Aristotle: The Right-Wing Misogynist

 Greetings,

Through some research and reading in to philosophy it has come to my attention that Aristotle had misogynistic and right-wing tendencies in his political and social thought. He rejected Plato's thought of his Republic, which mind you contains questionable thoughts on the lines of eugenics (no really, it does), describing the flaws in Plato's idea of the perfect society and governmental form. These tendencies need to be discussed in some detail, exposed to the light of discovery so people may understand the flaws of this so-called "great man" of philosophy.

Of Government

"Aristotle was honestly conservative because of the turmoil and disaster that had come out of Athenian democracy." (Durant, 1957: 63) This points toward Aristotle being directed toward the more conservative side of politics as a result of the failures he has seen in the "birth-place of democracy". His reaction to this situation was to reject the Republic of Plato, "Aristotle fights the realism of Plato about universals, and idealism of Plato about government." (Durant, 1957: 64). His view is that maybe Plato's ideal of his communistic society may have worked in the distant past with smaller communities, the problem is that it doesn't work with larger societies with wider divisions of labour.

"where the division of labor into unequally important functions elicits and enlarges the naatural inequality of men, communism breaks down because it provides no adequate incentive for the exertion of superior abilities. The stimulus of gain is necessary to arduous work; and the stimulus of ownership is necessary to proper industry, husbandry and care." (Durant, 1957:64)

All that has been demonstrated so far is that Aristotle is not in favour of Plato's model and that he is not in favour of democracy, or communism for that matter. His political feelings on the matter are further explained in the same text, based upon the problem of the "average" human being, and more important that there are those who are "below average".

How far right?

"Because the people are so easily misled, and so fickle in their views, the ballot should be limited to the intelligent. What we need is a combination of aristocracy and democracy." (Durant, 1957:70). His method would limit the ballot to a selection of the population. His aristocracy is one based on education, the ones who vote are the educated. Only those who have been prepared for the task will be allowed to vote, "the human average, is nearer to the beast than to the god. The great majority of men are natural dunces and sluggards;" (Durant, 1957:65). His politics are hard-hitting and pointed toward an elite making the decisions, at least they will be an educated elite; and it is likely that these will primarily be men.

Of Relationships

"Woman is to man as the slave to the master, the manual to the mental worker, the barbarian to the Greek. Woman is an unfinished man, left standing on a lower step in the scale of development. The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules and the other is ruled; and this principle extends, of necessity, to all mankind." (Durant, 1957:66)

The woman, according to Aristotle is definitively subservient to the man. The one serving the other as is described above. Once again, he attacks Plato's ideas of making woman more like the man so they can do the same sort of things, "rather dissimilarity should be increased; nothing is so attractive as the different." (Durant, 1957:66). Aristotle would not have his women changed to men but kept the same as they are because they are more attractive that way; this is for the purposes of marriage, of course. This reflects his more conservative views.

Of Marriage

"As if to give the male an indispensable advantage, he advises him to defer marriage till the vicinity of thirty-seven, and then to marry a lass of some twenty years." (Durant, 1957:66). The marriage of teens which occurred in the Middle Ages is certainly not a practice advised by Aristotle. Indeed he discusses the importance of waiting until they are of a suitable age before marrying. "The union off male and female when too young is bad for the creation of children; ... Health is more important than love." (Durant, 1957:67). His focus is on the production of off-spring and population control, not the relationship between man and woman, and the former he regards as a matter for the state, along with education.

How will you react?

Had most of these ideas been intimated by some contemporary person of influence, or celebrity today, then all of their books would be burned, CDs ceremoniously smashed and burned, and  products boycotted. However this is Aristotle, from which we get the "Aristotelian logic" among other important thoughts and axioms. His definitive leanings toward the right of politics, they could be explained as being "a part of his culture" or "a part of his time", as could his feelings about the opposite sex. The same were actually used by later generations, as is evident in some medieval cultures; many of his thoughts are still influencing the way we think and the way do things now.

When a book is read it is the expression of an individual's thoughts. The reader then has the option of accepting those thoughts, whole, in part, or not at all. The same could be said of a person's music. You don't have to like an entire album; you don't even have to like the person who produces the music to like it. The important thing here is that there needs to be a separation of the individual from the product.

If you dig deep enough, you will find skeletons in anyone's closet. 

