Why Plato thought only Philosopher Kings should run society in benevolent dictatorships
Immortalist
political leadership, while the rest should follow their lead and let
philosophy alone...
'Suppose the following to be the state of affairs on board a ship or
ships. The captain is larger and stronger than any of the crew, but a
bit deaf and short-sighted, and doesn't know much about navigation.
The crew are quarrelling with each other about how to navigate the
ship, each thinking he ought to be at the helm; they know no
navigation and cannot say that anyone ever taught it them, or that
they spent any time studying it; indeed they say it can't be taught
and are ready to murder any one who says it can. They spend all their
time milling around the captain and trying to get him to give them the
wheel. If one faction is more successful then another, their rivals
may kill them and throw them overboard, lay out the honest captain
with drugs and drink, take control of the ship, help themselves to
what's on board, and behave as if they were on a drunken pleasure-
cruise. Finally, they reserve their admiration for the man who knows
how to lend a hand in controlling the captain by force or fraud; they
praise his seamanship and navigation and knowledge of the sea and
condemn everyone else as useless. They have no idea that the true
navigator must study the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the
winds and other professional subjects, if he is really fit to control
a ship; and they think that it's quite impossible to acquire
professional skill in navigation (quite apart from whether they want
it exercised) and that there is no such thing as an art of navigation.
In these circumstances aren't the sailors on any ship bound to regard
the true navigator as a gossip and a star-gazer, of no use to them at
all?'
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Plato-Philosopher.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator
Don Stockbauer
Ackshoeally, he just hadn't heard of the Global Brain.
Art
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...there are some who are naturally fitted for philosophy and
>political leadership, while the rest should follow their lead and let
>philosophy alone...
From memory of Plato's ideas:
1. The governing body was open to anyone of either sex.
2. The preparation was long and arduous, and it included
doing a stint in the marketplace working as a artisan, etc.
3. Plato thought people naturally fell into classes by their
very natures and potential abilities. His system envisioned
that only the "gold" ... or best of people ... would manage
to rise to the ruling body. The "gold", of course, were
philosophers who inherently have no interest in the
baser things in life. Without concern for power or self
the "gold" would rise to govern for the sheer pleasure
of the challenges. The governing body would receive
only very modest compensation ... enough for just
sustenance and a few pleasures. They would live
together in a sort of commune. Children resulting
from unions between the sexes in the governing
body would be taken care of so their parents would
be free to govern.
4. The sorting process would begin very early on, and
people would rise to the level of their capabilities and
no further.
Instead of this beautiful, idealistic utopia what soon
arrived are the Dark Ages of villianist, back-stabbing,
treacherous Popes, kings, and other rulers who
were practically the opposite of Plato's "gold standard".
We now have some slight improvements over
the Dark Ages but it seems Plato's beautiful utopia
may never be realized.
presidentbyamendment
>
> Ackshoeally, he just hadn't heard of the Global Brain.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because Plato was a kook. Stick to Lucretius and Aristotle.
Rick Hohensee
Bret Cahill
> political leadership, while the rest should follow their lead and let
> philosophy alone...
>
> 'Suppose the following to be the state of affairs on board a ship
A ship isn't a democracy.
If you don't like the master, you jump ship in the next port.
Bret Cahill
Are earwigs gnawing at McCain's brain?
nonsensical view of politics.
By the way, your logic is flawed. No where in your analogy do you
show how the capable man can be equated to the philosopher.
Once again, Leo Strauss and his bizarre and insane view of politics is
dead. Go back to the library and read your dusty tomes and leave the
real world alone.
Bret Cahill
> nonsensical view of politics.
Leo Strauss isn't the problem. The neocons being dumb as a plate of
noodles is the problem.
> By the way, your logic is flawed. �No where in your analogy do you
> show how the capable man can be equated to the philosopher.
Or how the neocons can be equated with Strauss.
