timocracy

简明释义

英[taɪˈmɒkrəsi]美[taɪˈmɑːkrəsi]

n. 金权政治；荣誉政治

复 数 t i m o c r a c i e s

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.Critics argue that timocracy can lead to inequality, as those without property are excluded from political rights.

批评者认为时政制可能导致不平等，因为没有财产的人被排除在政治权利之外。

2.In a modern context, some argue that our current system resembles a timocracy due to the influence of money in politics.

在现代背景下，有人认为我们当前的制度类似于时政制，因为金钱在政治中的影响。

3.The philosopher Plato described a timocracy as a government ruled by the honor-loving and property-owning class.

哲学家柏拉图将时政制描述为由爱荣誉和拥有财产的阶层统治的政府。

4.In a timocracy, where property ownership determines political power, the wealthy have a greater influence on governance.

在时政制中，财产所有权决定了政治权力，因此富人对治理有更大的影响。

5.The ancient Greek city-states often practiced timocracy, leading to a society where only landowners could participate in politics.

古希腊城邦常常实行时政制，导致只有土地所有者才能参与政治。

作文

In the study of political systems, one term that often arises is timocracy, which refers to a form of government where power is held by individuals based on their wealth and property. This concept has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy, particularly in the works of Plato. In his writings, Plato describes timocracy as a system that emerges when a society values honor and military prowess over the more egalitarian principles found in democracy. In such a system, those who possess greater wealth have a louder voice in governance, and their interests are prioritized over those of the less affluent. The implications of timocracy can be profound. For instance, it can lead to a society where the gap between the rich and poor widens, as the wealthy gain more influence and control. This can create a cycle where the rich get richer while the poor struggle to have their voices heard. In contrast to democratic ideals, where every citizen has an equal say, timocracy can undermine the very foundation of equality and justice. Historically, we can see examples of timocracy in various civilizations. For instance, in ancient Sparta, a city-state known for its military-oriented culture, only those who owned land were allowed to participate in political decision-making. This created a system where only a select few had power, based on their economic status. Such a structure not only influenced the governance of Sparta but also shaped its social dynamics, leading to a society that revered strength and wealth. Modern interpretations of timocracy can be observed in contemporary democracies where campaign financing and lobbying can skew political power towards the wealthy. In many countries, the influence of money in politics raises questions about the true nature of democracy. Are we living in a society that embraces timocracy, where the voice of the affluent drowns out the concerns of the average citizen? This is a pressing issue that many societies face today. Critics of timocracy argue that it leads to a distortion of democratic values. They contend that when wealth becomes the primary criterion for political power, it creates an environment where policies favor the interests of the few rather than the many. This can result in legislation that prioritizes corporate interests over public welfare, exacerbating social inequalities. Moreover, timocracy can also foster a culture of elitism, where the wealthy believe they are inherently more qualified to govern. This mindset can contribute to a sense of disillusionment among the general populace, as they feel their needs and opinions are disregarded. The challenge lies in finding a balance between recognizing the contributions of the wealthy while ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in governance. In conclusion, timocracy serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of allowing wealth to dictate political power. As societies evolve, it is crucial to remain vigilant against the encroachment of timocracy and to strive for a system that truly represents the will of the people. By fostering inclusivity and ensuring that every voice is heard, we can work towards a more equitable society that honors the principles of democracy.

在政治体系的研究中，一个经常出现的术语是timocracy，它指的是一种政体，其中权力由个人根据其财富和财产掌握。这个概念源于古希腊哲学，特别是在柏拉图的著作中。在他的著作中，柏拉图将timocracy描述为一种制度，当一个社会重视荣誉和军事能力而非民主中的更平等原则时，这种制度就会出现。在这样的制度中，拥有更多财富的人在治理中拥有更大的发言权，他们的利益被优先考虑，而不是那些经济条件较差者的利益。timocracy的影响可能是深远的。例如，它可能导致一个社会中富人与穷人之间的差距加大，因为富人获得了更多的影响力和控制权。这可能造成一个循环，使得富人越来越富，而穷人则难以发声。与民主理想相反，在民主制度中，每个公民都拥有平等的发言权，而timocracy可能会削弱平等和正义的基础。从历史上看，我们可以看到不同文明中timocracy的例子。例如，在以军事文化闻名的古斯巴达，只有拥有土地的人才能参与政治决策。这创造了一种制度，只有少数基于经济地位的人才拥有权力。这种结构不仅影响了斯巴达的治理，也塑造了其社会动态，导致一个崇尚力量和财富的社会。现代对timocracy的解读可以在当代民主国家中观察到，在这些国家中，竞选融资和游说可能会使政治权力倾向于富人。在许多国家，政治中金钱的影响引发了对民主本质的质疑。我们是否生活在一个接受timocracy的社会中，富人的声音压倒了普通公民的关切？这是许多社会今天面临的紧迫问题。timocracy的批评者认为，这导致了民主价值观的扭曲。他们认为，当财富成为政治权力的主要标准时，就会创造出一个环境，使得政策偏向于少数人的利益，而不是多数人的利益。这可能导致优先考虑企业利益而非公众福利的立法，从而加剧社会不平等。此外，timocracy还可能助长精英主义文化，富人认为他们天生更有资格治理。这种心态可能会导致普通民众感到失望，因为他们觉得自己的需求和意见被忽视。挑战在于找到一个平衡点，既承认富人的贡献，又确保所有公民都有平等的机会参与治理。总之，timocracy作为一个警示故事，提醒我们允许财富决定政治权力的潜在陷阱。随着社会的发展，保持警惕，防止timocracy的侵蚀至关重要，并努力追求一个真正代表人民意志的制度。通过促进包容性，确保每个声音都被听到，我们可以朝着一个更加公平的社会迈进，尊重民主的原则。