How you react to that skeleton when it is exposed is up to you. Remember that many of the writers of the past were living in vastly different times to our own, this needs to be taken into account when you read their material. Remember, everyone is human and makes mistakes, and has quirks to their character. Is it necessary to burn books and destroy items when a person is "found out"? If this is so, then we are going to run out of books fast, because there are a lot of historical writers that should be first on the chopping block, and a lot that will have to be "excused" because they are "useful"...

One final thought, when does this lead toward censorship?

Cheers,

Henry.

Bibliography

Durant, W. (1957) The Story of Philosophy (2nd edition), Simon and Schuster, New York, p63 

The SCA: A Meritocracy

Greetings

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual member, not as a member of any corporate or organisational body. I am not representing any organisation within or without the Society for Creative Anachronism. Like all of my previous articles, this is my opinion and ideas about the subject.

The SCA

The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) is an international Medieval and Renaissance recreation organisation, and the only one that I know of that can claim to be an international one. There are satellites of the main group all over the world. Its stated purpose on many of its pamphlets is to "live the period the way it should have been." What does this mean exactly? Well, it means that we focus our attention on all the "good" bits of the period, and there are certain elements of the societies of the period the Society brushes aside.

The Society doesn't do the Inquisition, and up to recently it didn't do the Plague. Certain elements of reality have intruded upon "the game" and have imposed certain elements of the plague upon the game. Within the core of the Society is the chance to show the world a better way.

On the surface, the SCA's traditions seem quaint and medieval, even a little barbaric in certain circumstances. The ruling Crowns (typically a King and Queen) of each Kingdom are chosen by right of arms in a tournament held once every six months. If a person looks below the surface, one finds something more interesting. The individuals who achieve this have to be skilled in their pursuit, have trained to achieve this goal, to become the nominal/titular head of state for this period. The ruling is by right of skill, by ability.

More interestingly, the individuals who hold the real power, the seneschals, think like a president of an organisation, these are selected from among the populace. How? By vote? No, they submit applications, and the best person for the job is selected. This is the case for the SCA, it shows the way as a meritocracy; and has the chance to show the world a better way, a way in which people moved and awarded based on their merits. 

Define "Meritocracy"

To understand exactly what is being spoken about, and to ensure that both author and reader have the same meaning, the term "meritocracy" needs to be defined. There are three different definitions which will be presented, to give a better, more rounded definition. What will be noted with each definition is that success in these systems is based on ability, merit and achievement.

"a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition is simple and indicates towards individuals being rewarded with increased position and so forth based on their abilities and merits. A meritocracy when examined literally is rule by merit, so this definition goes simply for the source of how individuals attain increased positions.

"a social system, society, or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The Cambridge Dictionary definition tells both the reason that individuals gain success and power, through their abilities, but also examines the subject from a more current perspective, it could be said, stating that individuals do not gain such successes because of their money or their social position. This makes a comparison between the meritocracy and other systems. The Collins Dictionary definition approaches the definition from a similar approach.

"A meritocracy is a society or social system in which people get status or rewards because of what they achieve, rather than because of their wealth or social status." (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The definition does not only focus on the merits of the individual, but also upon their achievements, and this is also important, especially in regard to our current conversation. There is also comment about how the meritocracy does not focus on the individual's wealth or social status as in the previous definition from the Cambridge Dictionary.

Achievement Through Merit

The SCA has a system of awards intended to highlight the achievements of its members. To present these members as having done something for their local groups, and even wider groups, as something which is significant to the group. This award system is prevalent throughout the Society and is based on award recommendations which are sent highlighting what individuals have been seen to be doing. Individuals are awarded and achieve levels of rank on the basis of merit, rather than any wealth or social standing they might hold outside the Society. 

Officer positions are granted on the basis, where there is more than one individual applying for the position, on the basis of merit, what the individual can bring to the office, rather than any social standing the individual might have, so on the basis of merit. This means that the best person to do the job is, or should be, given the position out of a selection of candidates. Evaluation is on the basis of merit and achievement. 

The method describes forms a blue-print which allows the most talented, those with most merit to rise to the top. This means that the individual who works well with others, and achieves things for the group is more likely to achieve awards and officers than the individual who does not have such merits. Such is the idea behind a meritocracy. It is not a perfect system because there are those who must choose between one individual and another for the awarding of officers and awards, but it certainly, in its best form demonstrates fewer flaws than other systems.

