artsykat
Junior Member
Hello, I'm Kateri, nice to meet you~!
Posts: 51
|
Post by artsykat on Oct 20, 2016 1:58:44 GMT
Cicero, much like Aristotle, said that aristocracy, kingship, and democracy just aren't perfect. He said that while their acceptable, they can be corrupted, perverted. (In mention of politics, this kinda made me think of the elections going on today.) Here, in Cicero Commonwealth, there are many examples of what an ideal government would look like. Cicero talks about states being seen as commonwealth, meaning that it's in the hands of the people. There would be equality, liberty, justice and law. Essentially, the states would be a partnership in justice. It's ideal really.
(Now I wonder if something like this could be pulled off in America.) It seems, though, that trough out history, this motive hasn't ever really been put into action and came out to be successful, at least from what I know of. This goes to show that wherever there is power, corruption also lies. That's the main reason as to why the three ways of ruling which are listed above just can't be perfect. With commonwealth, ideally the power would be distributed evenly to the people.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Martin on Oct 27, 2016 16:33:12 GMT
There are a number of examples where the constitution had designed the power to be evenly distributed among the people. The early constitutions of the United States and the experimental democracy of Pericles and Cleisthenes (Ancient Athens, Greece) are but two examples where power was purposely designed to be directly linked to the people themselves, whether distilled into representatives, or directly in democratic vote and procedures. So then the real question becomes: does it work? I think maybe Cicero already gave an answer to that question, but I'm curious to see if you know what I'm talking about . . .
|
|
artsykat
Junior Member
Hello, I'm Kateri, nice to meet you~!
Posts: 51
|
Post by artsykat on Oct 28, 2016 20:42:38 GMT
"—Well then,—A commonwealth is a constitution of the entire people.—The people, however, is not every association of men, however congregated, but the association of the entire number, bound together by the compact of justice, and the communication of utility."
Would it work? Well, this depends on the people. Cicero did say that in order for commonwealth to work properly, the people would have to act virtuously, justly. Like any other way of ruling, commonwealth, if not done the way it's supposed to be done, can be corrupted. I think that one flaw in this way of governing is that if the general population votes or wants something, then it will happen, whether its good or bad. If you have a moral and just leader, then the rest of the populace will have to and want to follow sooth. If you have an unjust and corrupted leader, the populace itself can in a way decide what they want or choose to believe, and even rise up against the leader. So if you have the common people leading their own government, and they are all corrupted because of the power they received, then were in worse conditions then before. This is why Cicero said that in order for commonwealth to work, the people must be actively living a virtuously life, as well as understand the importance of community, and the concept of natural law.
This is what I think he was trying to say in regards to commonwealth. Please correct me if any of this is flawed or incorrect, as I too had a difficult time trying to grasp everything he was saying.
|
|