give votes must reserve to "free men" because they have the best knowledge about the things, and then about a thousand years after that the voting right expanded to belong also for free women. And that caused a revolution for democracy, but then we have forgotten something, and that is here in the modern time is still many people, who have not right to give votes in any elections.
Those people are handicapped, ward, underage or foreigners, who would not have citizenship, and that's why those people have not right to vote in elections. And that means that the model of Aristotle is still in power. That kind of action, what is limiting the democracy is meant for protecting the state. And this means that they are so-called "necessary evilness", which means that the state must deny the situation, that two million foreigners would come to its territory and votes to the involved in some other country.
But the question is, why youngsters' opinions about the laws are not ever asked? Maybe there is no time for that. But when we are thinking about democracy, and the principle that vote cannot be bought, the answer is a little bit complicated than we ever thought, and the answer would be that there are people, who would buy votes.
Those people would offer more salary, lower taxes and another kind of thing, but there is one problem, the government would need that money, and even the taxes of salaries would be low, the taxes of the food, fuel and another kind of stuff would rise. And this is one thing, what we cannot even think about. If we would want to crush our political opposition, we might call our leaders as the "expert", and that thing would make those people more trusted in the eyes of the great public than world "leader". "
An "Expert" is one of the worlds, which shows real professionalism, and that would be a really good argument in the political discussions. But when we are thinking about "free men", we must realize that in modern times Aristotle would say "free persons" are only capable individuals for making decisions, because they have "right knowledge". But then we should ask, what exactly means "free person"?
Does that mean some businessman or maybe the specialist of administration? Or is it a person, who is a member of the ring, what makes decisions? And who would get the place in this hypothetical ring? Is that the person, who has the right training, and that training could be free to get. But then we must realize, that the high price of those, maybe administrative training would be a good way to eliminate not wanted persons from that training. This is one point of view of those things.
And censorship is a very bad thing in a democracy. If we are thinking election campaigns is not tolerated to deny to print the campaign material of some candidate by using political arguments, rejecting the offer by using argument, that we don't want to print that material we would be childish. If the price of that material would be so high, that person cannot pay it, that will be a very good alternative for political censorship. In this model, political marketing and campaign commercials would be under the heavy tax. And that would make them very expensive.
But if we would give the announcement, that thing would be tax-free, and then the parties, what are under the power would pay a lower price for their commercials because their commercials are interpreted as the announcements. Because opposition cannot pay the prices, their candidates would not get their commercials to the media. And this is the good and non-violent way to make sure, that the same persons would be in the control of the state.
Aristotle said, that the right to give votes must reserve to "free men" because they have the best knowledge about the things, and then about a thousand years after that the voting right expanded to belong also for free women. And that caused a revolution for democracy, but then we have forgotten something, and that is here in the modern time is still many people, who have not right to give votes in any elections.
Those people are handicapped, ward, underage or foreigners, who would not have citizenship, and that's why those people have not right to vote in elections. And that means that the model of Aristotle is still in power. That kind of action, what is limiting the democracy is meant for protecting the state. And this means that they are so-called "necessary evilness", which means that the state must deny the situation, that two million foreigners would come to its territory and votes to the involved in some other country.
But the question is, why youngsters' opinions about the laws are not ever asked? Maybe there is no time for that. But when we are thinking about democracy, and the principle that vote cannot be bought, the answer is a little bit complicated than we ever thought, and the answer would be that there are people, who would buy votes.
Those people would offer more salary, lower taxes and another kind of thing, but there is one problem, the government would need that money, and even the taxes of salaries would be low, the taxes of the food, fuel and another kind of stuff would rise. And this is one thing, what we cannot even think about. If we would want to crush our political opposition, we might call our leaders as the "expert", and that thing would make those people more trusted in the eyes of the great public than world "leader". "
An "Expert" is one of the worlds, which shows real professionalism, and that would be a really good argument in the political discussions. But when we are thinking about "free men", we must realize that in modern times Aristotle would say "free persons" are only capable individuals for making decisions, because they have "right knowledge". But then we should ask, what exactly means "free person"?
Does that mean some businessman or maybe the specialist of administration? Or is it a person, who is a member of the ring, what makes decisions? And who would get the place in this hypothetical ring? Is that the person, who has the right training, and that training could be free to get. But then we must realize, that the high price of those, maybe administrative training would be a good way to eliminate not wanted persons from that training. This is one point of view of those things.
And censorship is a very bad thing in a democracy. If we are thinking election campaigns is not tolerated to deny to print the campaign material of some candidate by using political arguments, rejecting the offer by using argument, that we don't want to print that material we would be childish. If the price of that material would be so high, that person cannot pay it, that will be a very good alternative for political censorship. In this model, political marketing and campaign commercials would be under the heavy tax. And that would make them very expensive.
But if we would give the announcement, that thing would be tax-free, and then the parties, what are under the power would pay a lower price for their commercials because their commercials are interpreted as the announcements. Because opposition cannot pay the prices, their candidates would not get their commercials to the media. And this is the good and non-violent way to make sure, that the same persons would be in the control of the state.
Comments
Post a Comment