System Comparison

In an aristocratic system, there is a family which has a certain blood-line which means they are in power. Power is inherited because of the family blood-line. The only way to come to power in this system is through inheritance, inter-marriage or violent over-throw, replacing one family with another, and history can be examined for examples of such incidences of each type of change of family inheritance. It does not allow for much change in the system, when in a truly autocratic system.

Many hail the greatness of the democratic system where each individual gets a vote. The history of the democratic system does not bear out this egalitarian approach. In Athens, only male citizens had the vote, which is to say, a smaller percentage of the population. It was not until the twentieth century that both sexes had the vote in many of our "civilised" western societies. 

Even now that each citizen, male or female has the ability to vote at elections, votes are often bought by the politicians with promises of things that they will do; sometimes they fulfil their promises sometimes they don't. People are scared into voting one way or another; how often are governments returned in times of crisis even though they are not actually in the interest of many of the people? People are subject to the propaganda of external influences in the media, and their votes pushed in one direction or the other.

Further, one vote every four years does not give the individual much control over what the politicians do in between times. How many citizens are politically-active at any time other than elections? How many petition, write letters to their local members? How qualified are these individuals to represent our interests?

In many ways the modern democratic system is more of an oligarchy, a rule by the few. On what basis? In a democracy any individual has the ability to represent their people, yes? How often do independents actually get voted in? Why? Often because we don't hear about them because they can't afford the advertising campaign. Most of the politicians' previous occupations place them in the upper strata of society, which means they have the money to start with. The rich get richer; they are out of touch with "the people" which is why the laws are out of touch.

Socialism has been heralded as the great evener, the great saviour of society, it will see the playing field levelled. Everyone will have the same access to resources and so forth. If the system is so effective, so perfect, why did it fail in the Soviet Union? It is simple, it did not level the playing field. It did not have everyone as equal, there was no equality of access to resources. There were still "haves" and "have nots". Socialism did not solve the human tendency for greed; people want more, and more than the next person. The Chairman and his Council of Ministers certainly were treated much better than their comrades in the factories.

A Perfect System?

Is the system that I have described previously within the SCA perfect? Most certainly it is not. It has flaws like any other system that is designed and operated by an organisation of human beings. These flaws need to be acknowledged.

The first problem with the awards system is that for an award to be bestowed, recommendations about the individual for the award need to be written, and not enough get written. In many situations this is because everyone expects that someone else will do it. Or, because the individual does no think that they are important enough that their award will count for something. This is not the case, of course, every recommendation letter is read, and every letter is taken into account, regardless of whom it is from.

The next problem is that there is a human being, or a group of human beings who compares the merits and achievements of individuals. They compare this either to a scale, sometimes internal sometimes external, against which the individual needs to match up to gain that award. Opinions are often gained about the individual and their impact. In each instance there are personal influences which can impact the situation, sometimes these are purely personal, sometimes they are the result of external forces, such as rumour and reputation. Each one of these will impact whether or not an individual gains an award. Essentially, it comes down to the decision of two people.  

Ironically, like the more important decisions of our lives, the more important decisions of the SCA come down to a single person, usually a seneschal. It must be noted that officers within the Society make these important decisions all of the time, on their own, because that is within their officer description. 

There is no perfect system, because there are people involved. Even if an entire system were computerised, the system would still be flawed, because a human would have to write the program, and a human would have to input the data.

Humans make decisions based on their experiences and the various impacts upon their lives including their beliefs and values. Sometimes these beliefs and values come into conflict with one another, we can just hope that there is a way that we can mediate these situations for the best outcome. If the SCA is examined as a society within a society it will be noted that there is a particular approach, while there is violence within the society, there is also a certain gentleness. While there is a certain forceful nature of the society, there is also a definitive politeness. The SCA has sometimes been termed as showing "the pre-1600s the way we would've liked it to have been" or words to that effect, as a political experiment it shows a way forward; putting the best people ahead.

For those of my readers who would like to find out more about the SCA, there are some links to follow below:

https://www.sca.org/

https://lochac.sca.org/ (for Australian readers)

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Taking Political Action

Greetings,

The following discussion is about political action and what it means to take political action. There are people who think that they are taking political action when they are actually not. They believe that they are trying to make a difference but they are actually not really. So the following will discuss methods of taking political action and their effects.

Not Political Action

There are some who think that political action is as simple as making people aware of injustice. This is only a very mild form of political action, if it can even qualify. People think that spreading information is sufficient political action for them to feel satisfied with themselves about having "done something" when in actual fact, most of the time it really does not qualify unless the information is of a truly restricted nature i.e. like whistle-blower level. So there are two actions which people think they are being political, but they are mostly just stirring the pot, and not really having particularly much effect.

