Hacker News Reader

Comment by sangnoir | Hacker News Reader

> we - citizens - don't want to be dominated, so we will make everyone equal by law and politics.

History[0] makes a mockery of your assumption. What you says makes idealistic sense, but what tends to happen empirically is that people end up with tribal behavior which results in people not fighting for equality for everyone - but just for their in-group[1] (see: American "founding fathers", as alluded to in/lampshaded by TFA).

edits:

Also - "citizen power" may end up being a footnote of history, as the period sandwiched by monarchs and megacorps

0. The present too, but history has more examples.

1. Also with a dash of fundamental attribution error: anyone infringing my rights is a tyrant, but my infringing on other's rights is necessary for the greater good and/or not an infringement, really

View on HN

In the West, this has already occured at least once

>Also - "citizen power" may end up being a footnote of history, as the period sandwiched by monarchs and megacorps

The Athenian-led democratic city-states had their Golden Age between Solon (who kicked out the Tyrants and instituted democracy) and the Peloponnesian Wars (where Athens was forced to accept the Thirty Tyrants - which was dethroned after less than a year, but after that there was no more a Shining Light of democracy as examples for local democrats to kick out the tyrants and oligarchs with) then the Macedonian period, with all the kings.

Well, at least the Romans that replaced them had a senate?

> Well, at least the Romans that replaced them had a senate?

Not a scholar of the period, but I was under the impression that Greece's democratic system meant that only male land-owners could vote and that the leading philosophers of the day considered slavery the natural order of things, women marginally (if at all) better than slaves, and boys suitable for divine pleasure. It doesn't seem particularly democratic for them?

I do think it's reasonable to see in ancient Greece the seeds for democracy, but modern republican and democratic forms are pretty far removed from those days; and I don't suppose most of us would be very pleased to live under such a system.

> Not a scholar of the period, but I was under the impression that Greece's democratic system meant that only male land-owners could vote and that the leading philosophers of the day considered slavery the natural order of things, women marginally (if at all) better than slaves, and boys suitable for divine pleasure. It doesn't seem particularly democratic for them?

Except for the thing about boys and divine pleasure that just about sounds like the founding of the United States to me.

> Except for the thing about boys and divine pleasure that just about sounds like the founding of the United States to me.

That's probably not exactly true, but obviously universal-er suffrage has been a very long and fraught road. And it's undoubtedly very complex.

I would offer that the social and political norms of the early modern period do stand in contrast to those of Greece despite their obvious resemblance. As you point out at the founding of the US, the franchise was restricted (States were given the power to determine the franchise), and it wasn't until the early 20th century in the UK that land ownership rules were dropped (creating universal suffrage for males 21 and over).

At the same time, the social norms concerning marriage, pederasty, and slavery were also different. The religious background and perspective were utterly different. It is hard to imagine modern forms of representative democracy arising in Ancient Greece absent an intervention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com