My philosophy teacher said that Ancient Greece was very prosperous and cultured because of democracy. That the Atheneum of Plato was an innovation that planted the seeds for government-run education. That the top 500 universities in the world are government-run. That private education is a problem and private education is elitist.
I can’t take an entire semester hearing these things so I arranged a consultation. I believe there is some truth in the claim that democracy in Greece made it prosperous. Democracies are typically short-lived, with a free market economy at the start and leading to a total state. Monarchies on the other hand last longer because the parasite will tend to optimize the taxes levied, so you end up with a long-lived medium sized state.
The claim about government-run education is absurd. The criteria for that is very arbitrary and may include how many athletic facilities it has, how spacious the lodging is, and school curricula with elements of socialist studies in it (like feminist studies, race studies, multicultural studies, queer studies ). There’s a recent article in Mises.org talking about something like you need to get a masters degree in Spain just work at an entry level job.
More importantly, why should education be different from all other goods. If socialist education works so well just because its socialist, then why don’t we socialize all other industries. But clearly, that doesn’t work.
Can anybody help me with additional ammunition? The guy I’m talking to has a lot of clout in our university.
I would especially like data on how exactly democracy in Greece led to its decline and maybe some more information on how the top 500 universities are ranked.
First off, I think you’ll have to concede that liberal democracies can be superior to monarchies. Its not like there was a free market and then everyone saw it was bad and decided to abolish it.
Moreover, the state can have the best anything in the world because they can simply raise the necessary funds via taxation. But this is cherry picking; it doesn’t reveal how wealthy society as a whole is.
[EDIT] On some level, facts won’t help you. If this guy is like I think he is, you will need a strong personality, backbone and intelligence to overcome him. Im not saying you don’t have these things. I hope you do. Another thing you can take advantage of is you have the internet right in front of you during class on your laptop (maybe). You can look up things as he’s saying them. Do a quick search of mises.org while he’s rebutting you.
There was also a thread about the cost of public schools in america… here
Overall just be bored with what he has to say. Liberal democracy theory is laughable. There’s no reason you have to have a state institution to have collective action. The voters who want education can just pay for it themselves and leave everyone else alone. Why are they allowed to attack American Citizens? They don’t attack Canadian Citizens? Is it because the American Voter owns other Americans? Would it really put a wrench in their plans so much not to be able to loot and steal?
Also, without putting too much thought in it; Homer, Hesiod, and Thales (for culture) among others were around before Athenian Democracy. And could you also turn the profs own logic against him saying it was Empire that made “Greece” prosperous?.
Athenian democracy ultimately empowered the war-mongering demagogue Pericles to lead Athens into becoming an overweening empire over the Delian “League” and then into a suicidal 27-year war with nearly all parts of the Hellenic world that did not recognize its overlordship.
If I had to guess he is talking about the Athenians during the “Athenian Empire” period, and strictly about Athens; even so, it needs to be dated, and the Proff needs to prove it. Otherwise it is just an assertion. Without scope and parameters on this issue nothing can really be stated. Can you have your proff put it in writing?
Comparing liberal democracy to pre-modern monarchy isn’t the relevent comparison. The better comparison is liberal democracy to liberal monarchy and modern democracy to modern monarchy.
Comparing Modern Canada to the Holy Roman Empire makes the fomer look pretty good. The former is a democracy, of course, while the latter is a monarchy. Comparing Modern France to Modern Manaco makes the latter look pretty good. The latter, of course, is a monarchy. My professor would always want to compare modern dictatorships to an idealized ancient democracy (without the non-democratic elements, like slavery) or else compare modern democracy with ancient (non-idealized) monarchy.
Why always apples to oranges and never pears to pears? The ideological straight jacket is a powerful thing.
I’m no professor, but it is more likely prosperous and cultured because of it’s position of economic prominence. I doubt an active democracy or the leisure of being cultured comes about in a poor country. Cart before the horse and such.
Wasn’t Greek education free market? Private pedagogues going household to household teaching and philosophers sitting around the town? Imagine a Greek philosopher attending a public school as a child.
Yes, our school system is a bastion of free thought! Try saying that with a straight face.
Well if your teacher likes Plato, he wrote alot about the negatives of a democratic society (like how a mob led socrates to his death). Furthermore, the so called democracy in Athens was only a small portion of the population that were considered both male and citizens. A good book to see an indept history of Hellenistic culture (as greece was not greece but several different city states) would be plutarchs Lives. Although some of it is fiction, the book gives a good indept analysis to show that things were not all democracy in Greece. For example, there were kings who ruled over Athens during several periods in history, some with absolute rule like King Solon.
Also, America’s framers were none too keen about democracy since they viewed it as rule by the mob. Read federalist 10 as it has good arguments why majority rule is not the way to go. Also, Mises’ Liberty and Property explains why capitalism is actually better than democracy. Both are also short, but read carefully, they are pacted with jewels of information.
Another argument is that non democratic states, like ancient egypt, has thrived as a wealthy civilization for thousands of years and they had a theocratic monarchy. Now of course a free and capitalist state will always be better at creating wealth. Egypt was a prize to most societies in the ancient world do to its vast wealth and culture.
Now for Public School. I’ll write more on that later. Hope this post helps
“Well if your teacher likes Plato, he wrote alot about the negatives of a democratic society”
Yeah, he was in fact a sworn enemy to democracy. To be honest, Plato was a nutcase with strong taste for social engineering. I agree with Karl Popper who called him the father of totalitarianism.
“That the Atheneum of Plato was an innovation that planted the seeds for government-run education.”
The model for government-controlled education was the Spartan system. It, along with the systems established throughout Germany during the Reformation, was copied by the French Revolutionaries who also believed, like the Spartans, that the state owned the children. Athenian education, by comparison, was far more decentralized with very little state involvement.
According to Plutarch, Solon was given autocratic rule by the people of Athens due to his so called wisdom . It was true that he was a reformer, but he was no democrat since the reforms he made were made only by himself as total ruler over Athens. Therefore, my statement still stands correct that Solon was indeed a king that ruled with absolute authority in Athens.
What you have to realize is that people use the word “democracy” as a success term, so that if a “democracy” fails it wasn’t really a democracy. It must have been a kleptocracy or some such thing.
Honestly, the size and scope of democracy itself must be defined by your teacher. Athens may not be as democratic as your philosophy teacher thinks it was (depending on definition). Also, does he realize he realize how many intellectuals of the time opposed or were not in the scope of democratic control (as they came from other parts of Greece), as well as how many Hellenistic non-democratic cities were also prosperous (though once again, time and maybe even prosperity have to be defined)? Likewise, I don’t understand how he could equate Greece as some promoter of public education, the vast majority was not government run.