Article Cross-Posting

Our social media feeds seem to be filled with people complaining about the actions of government or corporations. They seem to be filled with articles shared from various sources, some are reputable and some are not so reputable about various issues. Posting these articles does make people aware of the issues which are about, but it does not qualify as political action. Neither does a long rant underneath it in the comments. It raises awareness but does not do much else.

The "Meme"

Memes seem to have sprung up all over the place. Some of them are down-right hilarious, unfortunately these are not the ones that are being discussed here. The ones that are being discussed here, and "images with words attached" is the general definition which is being used here, are ones which are designed, like the articles above to stir people to action. For the most part, the most action that will be seen is some comment in the section below on a social media site. Much like Article Cross-Posting above, this does not qualify as political action. It may raise awareness of some social or political injustice, but it is not political action. It will not affect the government or corporations whom the meme is about.

Political Action

For something to qualify as political action it has to have an effect on the establishment. This means that either the government or a corporation has to stop and take notice of the action of the individual. this is the reason why the previous actions do not qualify as political action. They inform people, but so do journalists as part of their everyday job, and most of them would not think they are being political. The most important thing about this list is that while it covers the full extent of political action it does not in any way condone any sort of violent act against any individual or entity.

Voting

When political action is discussed this is the most common form which is recognised. Once every three or four years the voting public can decide to change the government. This is political action as the government, and corporations to a point, need to take notice of how people are voting and convince them to vote for them to keep them in power. This is the simplest and laziest form of  the use of political power and some people even decline to exercise this properly, and in some nations, at all. This is not the only way that an individual can exercise political power or effectively pressure the government or corporations.

Signing petitions

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of active petitions currently active and they are not all that difficult to find. Thanks to the internet we have organisations such as change.org which have made them electronic which means that we do not even have to sign on a piece of paper, but can sign from the comfort and convenience of our own homes. Signing these petitions is a form of political action as once the signatures are acquired they can be presented to politicians to present the view of the people on a particular issue. Where a person puts their contact details with their signature it holds more weight and, depending on the petition, could bring the person to notice of certain agencies. Of course there is a risk with any real political action that is to make a difference. However, in the same way as Voting, this is a relatively lazy form of political action, especially with the convenience of internet, electronic petitions.

Writing to Ministers

Any person may write to a Minister or Member of Parliament. A letter will carry more weight if the individual is a registered voter, and even more if the individual is one of that Member's constituents. Of course it will carry more weight if the letter is backed up with evidence and is not simply a rant or a complaint. The point being that writing to a Minister or Shadow Minister takes some effort, and this is appreciated by the reader and thus this is taken into account when the letter is read. This carries far more weight than simply signing a petition because you have taken the time to share your thoughts on a particular subject, which is obviously of importance to you. It can also easily be claimed that letters carry more weight than petitions because of the time taken to write them, especially when they are well-researched. The combination of letters and petitions is also useful. This is a form of political action which people do not seem to be as aware of as they should be.

Writing petitions and collecting names

Hasn't this been covered? No, the previous was merely signing the petition. This is writing the petition and collecting the names, being the instigator of the action. Just as it was previously stated, a combination of letters and petitions is a way of making people listen to issues which are present in a community. The letters and the petitions should be sent one after the other, and the petition should always be followed up by another letter so that the issue cannot be forgotten. Petitions are designed to gather a "ground-swell" of support for a cause. They are also useful for gaining contacts with people who may be willing and able to assist further in the cause. This form of political action has a long historical record.

Protesting

Protesting is the most well-known form of political action because it is public. The 1960s and 1970s made protesting famous, but it existed and was used well before this time. This, again, is the idea of using a "ground-swell" to demonstrate that there are a large group of the population which are concerned about a particular issue or set of issues. For many they are just an inconvenience which block roads and stop the flow of traffic, and this is actually their point. Protests are designed to make people take notice by causing an inconvenience through the massing of individuals. The other idea behind protests is that there is greater safety and greater force in numbers. One person can be ignored, but when hundreds of people get together, it is more difficult to ignore. Protests, for the most part, are designed to be non-violent, and the ones which turn violent are usually the result of a small group of people on either or both sides of the protest which stir up trouble. Protests are a form of political action which demonstrate an individual's dedication to a cause.