Bret Cahill
Immortalist
wrote:
Can you explain how he was a kook? Personally I like Aristotle's mixed
regime but Plato did raise alot of issues that others then paid
attention to and refined.
In Book 3, [of Politics] Chapters 6-7, Aristotle establishes a famous
classification of six types of rule divided on the one hand between
those that are 'good' and those that are 'corrupt', and on the other,
between the different number of rulers that make up the decision-
making authority, namely, the one, the few, and the many. The good
types include monarchy, aristocracy and polity, while the corrupt
types include tyranny, oligarchy and democracy or 'mob rule'. Good
government rules in the common interest while corrupt government rules
in the interest of those who rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
> Rick Hohensee-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MfbQSi6_8RY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=llH13hboNYA
Immortalist
> > ...there are some who are naturally fitted for philosophy and
> > political leadership, while the rest should follow their lead and let
> > philosophy alone...
>
> > 'Suppose the following to be the state of affairs on board a ship
>
Is that a love it or leave it fallacy?
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/baker/baker1.html
> A ship isn't a democracy.
>
Niether is the USA and democracy, it is a constitutional republic;
Is our form of government a democracy? Not correct: the US Federal
government is what is termed a 'constitutional republic'. The
distinction between a constitutional republic and a democracy is very
significant.
At the Constitutional Convention, much time was spent debating how to
avoid the known perils of democracy, insofar as it was known to lead
to despotism. I believe that the current misrepresentation and abuse
of language is a deliberate and devious attempt to subvert our limited
Constitutional Republic and replace it with a 'democratic' despotism
in which public opinion is controlled through the mechanisms of the
mass media and power is centralized far beyond the limits imposed by
the Constitution.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/homestay.html
It has become annoyingly commonplace for republics, whether they are
the United States or the State of Nevada, to be referred to as
democracies, without regard to the meaning of the word or the
implications it brings with it.
What is a republic? What is a democracy?...
A republic is a government in which a restricted group of citizens
form a political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which
directs them to elect representatives who will govern the state.
Republics, by their very nature, tend to be free polities, not because
they are elected by the citizens of the polity, but because they are
bound by charters, which limit the responsibilities and powers of the
state. The fact that people vote for representatives has nothing to do
with making anything free. The logical consistency and rationality of
the charter, as well as the willingness of the people to live by it,
is what keeps people free.
A democracy is government by the majority. There is still a restricted
group of citizens in a democracy, but this group rules directly and
personally runs the state. The group may delegate specific tasks to
individuals, such as generalships and governorships, but there is no
question that the ruling force in a democracy is not a charter (if
there even is a charter), but the vote of the majority. Democracies
are free only if the people know what freedom is and are consistent in
their application of it. If they don't know this, or more
appropriately, if a majority of the people don't know this, then a
democracy could be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator (see
Socrates' forced suicide by the Athenian democracy.)
As should be plain, there is a giant difference between the two
systems of government. One of the main fears at the Constitutional
Convention of the United States was that the government they created
would be too democratic (causing Alexander Hamilton to suggest a
restricted monarchy), because it was quite obvious, then and now, that
any majority could vote itself anything it wanted, be it property or
executions. That is why it irks me so much when politicians (who have
no excuse not knowing what kind of government they serve in) and
ignorant people say that this country is a democracy; it does a
tremendous disservice to all of the people whose thought went into
creating our republic.
But the more pernicious effect is that people actually begin to
attribute and incorporate tenets of democracies into our republican
structure. Things like referendums and ballot initiatives. These are
not only irresponsible but entirely illogical. Why should we be making
decisions we elect people to make? What legitimacy is gained from
getting a majority of voters to pass anything? If 70% of voters vote
to ban gay marriage, does that make it right? If 51% of voters vote to
ban smoking, does that make it right? If 99.99% vote to redistribute
property, does that make it right? The answer to all of these is "NO!"
absolutely not. Truth isn't determined by how many adherents one can
get to go along with you. This is why democracy should be fought off
wherever it shows its ugly face, it can and will be used to justify
anything a majority of voters wants. Theoretically, a majority could
vote for selective free speech, or to have certain unpopular people
thrown out of the country or killed. There is no law in a democracy
except whatever the majority of people say is the law.
Why is it so popular then? Because idiots think they will benefit from
having "more of a say in how things work." True, if you're in the
majority that is. Advocates of democracy are either those who are
really advocates of republics and are ignorant of the difference, or
they are those who think they will be in the majority and will be able
to vote themselves benefits. A quick example would be wealth. Those
who admire people like Michael Moore and Ralph Nader would advocate a
democracy because then they could steal the money of the rich and give
it to themselves (Moore and Nader wouldn't support such a scheme,
because then they would no longer be rich.)
In the long run though, a democracy will always become a tyranny,
either by majority, or if the majority screw things up so badly and a
tyrant seizes power from the ensuing chaos. The overriding
characteristic of democracy is subjectivism and that is its fatal
flaw. In other words, reason is irrelevant, whatever the majority
wants, it gets and regardless of how unprincipled or objectionable it
may be. Rights cannot exist in such a system in the long run because
they can be voted away on a whim at any time. So if you're interested
in freedom at all you must cast away an ugly term like democracy and
accept that freedom requires reason, objectivity, and law, which can
only be satisfied by a republican government.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388
Immortalist
"Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and
is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the
acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that
when society is itself the tyrant -- society collectively over the
separate individuals who compose it -- its means of tyrannizing are not
restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political
functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if
it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in
things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social
tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression,
since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves
fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details
of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against
the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection
also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling,
against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil
penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those
who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible,
prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its
ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model
of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of
collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that
limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a
good condition of human affairs as protection against political
despotism. -- On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7."
You voted for Bush? Twice? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Moron.
This is where Leo Strauss and Plato got it wrong: the belief that
philosophers were superior to the "vulgar" masses. The philosopher is
not immune to being a tyrant. In fact, judging by the arrogance of
the philosophers who believe themselves superiors, I would think that
a philosopher would be more likely to be a tyrant than anyone else.
Also there is another obstacle to the ascension of the philosopher
king. The masses must give their consent. I know that Leo Strauss
believed that the masses are stupid--unable to stare into the abyss--
and base, and through these qualities the philosopher can control the
masses. Problem is, the masses aren't all stupid nor base. Nor do
they fall into the roll of the gentleman. See there is a group
outside Strauss' simplistic groups. A group of wise people who can't
be manipulated and who do not want the philosophers to rule the
people. This group is the one kicking Strauss' dead butt all over the
place. It's this group that will finish bringing down the nonsense of
Plato and Strauss and all the other philosophers who think so little
of the masses that they think it's justifiable to lie and manipulate
the masses.
Immortalist
Actually Rousseau, so to speak, "morphed" Plato's philosopher kings
into two agencies, the soverign and the executive. Then the executive
was further divided into the executive and the legislature. At about
this time a Kings council or court was put into direct conflict with
another body and resulted in parlimentary political structures. Of
course it was the CHurch and its interests that morphed into the
legislature as a form or representation. Who is the leo person you
keep refering to, I was quoting Plato right out of his work the
Republic? This subject is not simply negated by some comments about
one philosopher's ideas;
The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393047644/
- The Paradox of Catholicism
Rome's most concrete legacy has been the Roman Catholic Church, which
the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes called "the ghost of the
deceased Roman Empire sitting crowned upon [its] grave." The culture
of Rome became the culture of Catholicism. Through the church were
transmitted countless traditions and ideas-and, of course, Latin which
gave educated people all over Europe a common language and thus
strengthened their sense of being a single community. To this day the
ideas and structure of the Catholic Church-its universalism, its
hierarchy, its codes and laws-bear a strong resemblance to those of
the Roman Empire.
