One of the most surprising detail of Socrates's life is that he had no love for democracy. He thinks public voting is a joke and is supremely dangerous to the country.

Hear me out:

Socrates illustrated his argument with an analogy of a ship. He likened a country with a ship, a ship nevigating a turbulent water of uncertaintities (let's say this water represents the economic, defense, social, etc aspects of society)

He asked a question, if you were on a ship, and the election for a captain is about to be held. Would you rather have a few members of the ship who are well versed in navigation and ship maneuvering make this decision or would you rather have it be open to everyone, most of which, have no single clue what even makes a ship move?

Take your time to think about that question.

Done?

Let's proceed.

Can you give a reason for either of your answer?

Can you tell us why you'd prefer only those who are well versed about ships and navigation make the choice for who the captain would be?

Or,

Tell us why you'd prefer for those who don't, mostly a majority to make this decision?

Now, liken this scenario to the Nigerian democratic system - an open for all voting system.

Let's for this post assume that the election is fair and free, open to every one.

Do you think, a population that has an extreme degree of uninformed populace would make better voting choices as it concerns the economic, social and other aspects of politics?

When Buhari posited he'd make $1 = N1 how many of the Sai Babarians understood how this can be achieved in order to vet 'if, it can, at all be done?'

Wouldn't a more informed cacus see through the rigmaroles of a political wooing and make better and informed votes that have high chances of getting it right than a system controlled by sheer number of a largely illiterate group who even though are grossly ignorant of the implications of their choices can be easily swayed by sweetcoated promises they hardly even grasp its intricacies?

Do you think, like Socrates, that the Nigerian democracy isn't a good idea?

Would you prefer a certain criteria such as (level of education and income status or simply those who demonstrates they have and can think about this rationally) become significant determinants for voting status? Or would you have it free for all?

On one hand, an intellectual voting system, or a voting right by birthright.

Do you think we have more chances of getting it right if we cast our net into a bigger pool of informed voters as opposed to painfully uninformed ones?

Which do you prefer and why?

Your analogy flawed. For one, no one is born a sailor and it is illogical to liken a ship to a country (never mind socrates). In a ship there is heirachy: captain- mates- first officer- engineer- deckhands. The system there is fixed. In the case of people and nations, for milleniums. humans have yearned for the kind of leadership that will bring them liberty and so all sorts of system have been experimented with. Not with the french revolution in the 17th century did it dawned on some enlightened individuals that government/leadership should be the exclusive reserves of the people which led to the US Revolution where democracy was fully implemented. Led by george washington, cotton mather, thomas jefferson and others a blueprint was drafted and citizens was encouraged to chose whomever they want to lead them for a particular duration through the ballot system. And mind you, the've not gone wrong infact most countries of the including nigeria has adopted that form of government. I voted buhari.... no apology.

johnydon22:

He asked a question, if you were on a ship, and the election for a captain is about to be held. Would you rather have a few members of the ship who are well versed in navigation and ship maneuvering make this decision or would you rather have it be open to everyone, most of which, have no single clue what even makes a ship move?

Exmilitant answered this too well and made it possible for me to skip it. My gratitude.

johnydon22:
Do you think, a population that has an extreme degree of uninformed populace would make better voting choices as it concerns the economic, social and other aspects of politics?

No, it can't. They may be "an extreme degree of uninformed populace", but they still are concerned and want a say in their own economic, social and other aspects of politics that affects them, be it just having one of their's in charge.

And there's the beauty in democracy, it provides an opportunity to learn from our election of the the right and wrong person. And it provides a platform for those we elect to teach (in its most basic form, they campaign, or give us a loaf of bread or lie they would make $1 = ₦1). Take bubu, for instance. I'm certain there are things about his time in office that would make some say "never again". They've learnt.

johnydon22:
When Buhari posited he'd make $1 = N1 how many of the Sai Babarians understood how this can be achieved in order to vet 'if, it can, at all be done?'

Sai babarian here.