Violent Political Action

The forms of political action which have been described previously are intended to be non-violent. The prime one which can turn violent is the protest, which, as discussed, is usually the result of a radicalised group of individuals within the whole which cause the protest to turn violent. There are forms of violent political action which often make the news, which will be mentioned here, but not heavily detailed, as they are not the focus.

Terrorist acts are acts of violence perpetrated to cause fear for a social, political, or religious aim. These acts are usually perpetrated against civilian targets rather than military targets and are designed to cause disruption. They have previously been used as a form of political action and been used effectively so to bring governments to the negotiating table. Their nature has changed in recent times, as has the approach to them. Such actions are now considered criminal and not a legitimate form of political action.

Driven further along terrorist action can turn into revolution, but this requires the support of a large part of the population to succeed. Or at least complicity with a large part of the population to succeed. This is the most radical form of political action and involves taking over the entire government, usually by force.

Conclusion

There have been various forms of political action discussed. Clearly non-violent political action should always be the aim of the individual toward gaining their goals. What should also be noted is that there are more ways of exercising legitimate political power than just through the ballot. These should be taken into account. When a person truly supports a cause then these actions will be present. Posting articles and memes on social media is good for raising awareness but it does little else. More needs to be done to be considered "politically active".

Cheers,

Henry.

All Queensland's Fault?

Greetings,

Australia has just voted for 2019, and the results are in and they are not what some people wanted. So as a result there is a lot of throwing around of blame as to whose fault it is. Several people who I have seen on Facebook and other media have been blaming the result on Queensland, due to its some what conservative nature, hence its backing for One Nation and other conservative parties. To this there are somethings that need to be set straight.

First and foremost, where I live in Rankin, the Labor candidate is being returned, so it was not my electorate who can be blamed for this mess. So the fingers can stop being pointed in this direction for a start.

Next, we have a look at some numbers, there are 151 electorates in Australia, 30 of these are in Queensland, it is a fifth of the electorates. What about the rest of the country? What about the other states? There are more electorates in Victoria and New South Wales. To gain what it required the Labour-National Party would require more than just Queensland. The evidence points to them getting it too (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-19/federal-election-map-coalition-defies-polls-retains-power/11127084?section=politics).

So before everyone tries to go blaming one state for the failure of an election maybe they should look at home first for the blame, if any blame should be leveled at all. Clearly the Coalition ran a better campaign than did Labor and other parties. What now?

My question for all those people who don't like it is, what are you going to do about it? When these politicians do something you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Just sit there and complain? When was the last time you wrote to your local Minister or Shadow Minister? When was the last time you marched? Australia is generally politically apathetic, and our politicians know it. This is the reason why the know they can get away with what they do. If you think that the vote is your only power then you are underestimating yourself.

Cheers,

Henry.

Weapons Control... Not Just Guns

Greetings,

The subject of gun control is not one I usually post about simply because it does not seem to be a subject which it is possible to have a calm discussion about as people become too emotional about it. Before I begin the core of this discussion I will note some important biases which will colour my opinions with regard to this matter. I have a family history with regard to firearms. My father was a part-time gunsmith, both my parents were licensed shooters. I fired my first rifle at the age of 8 years old and was taught my first lessons about firearm safety at the age of 7. I am also a Life Member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). With all of these details noted, we move on.

The first thing that needs to be noted is the subject of terminology, we are not talking about guns, we are talking about firearms. Firearm is the term knowledgeable people use when discussing this particular subject, gun is the generic term. Firearm is also the one which appears in the Weapons Act.

With regards to our Weapons Acts, as we have one for each state and territory of Australia. Almost every time there is some sort of mass shooting in the United States or elsewhere, people get up in arms about tightening our weapons laws. Why? Did it happen in Australia? How will tightening our weapons laws prevent something from happening in another country? Further, it should be noted that the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia, primarily in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, and then in 2014 after the Lindt Cafe siege, some 18 years apart. Incidences such as these are used as "evidence" for the need for tighter weapons laws. In both instances the weapons were illegally obtained, thus obtained outside the law so tighter weapons laws would not have stopped them anyway.

Likewise to compare the SSAA and the NRA is ludicrous. Both organisations have their similarities but they also have their stark differences. From my own personal point of view, I am proud to be a member of the SSAA, I would never become a member of the NRA. I personally think that what the NRA does is push the bounds of the reasonable way too far. Needless to say Australia does not have gun ownership enshrined in its constitution unlike the United States, and this aspect is what gives the gun lobby in the United States its power. The gun lobby in Australia is not such a fearsome beast.

