2002-10-2 10:24:00
My Friends,
I do not think I have ever made a post that has been so misunderstood by my friends. A good portion of the disagreements with me today are not disagreeing at all but reiterating what I believe and have written.
For instance, I have never, never said or indicated that change is not initiated by a minority.
I have never said that a majority cannot impose tyranny on a minority.
I have never said that majority public opinion is not manipulated by the powers that be etc...
It's going to take a while to cover all the ground brought up so I guess I will start with Larry since be brought up a specific quote which helps me understand a disagreement.
Larry Writes:
Quoting from chapter 13:
"Tyranny by the majority is almost non existent," he said. "In almost every example you can give me of tyranny there is a very small group involved who is causing it, not the majority. In the rule of the majority lies the path of safety."
I find this difficult to accept as a correct principle, or as a correct description of reality.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
tyranny
1: oppressive power ; especially: oppressive power exerted by government
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
There many instances in history where the majority did accept, and exert an "oppressive power" - in the words of Thomas Jefferson - "over the mind of man." One good example from history is the trial and execution of Socrates in ancient Athens. Socrates was found by a majority of citizens (admittedly all males) to be a danger to society for his teachings and beliefs and was condemned to death.
JJ
First note the wording you quote: "Tyranny by the majority IS almost non existent." This statement is referring to the present time and location. Socrates existed in ancient times. Chapter 13 also talks about tyranny the past. For instance, it speaks of slavery in Bible times and explains that even though we consider this a tyranny today it was not so considered by the majority in that age. As evidence of this consider the Bible. Christians accepted into the church had slaves in the New Testament times. Many of the Patriarchs such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had slaves. Slavery was the accepted norm throughout the entire time period in which the Bible was written, but the only outcry against it was from the Israelites in Egypt. And this was not over the principle of slavery so much as it was that the Egyptians were harsh taskmasters. Later on, the Israelites took their own slaves from conquered enemies and thought themselves righteous because they treated them better than they were treated when they were slaves.
Why did the majority not consider slavery a tyranny in past eons?
Because that which is tyranny to us today was the accepted norm in ancient times. In that age a man was considered righteous, not if he freed is slaves, but if he treated them with justice.
That said, let us consider the example of Socrates in Athens.
Athens was probably the least tyrannical of states in ancient history. Because of their lack of tyranny creativity flourished and this was one of the few times in ancient history that writers, actors and philosophers such as Socrates were allowed to teach controversial philosophies without restriction from the state. There was some intolerance as there always is in any state, but overall the freedom was an anomaly for that age. On the other hand, the neighboring city state of Sparta was ruled tyrannically with an iron hand, similar to a Nazi type of government. For instance, young male children were taken away from parents and raised by the state, indoctrinated to be warriors.
As intelligent as Socrates was, it is amazing that he erred so greatly on some of his views on authority. For instance, he taught the superiority of the Spartan government ruled by strong tyrannical authority and the weakness of the government of Athens by weak authority. He felt the people were too stupid to govern themselves and states should be run by kings and dictators, "those who know how to rule," as he expressed it. Now, he felt these kings and dictators should be the wise and intelligent, but failed to present a plan that would insure that a Hitler or Stalin would not slip in now and then.
Now here is the interesting point. Where did Socrates choose to live - Athens or Sparta?
He chose citizenship in Athens because the democracy for which he had contempt allowed him to teach, move and live how he pleased. He avoided Sparta like the plague even though he taught that Athens needed to be like them. Doesn't this remind you of some of the intellectuals in this age? Many college professors in America teach that we need to be more like many of the tyrannies existing in the world, but do they move there? Of course not.
Socrates' basic premise of government, according to Xenophon's "Memorabilia," was "that it is the business of the ruler to give orders and of the ruled to obey."
Athens tolerated Socrates undermining the government until he became a threat to the overthrow of the democracy. He gathered young people of aristocratic birth around him and several of them betrayed Athens to its enemy state of Sparta causing Athens to lose its democracy for a time and suffer tyranny. Athens began to look upon Socrates as treasonous toward democracy, as one actively teaching principles that could violently overthrow their government for good. They encouraged him to leave the area and go to Sparta or some other state, since he was so critical of Athens, yet he refused and insisted on staying and teaching the sons of the governors the superiority of dictator kings over democracy. Finally Athens arrested him and charged him with treason wording the charge as "corrupting the youth."
Even after he was arrested it was made known unto him that he would be allowed to escape if he would just leave, but he refused. The democratic council reluctantly tried him and found him guilty by a slim majority of 281 guilty and 220 not guilty. Even after the trial it was made known to him that he would be allowed to escape if he would just go, but he refused. He wound up executing himself by drinking poison. Why did he do this? It is quite possible that he was determined to be a martyr and thought that the Athenians would wimp out and refuse to do it themselves. Perhaps he thought he would be expelled from Athens and actually have to live in a neighboring state that he taught as being better than democracy. Perhaps he finally realized that death was better than living in Sparta.
Overall, it cannot be said that the democracy in Athens represented any kind of tyranny by the standards of that age. If Socrates had lived in neighboring Sparta or most any other state of that age and was seen as posing a threat to the government he would have been immediately executed without a trial. As it was he lived and taught controversial teachings in Athens to the ripe old age of 70 until he was slain by his own hand. This gave him great status as a martyr, but also gave power to his teaching of authoritarian rule that helped lead to the extinction of the freest most noble society of ancient times.
To be continued...
Copyright 2002 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved