Well, looking at it so far, I think that the criticism that left-right is meaningless is a questionable assumption, because even if the definition is difficult in some form or fashion, many people intuitively understand what is meant by that.
In addition, the criticism of monarchy is likely too hasty, because nobody uses the term to mean a god-like figure, however, it does seem true that there are systems where a single individual does have tremendous power. For example, Stalin had this power, and it gave him the personal ability to push the deaths of millions of individuals. I think the video, however, is too quick to undercut the definition by being too rigid to it, despite this not being the real meaning.
As well, the criticism of anarchism is also basically rhetorical, given that some anarchistic thinkers do not see government as necessary for law. As such, jumping from "no government" to "no law" actually doesn't attack the anarchist position at all, but rather carries a hidden assumption that needs to be critically evaluated. In any case, I don't think that there is a large revolutionary anarchist movement to worry about committing acts of terrorism, and there are anarchists that are non-revolutionary as well. Not only that, but the Communists and the Nazis were never advocates of no government, but unflinching advocates of their government, so calling them anarchists seems questionable.
The criticism of democracy is also too quick and too aggressive. After all, one cannot say that "oh, people have power to do whatever they want" but rather one must actually make a case for this. Under any society, one can take away the home of another, the children, and anything else, the question is just one of likely condition for this to happen. I will agree with the criticism of democracy, but only by providing additional assumptions which can be accepted or rejected. In addition, the example of the gun man vs the mob is just somewhat ridiculous, as this mob has no reason to listen to the sheriff, and if the entire system is democratic, then a local vote on an issue with systemic consequence isn't democracy at all, but rather just localism and laws can be considered systemic. In any case, the unanimous vote of the jury and the unanimous vote of the mob still leads to question, heck, given the simple way that this is handled, what if we had the one stubborn juror who didn't want to uphold whatever law it was for whatever reason? Then this is hardly a matter of law, but rather just a matter of one man's opinion. In addition, Athenian democracy is noted for functioning rather well, and while Athens was a major power, they had a democratic system. So, condemning democracy on the basis of Greece seems questionable, even if one thinks that Athens could have done better than it had.
In addition, I would question the analysis of Rome, as I think I am missing something, and perhaps my historical background isn't what it should be, but I do not see the progression that the video seems to claim there is about democracy, republics, and oligarchies, given there was a lot of stuff involving coups and other issues involved in the Roman system that should also be glanced at.
In short, what I think is that the video is just a polemic of a rather unfortunate form rather than a great contribution to knowledge or a great argument. As such, even though there are elements where I can see potential arguments that can be made, I cannot say that I really care too much about the video. Heck, the distinction between oligarchy and republic is just left there without analyzing the former, which seems as if it should be necessary to do given that if the Roman empire is an oligarchy, it is a successful one. So, I don't see much value in what was said.
23 Jul 2009, 5:33 pm