The Catholic Church might seem an odd place to begin the story of
liberty. As an institution it has not stood for freedom of thought or
even, until recently, diversity of belief. In fact, during the Middle
Ages, as it grew powerful, it became increasingly intolerant and
oppressive, emphasizing dogma and unquestioning obedience and using
rather nasty means to squash dissent (recall the Spanish Inquisition).
To this day, its structure remains hierarchical and autocratic. The
church never saw itself as furthering individual liberty. But from the
start it tenaciously opposed the power of the state and thus placed
limits on monarchs' rule. It controlled crucial social institutions
such as marriage and birth and death rites. Church properties and
priests were not subject to taxation-hardly a small matter since at
its height the church owned one-third of the land in Europe. The
Catholic Church was the first major institution in history that was
independent of temporal authority and willing to challenge it. By
doing this it cracked the edifice of state power, and in nooks and
crannies individual liberty began to grow.
The struggles between church and state began just over fifty years
after Constantine's move. One of Constantine's successors, the emperor
Theodosius, while in a nasty dispute with the Thessalonians, a Greek
tribe, invited the whole tribe to Milan-and orchestrated a blood-
curdling massacre of his guests: men, women, and children. The
archbishop of Milan, a pious priest named Ambrose, was appalled and
publicly refused to give the emperor Holy Communion. Theodosius
protested, resorting to a biblical defense. He was guilty of homicide,
he explained, but wasn't one of the Bible's heroic kings, David,
guilty not just of homicide but of adultery as well? The archbishop
was unyielding, thundering back, in the English historian Edward
Gibbon's famous account, "You have imitated David in his crime,
imitate then his repentance." To the utter amazement of all, for the
next eight months the emperor, the most powerful man in the world,
periodically dressed like a beggar (as David had in the biblical tale)
and stood outside the cathedral at Milan to ask forgiveness of the
archbishop.
As the Roman Empire crumbled in the East, the bishop of Rome's
authority and independence grew. He became first among the princes of
the church, called "Il Papa," the holy father. In 800, Pope Leo III
was forced to crown the Prankish ruler Charlemagne as Roman emperor.
But in doing so, Leo began the tradition of "investiture," whereby the
church had to bless a new king and thus give legitimacy to his reign.
By the twelfth century, the pope's power had grown, and he had become
a pivotal player in Europe's complex political games. The papacy had
power, legitimacy, money, and even armies. It won another great
symbolic battle against Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, who in 1077
challenged-unsuccessfully-Pope Gregory VII's expansion of the power of
investiture. Having lost the struggle, Henry, so the legend goes, was
forced to stand barefoot in the snow at Canossa to seek forgiveness
from the holy father. Whether or not that tale is true, by the twelfth
century the pope had clearly become, in power and pomp, a match for
any of Europe's kings, and the Vatican had come to rival the grandest
courts on the continent.
- The Geography of Freedom
The church gained power in the West for a simple reason: after the
decline of the Roman Empire, it never again faced a single emperor of
Europe. Instead, the Catholic Church was able to play one European
prince against another, becoming the vital "swing vote" in the power
struggles of the day. Had one monarch emerged across the continent, he
could have crushed the church's independence, turning it into a
handmaiden of state power. That is what happened to the Greek Orthodox
Church and later the Russian Orthodox Church (and, for that matter, to
most religions around the world). But no ruler ever conquered all of
Europe, or even the greater part of it. Over the millennia only a few
tried-Charlemagne, Charles V, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Hitler.
All were thwarted, most fairly quickly.
The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393047644/
hohensee
His ideas were bizarre, and remain bizarre. The Epicureans, on the
other hand,
gave us what we have in the US.
