2.2 T-S: How does your understanding of democracy compare to the ideas the philosophers had? (Democracy: rule by the people) by Lauren Tran6

32sblancosandova — 2025-10-13 17:07:36 UTC

I think that a group is better because it is better than one person believe.

32aatenco — 2025-10-13 17:09:48 UTC

I think that one person is better because they don't have to argue with other people.

31sespinoza — 2025-10-13 17:10:13 UTC

I think that the balance is better because not just the rich people get a say but the common people also get a say.

31amagga — 2025-10-13 17:10:35 UTC

Personally, I actually do think a group of the fair and the wise would make good rulers because they would make sure that rules and other political things aren't biased.

32cmaldonado — 2025-10-13 17:11:04 UTC

It is almost the same because I believe everyone should vote. The reason I believe this is because it wouldn't be fair to only have one person vote.

32agonzalezramos — 2025-10-13 17:11:40 UTC

I think the group is better because they have more than one belief and also they were they didn't do anything wrong they just got slimed

32htran4 — 2025-10-13 17:12:41 UTC

I think that one person is good because if there is too much they might fight and cause trouble with eachother. There might be a war.

32opham2 — 2025-10-13 17:15:27 UTC

My understanding of democracy compared to the ones that the philosophers had is not so different as I agree with Cicero (For totally other reasons). I believe that a good balance of each will let more people share their ideas and perhaps even add different takes on certain laws or in discussions. I think that everybody's word counts, especially in an open interpretation discussion.

2025-10-13 17:17:51 UTC

I think that one person is better because if all be the leaders they could start to argue.

32jnguyen7 — 2025-10-13 17:20:15 UTC

In today's democracy I think that common people should get a say but not all of their ideas should be used because if it were to be rich people they would probably make a say in things that benefit only them also they have basically all they need but common people go through more so they could really make some good ideas and it could affect so many people in good ways but some people are greedy so they would also try to make things bend things in bad ways making themselves rich that's why some wise people are part of the say too so they help use the good ideas and keep out the bad ideas.

32echolulaortega — 2025-10-13 17:20:26 UTC

I think that one person to rule is better than a group of people because if the group starts to fight it could end up not very good.

33vnguyen2 — 2025-10-13 17:21:19 UTC

The people who were executed shouldn't have been because their ideas were very good but others found it ridiculous somehow and they died in such a harsh way and their ideas show democracy because it shows who is worthy and capable of being a leader and who's not I also find it unfair because,philosopher kings were ranked the highest while soldiers and common people were ranked low in the pyramid everyone should have been the same rank because they are all human

32marmenta — 2025-10-13 17:24:04 UTC

i think that one person is better because if it were a group then the people could fight then everyone dies. 💔

32narmenta — 2025-10-13 17:32:09 UTC

I think that one person is better because if it was a group then they might not have the same ideas and then something can end up bad.

2025-10-13 23:20:56 UTC

I think that one person would actually be better because not many people would have the same idea as others

2.2 T-S: How does your understanding of democracy compare to the ideas the philosophers had? *(Democracy: rule by the people)* by Lauren Tran6

2.2 T-S: How does your understanding of democracy compare to the ideas the philosophers had? (Democracy: rule by the people) by Lauren Tran6