entity2636 wrote:Alright not in ~every~ aspect, but in a lot of aspects, if you're into picking nits. Look no further than the USA, Great Britain and pretty much every other country at and before the turn of the 20th century. Ancient Sparta, however, is unique among the ancient states in how modern it was in regard to it's non-serf population and the rights they enjoyed, men and women alike.
In the rest of the world it was common practice for women to go uneducated and seen fit only for the "3 C's" - children, cooking, church. Nowadays this practice remains in underdeveloped 3rd world countries.
Women were able to run businesses and own property in both the US, great britain and the rest of europe for the most part as well throughout the 18th and 19th century, and were certainly not considered property or livestock, so not sure what you're referring to.
As for going uneducated, that was the standard for everyone.
entity2636 wrote:
In practice the difference and it's impact on the way people lead their daily lives is, in fact, huge.
To be very blunt, in the first (democracy and constitutional monarchy) you are free to live pretty much how you see fit, work where you want/can, say what you think, etc., pretty much anything short of stealing, killing others or violently opposing the government.
This is also true in dictatorship. As long as you operate within the cultural and political mainstream and aren't breaking laws you're more or less free to operate with impunity in any society, dictatorial or otherwise.
entity2636 wrote:And you can, if you so choose, criticize, influence (by voting) or become part of the government. Also, the state/government/president/king can not arbitrarily change laws, impose restrictions on the population and such.
This is not so different from dictatorships, either. Dictators can be influenced by their citizens, and you can become part of the council of a dictator just as you can join a political party in a republic or a democracy. As for not being able to act arbitrarily, a dictator cannot simply act in any manner he wishes or he'll be overthrown. There is large lee-way for state operation in terms of "arbitrariness" in both dictatorships and democracies.
entity2636 wrote:In the rest your rights and freedoms are restricted in some or many ways with various degrees of consequences if you do not obey. You can not normally influence the government or become part of it, and even if you become part of it, you have to be in line.
New laws and policies can be arbitrarily put in place by the head of state (usually a single person) and enforced against the will of the population by the use of force. Often times such regimes terrorize their population and use unwarranted and excessive force as means of scaring people into submission.
This is just as applicable to a republic or democracy as a dictatorship. Laws and policies cannot be "arbitrarily" put in place in any systems, it depends entirely on the law, but they can and will be enforced against the will of the population by the use of force. Democratic or otherwise. Mainly because there is no such thing as a "will of the population". And the use of political, social and military force is a mainstay of modern societies, it's why we have police forces and also why we keep each-other in line socially. It's why companies like twitter or facebook have hate-speech enforcements clauses in its ToS. In order to 'oppress' those whose opinions are unacceptable according to the overall social norms.