>
> In Book 3, [of Politics] Chapters 6-7, Aristotle establishes a famous
> classification of six types of rule divided on the one hand between
> those that are 'good' and those that are 'corrupt', and on the other,
> between the different number of rulers that make up the decision-
> making authority, namely, the one, the few, and the many. The good
> types include monarchy, aristocracy and polity, while the corrupt
> types include tyranny, oligarchy and democracy or 'mob rule'. Good
> government rules in the common interest while corrupt government rules
> in the interest of those who rule.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotlehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
>
> > Rick Hohensee-
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=MfbQSi6_8RYhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=llH13hboNYA- Hide quoted text -
Mich...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:41:48 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
>
The people Plato envisioned never existed (and never will).
But how very elitist of you.
So ironic that those who often clothe themselves as being "for the
people", really want to remove the reigns of power from the people and
give it to those more suited to rule (themselves).
Mich...@gmail.com
> > Ha ha ha. �Philosopher king. �Leo Strauss is dead and so is
> > nonsensical view of politics.
>
> Leo Strauss isn't the problem. The neocons being dumb as a plate of
> noodles is the problem.
And you are saying that their intelligence (or lack thereof) is
judged by how much they agree with you? How very Plato of you.
brian fletcher
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5261e562-0e6f-49c5...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
"Captain Socrates" could see the world was waiting for a Plato, so he
launched him, knowing that it was time for him to "get out of here".
When the marauding masses are waiting, their leader shows up, just as such
leaders are trained by a master who is no longer involved.
This is depicted beautifully in modern mythology with the Yoda character and
his interaction with Luke Skywalker in the second movie (the fourth and
subsequent releases went the way of 'religious commercialism'...
BOfL
BOfL
brian fletcher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
Aristotle was just illustratiing the predictability of the "multi headed
monster".
He was not advocation it.
BOfL
brian fletcher
"hohensee" <rick_h...@email.com> wrote in message
news:a89dcec3-9208-44e6...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Thats some "we" you are suggesting.
From despots to deities all in the one tribe.
BOfL
brian fletcher
"Art" <nu...@zilch.com> wrote in message
news:7or0t3lb9fiuaep83...@4ax.com...
Socrates saw that it would take someone of Plato's talent to 'swing the
pendulum of ideology, which would fuel all the necessary reactions such as
the ones you identified.
BOfL
brian fletcher
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1fa76d2-4e65-4203...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
This is not a geothermal process. Someone had to write the script !!!Plato
was well equipped to do so.
BOfL
brian fletcher
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:52c72ef8-3194-407e...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
And take your conscious state with you, or stay on board and 'change you
pov' and outgrow the ship.
BOfL
Shrikeback
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:52c72ef8-3194-407e...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Well, if the master starts talking paranoid about strawberries,
tax-cut recessions, robber baron corpwhore media, or leveling
wealth, you can alway git your stoppin' power and mutinize him.
Shrikeback
Interestingly, what was even worse was the last
century which saw philsopher king-wannabes
engaging in assembly-line mass murder. Whether
they believed they were the heirs of Marx or
Nietzsche, they were infinitely worse than the
Dark Ages. Talk about getting medieval on
millions of asses.
> We now have some slight improvements over
> the Dark Ages but it seems Plato's beautiful utopia
> may never be realized.
It can't be realized because it is a fantasy motivated
by the same thing that creates all rulers: the desire
to put control under people like me and preferably
just me. Plato's motivation revealed at last. Will
to power.
Art
>The people Plato envisioned never existed (and never will).
Wise, experienced, educated people disinterested in power
never existed? Nonsense.
>But how very elitist of you.
>
>So ironic that those who often clothe themselves as being "for the
>people", really want to remove the reigns of power from the people and
>give it to those more suited to rule (themselves).
So idiotic of some people to falsely ascribe motivations of others
that don't exist. Plato was simply imagining a sensible form of
government. Every sensible person wishes to be governed by
the wisest, fairest, kindest, and most brilliant. I'll leave you to
your government by popularity contests and it's tragic
and very sad results.
Ynot B. Dull
> > Because Plato was a kook. Stick to Lucretius and Aristotle.