When bubu "posited he'd make $1 = ₦1", I laughed to myself thinking this bubu get sense. He was talking to an ignorant electorate who had been trained to believe magic can be performed. Its the same trick preachers use when they convince to give and would receive.

johnydon22:
Wouldn't a more informed cacus see through the rigmaroles of a political wooing and make better and informed votes that have high chances of getting it right than a system controlled by sheer number of a largely illiterate group who even though are grossly ignorant of the implications of their choices can be easily swayed by sweetcoated promises they hardly even grasp its intricacies?

Yes, a "more informed would see through the rigmaroles of a political wooing and make better and informed votes". However, being informed is part of democracy. It is after all the better informed (as bubu showed with his understanding that the gullible portion of the electorate would believe his "$1 = ₦1" ) that win elections. He would not have had enough votes to make him president if he'd wooed only the "more informed cacus".

johnydon22:
Do you think, like Socrates, that the Nigerian democracy isn't a good idea?

No, I do not think like Socrates that the Nigerian democracy isn't a good idea! We have tried other forms of government and had to put up with permanent tyrants. Least now we can vote them out every 4 years.

johnydon22:
Would you prefer a certain criteria such as (level of education and income status or simply those who demonstrates they have and can think about this rationally) become significant determinants for voting status? Or would you have it free for all?

No, I would not prefer a system abandoned by democratic nations centuries ago! That said, we currently do elect "those who demonstrate [to us that] they have and can think about this rationally".

What we need to do now is increase our ability to determine what a demonstration of thought and rationality looks like so we make better informed choices.

johnydon22:
Do you think we have more chances of getting it right if we cast our net into a bigger pool of informed voters as opposed to painfully uninformed ones?

No, I dont. Those you determine are not "informed voters" and that you leave out of the "bigger pool" will join militias and pester you as they agitate for enfranchisement as history has clearly shown.

I think the oversight in this thread is the feeling that we adopt a form of rule and everything else just falls into place, when, like most things, we need to work at it to get it right. As for the points you raised, history negates them all, including those of Socrates on this topic.

There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.

Plato

Hellvictorinho. This thread might interest you.

Exmilitant:
Your analogy flawed. For one, no one is born a sailor and it is illogical to liken a ship to a country (never mind socrates). In a ship there is heirachy: captain- mates- first officer- engineer- deckhands. The system there is fixed. In the case of people and nations, for milleniums. humans have yearned for the kind of leadership that will bring them liberty and so all sorts of system have been experimented with. Not with the french revolution in the 17th century did it dawned on some enlightened individuals that government/leadership should be the exclusive reserves of the people which led to the US Revolution where democracy was fully implemented. Led by george washington, cotton mather, thomas jefferson and others a blueprint was drafted and citizens was encouraged to chose whomever they want to lead them for a particular duration through the ballot system. And mind you, the've not gone wrong infact most countries of the including nigeria has adopted that form of government. I voted buhari.... no apology.

Aristotle, Pluto, Socrates, or any Polymath, a bad tree can never yield good fruits, ignorance & evil minded people are the majority in Nigeria, & a race of people, that have no business with democrazy that they don’t understand.

johnydon22:

One of the most surprising detail of Socrates's life is that he had no love for democracy. He thinks public voting is a joke and is supremely dangerous to the country.

Hear me out:

Socrates illustrated his argument with an analogy of a ship. He likened a country with a ship, a ship nevigating a turbulent water of uncertaintities (let's say this water represents the economic, defense, social, etc aspects of society)

He asked a question, if you were on a ship, and the election for a captain is about to be held. Would you rather have a few members of the ship who are well versed in navigation and ship maneuvering make this decision or would you rather have it be open to everyone, most of which, have no single clue what even makes a ship move?

Take your time to think about that question.

Done?

Let's proceed.

Can you give a reason for either of your answer?

Can you tell us why you'd prefer only those who are well versed about ships and navigation make the choice for who the captain would be?

Or,

Tell us why you'd prefer for those who don't, mostly a majority to make this decision?

Now, liken this scenario to the Nigerian democratic system - an open for all voting system.

Let's for this post assume that the election is fair and free, open to every one.

Do you think, a population that has an extreme degree of uninformed populace would make better voting choices as it concerns the economic, social and other aspects of politics?

When Buhari posited he'd make $1 = N1 how many of the Sai Babarians understood how this can be achieved in order to vet 'if, it can, at all be done?'

Wouldn't a more informed cacus see through the rigmaroles of a political wooing and make better and informed votes that have high chances of getting it right than a system controlled by sheer number of a largely illiterate group who even though are grossly ignorant of the implications of their choices can be easily swayed by sweetcoated promises they hardly even grasp its intricacies?

Do you think, like Socrates, that the Nigerian democracy isn't a good idea?

Would you prefer a certain criteria such as (level of education and income status or simply those who demonstrates they have and can think about this rationally) become significant determinants for voting status? Or would you have it free for all?

On one hand, an intellectual voting system, or a voting right by birthright.

Do you think we have more chances of getting it right if we cast our net into a bigger pool of informed voters as opposed to painfully uninformed ones?

Which do you prefer and why?

I think a military government that consists of wicked or/and selfish people is worse than a non-military government with the same kind of people.
But I prefer good to bad or/and worse.
Unfortunately, I will have to choose what is bad if the only option except it is worse.

HellVictorinho:

I think a military government that consists of wicked or/and selfish people is worse than a non-military government with the same kind of people.
But I prefer good to bad or/and worse.
Unfortunately, I will have to choose what is bad if the only option except it is worse.

Sounds like you are converted from your tune of not voting at all. Good.

Just so I understand. Tell me why you will "have to choose what is bad if the only option except it is worse"? State how this benefits you?

budaatum:

Sounds like you are converted from your tune of not voting at all. Good.

Just so I understand. Tell me why you will "have to choose what is bad if the only option except it is worse"? State how this benefits you?

It doesn't benefit me.
If I go with the bad,it means I have less to suffer.

johnydon22:

One of the most surprising detail of Socrates's life is that he had no love for democracy. He thinks public voting is a joke and is supremely dangerous to the country.

Hear me out:

Socrates illustrated his argument with an analogy of a ship. He likened a country with a ship, a ship nevigating a turbulent water of uncertaintities (let's say this water represents the economic, defense, social, etc aspects of society)

He asked a question, if you were on a ship, and the election for a captain is about to be held. Would you rather have a few members of the ship who are well versed in navigation and ship maneuvering make this decision or would you rather have it be open to everyone, most of which, have no single clue what even makes a ship move?

Take your time to think about that question.

Done?

Let's proceed.

Can you give a reason for either of your answer?

Can you tell us why you'd prefer only those who are well versed about ships and navigation make the choice for who the captain would be?

Or,

Tell us why you'd prefer for those who don't, mostly a majority to make this decision?

Now, liken this scenario to the Nigerian democratic system - an open for all voting system.

Let's for this post assume that the election is fair and free, open to every one.

Do you think, a population that has an extreme degree of uninformed populace would make better voting choices as it concerns the economic, social and other aspects of politics?

When Buhari posited he'd make $1 = N1 how many of the Sai Babarians understood how this can be achieved in order to vet 'if, it can, at all be done?'

Wouldn't a more informed cacus see through the rigmaroles of a political wooing and make better and informed votes that have high chances of getting it right than a system controlled by sheer number of a largely illiterate group who even though are grossly ignorant of the implications of their choices can be easily swayed by sweetcoated promises they hardly even grasp its intricacies?

Do you think, like Socrates, that the Nigerian democracy isn't a good idea?

Would you prefer a certain criteria such as (level of education and income status or simply those who demonstrates they have and can think about this rationally) become significant determinants for voting status? Or would you have it free for all?

On one hand, an intellectual voting system, or a voting right by birthright.

Do you think we have more chances of getting it right if we cast our net into a bigger pool of informed voters as opposed to painfully uninformed ones?

Which do you prefer and why?

please reply me when you see this quote

martins2021:
please reply me when you see this quote

Seen