What needs to be noted is that the legislation in each of the states and territories in Australia is a Weapons Act not a Firearms Act. What does this mean? What this means is that they do not just cover firearms but other weapons as well. Crossbows are legal in Queensland so long as you are licensed, in New South Wales they are prohibited, they are not firearms. Swords are fine to be carried in a normal bag and taken care of as any other piece of sporting equipment, and so long as you are not waving it around in public without a good reason you will not be hassled about it. In Victoria, they need to be locked away in a lockable container in a similar way to firearms. This goes for the blunt weapons we use for medieval and Renaissance recreation as well. At one point in time consideration was made toward legislating bows, but was considered too difficult to enforce.

Firearms may be the popular target when it comes to the Weapons Act, but it does not mean that government agencies are not looking to restrict other weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that anyone who is involved with any sort of weapons whatsoever is careful and treats them with respect. All it needs is for someone to draw the wrong sort of attention and restrictions can be brought against other weapons not just firearms.

When you consider your support for tougher firearms laws, or weapons laws as the case truly is consider what you are really asking for. Consider what you are asking the politicians to do. Consider that they may decide that the weapons which belong with your medieval and Renaissance hobby are too dangerous and you should not be able to use them anymore, or not without severe restriction. When we take action for a cause we should always consider what sort of flow-on effect this may have with other aspects which are related to that cause, things are more connected than you realise. It also means that we should all take care to ensure that we do not perform any action which may draw any unwanted attention our way. There is always someone willing to get annoyed with any excuse with what we are doing.

Cheers,

Henry.

Democracy or Oligarchy?

Greetings,

Is Australia a democracy or an oligarchy? It is a question which must be asked when we look at how our country is run. There seems to be a lot of top-down thought being used, with the people at the bottom often being forgotten in favour of the people at the top.

A democracy is a system in which each person has a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. This is regardless of gender and with the only restrictions in our system being that you need to be an Australian citizen, and of legal age. This allows you to vote once every four years on average. The system also has no barring to political office based on class or financial status, or so it says, or so it is supposed to be.

An oligarchy is a system in which only the top echelons of society have a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. There is a system to ensure that only the upper echelons of society have any say in what is happening in the system and most other people sit below and have to put up with the decisions made by the top echelons.

With these pseudo-definitions in place I can point out a couple of things with regard to the system in Australia. Examine firstly how often we actually get a say as voters, this is really only every four years or so when we make our selection of the individuals who happen to be running for office at that time. This is the same at local, state and federal levels. These people who we pick and chose from are the people who actually run the system. Sure we can send messages in different forms to our local members to have our problems looked at. But what are the results? Who's opinions really get heard? Sure if we don't like it we can run for office, but then there are the chances of actually getting in.

This is where the system begins to feel a little oligarchic in nature. First part of this is the question of who really gets heard. Businesses get heard. So-called interest groups get heard. And if enough "normal" people get together (usually requiring thousands) they get heard. The first two groups mentioned get heard because they have an effect on the economy, they have power, they are part of the upper echelons. So the upper echelons get heard more than the "normal" people.

For a person to run for office they need to make themselves known. Indeed they need to make themselves known before they start to run for office, before the next election is due. Examine our politicians, see how many of them are known leaders of the community, be that community leaders, people in business, or people who help the less fortunate, or in some instances sporting stars. These people are known in their community because they do things. Often these things take money and bring a lot of media attention. How does the average Joe compete with that level of publicity? Media campaigns take money. Getting to be known takes money. The wider that you want to be known the more money this will take. Quite frankly in the end the one who makes the bigger noise is more likely to be heard, and elected. Without some sort of financial backing you are quite frankly bought out of the race. Sound familiar? Restriction of access to politics to the upper levels? As I have said oligarchic in nature.

Interestingly even the cradle of democracy did not have true democracy. In Athens everyone was equal? Nope. In order to stand and be heard you needed to be male of the age of majority, and a free-man. Still even in this system the loudest was still heard. You talk loud, you get most attention, more people listen to you, your point of view is more likely to be heard. The idea of the political campaign is nothing new. So even the original system was somewhat limited.

This is not an attempt to change the way that things are. For the most part the system actually works and things get done, so long as the politicians get rid of the personal crap. I am not advocating some sort of rebellion. I am advocating that we open our eyes and see how the system really works, to see what can be done with our voice, and for pity's sake vote how you believe.

Cheers,

Henry.