>
> Can you explain how he was a kook? Personally I like Aristotle's mixed
> regime but Plato did raise alot of issues that others then paid
> attention to and refined.
Rick stuttered:
His ideas were bizarre, and remain bizarre. The Epicureans, on the
other hand, gave us what we have in the US.
>
Moi:
What 'you' have in the USA _IS_ Bizarre!!!!!
Please re-check your premises! lol
Ynot B. Dull
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f0fe168-dd60-4cde...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> > Ha ha ha. ?Philosopher king. ?Leo Strauss is dead and so is
> > nonsensical view of politics.
>
> Leo Strauss isn't the problem. The neocons being dumb as a plate of
> noodles is the problem.
MNJ Queried:
And you are saying that their intelligence (or lack thereof) is
judged by how much they agree with you? How very Plato of you.
>
MOI:
Um, one does not need to be a Plato, or a Strauss to work out how dumb &
stupid the neo-cons were, and still are.
That the average joe appears incapable to work that one out says a lot about
the average Joe, and why the neo-cons were able to get where they were in
the first place. Not to mention, re-electing GWB in 04. Like how DUMB is
that? <vbg>
and fwiw .... the Family is the solid foundation of all societies. It is a
"benevolent dictatorship" .......... and it works well far more often than
it doesn't. surprise surprise!
When uneducated, ignorant, and inexperienced Children get an equal
democratic vote into who rules the Family, I'll reconsider the futility of
democracy as a way to effectively run a nation state in the interests of the
common good.
Any half baked under-graduate philosopher could have done a better job than
Bush and Co. So much for the wisdom of the electorate choosing who should
lead the most powerful nation on earth. Doh! as Homer would say.
That's 'simpson' not the Greek. LOL
Ynot B. Dull
"You voted for Bush? Twice? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Moron." <goof...@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:4e3863e9-c0e1-4bcd...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Yeah ... but does that include Bush and the neocons who also think it's
justifiable to lie and manipulate the masses but who were VOTED in by the
"masses" twice !!!!
Mich...@gmail.com
> "Art" <n...@zilch.com> wrote in message
Pol Pot anyone? He sure was enlightened.
Immortalist
>
> > Can you explain how he was a kook?
> > Personally I like Aristotle's mixed
> > regime but Plato did raise alot of issues that others then paid
> > attention to and refined.
>
> His ideas were bizarre, and remain bizarre. The Epicureans, on the
> other hand, gave us what we have in the US.
>
Just claiming that something is bizarre doesn't really help much. It
requires some sort of trust in your judgment as the only evidence for
what you say.
X is what is bizarre
Plato is X
Therefore Plato is X
In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy
occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved
is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an
example of this, consider the following argument: "Only an
untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians
are untrustworthy is proof of this." Such an argument is fallacious,
because it relies upon its own proposition--in this case, "politicians
are untrustworthy"--in order to support its central premise.
Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already
proven, and uses this in support of itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Bret Cahill
> > > political leadership, while the rest should follow their lead and let
> > > philosophy alone...
> > > 'Suppose the following to be the state of affairs on board a ship
> Is that a love it or leave it fallacy?
Common sense.
> > A ship isn't a democracy.
> Niether is the USA and democracy,
The framers relied upon the "celebrated Montesquieu" more than anyone
else and he used the terms "democracy" and "republic" interchangeably
in _Spirit of Laws_.
But whatever you wish to call elective government, i. e.,
"Jeffersonian _democracy_" or "democratic freedom" or "democratic
republic" or "sovereignty of the people" or "dominion of the majority"
or "republic" . . .
. . . it ain't a ship.
Immortalist
The crew has a dominance hierarchy and the ship has different
institutions.
If a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as
being or equal to a second subject in some way are you claiming that
the social/institutional structure of constitutional republics is in
no way similar to the social/institutional structure of sea going
vessels? Or maybe you mean there are very few similarites, not enough
for metaphors or even analogies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L6YVl_s6qew