Unquestioning slaves to western humanism
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13823
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 17:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Unquestioning slaves to western humanism
Posted By: Tobodai
Subject: Unquestioning slaves to western humanism
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 02:49
|
SO often we all ask, how could the people of Germany be so brainwashed as to not question in large enough numbers the validity of facism, or why suffering peasants in Russia didnt question the Tsar (or the commies)?
But when I hear this I feel it often smacks of hypocrisy. SO many of us grow up in societies that tell us our way of life is best, that everyone should have equal representation in government. I used to believe this, I most certainly do not any longer. I beleive the equation that the best thing for the people=the will of the majority is the biggest (and most prevalent) flaw in western society, and it goes a long way to explain alot of the major grade A disasters that have occured in the 20th century.
Isnt anyone that never questions or challenges thier society no matter what that society is, guilty of the same crime as those that enabled the Nazis?
And how is democracy not just another form of the same kind of government that was fascist or communist inspired? All of them value charisma over intelligence or skill, and all of them harness popular support for short term objectives by pandering to the lowest common denominator. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Replies:
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 14:54
| Well, Zagros, why don't you try reading "Starship Troopers"? Heinlein may provide you with an answer to somehow the same questions you asked. |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 18:15
|
No, there is no guarantee that democracy is intrinsically "better" than fascism or communism. However, from a pure utilitarian point of view, people living in "democratic" nations, even though they may be as stupid as those living in other types of regimes, do live better and suffer less unnecessary deaths. That's what makes it superior - definitely not in a moral sense as some would like to claim. Tobo, I don't think anarchy is a realistic answer ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 23:21
|
But I have decided that I am anti-democratic, athat I feel the common folks and their whims should have no say in government. I have taken great criticism for this position. I hate ideologues and love reason, practicality, and balance. I see the elitist and thousand year old Venetian Republic as a great government as the voting was only done by those who earned the right to vote. Yes, voting should be earned.
AN oligarchs law "leave others privacy alone" stands to persoanl freedom, but a democratic mob will change the law to wage war on this not in the norm. Even now this gay marriage thing goes on and on because the masses want it, while the people who have no acess to full partnership benefits have their privacy violated by the inquisitive eyes of the masses. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 09:09
Then who should? And, more cogently, who should decide who should?
How?
Nothing is more obvious than that society is best served if the people most capable to make decisions are the ones who make them. It is effectively a tautology.
So there's not much point in saying it.
The practical question is one of mechanisms. How do you decide who is the most capable of making the best decisions? And how do you decide the criteria by which a decision is assessed to be the 'best'?
Aristotle went all through this two thousand odd years ago. ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 03:44
|
Things have changed greatly since Aristotle, we now are on the verge of reliable and evolving development of AI's.
Before I get a lot of Hollywood garbage thrown at me about how all the movies tell everyone not to mess with technology, I must state that I feel the opposite to this movement...that humanities greatest achievement will be to make itself obsolete, by creating an artifical AI better than us to rule and judge us with a programmed constitution.
But this is getting too far ahead of myself...
To answer the more grounded questions, voting is earned by doing something for someone else. Thus some Kansas farmer who doesnt know any gay people and cant find Iraq on a map, or some crazed ethnic group nationalist who doesnt do anything for the country has no say in the countries running.
venice tacles the problem like so: Make a great work of art, fight in a battle, wirte a novel, do soemthing charitiable etc. You earn merit points and th emore you have the more power you get. The flaw in the Venetian system was it could be hereditarily inherited, this should not be so.
Just as it is foolish to assume ones birth entitles them to a better or worse system of rights, it is also foolish to assume all are born with a set of innate rights aside from privacy. You want more influence go EARN IT. Such a system really reduces the power of pundits who do nothing, and those that listen to them
The only thing I give democratic societies credit for, is that imbetween all their witch burning and slide towards populist fascism, they came upon the idea of seperation of powers. This is important, there should be a supereme court indoctrinated with a constitutional ideology and a set of merit based approved challengers who constatnly challenge the courts stance to change with the times, but not do so blindly (or at popular whim).
A third branch can be representative, but this shoul donly be advisory, so that people know what the masses think, but can disregard it if it makes no sense.
Also all political system reach obsolecense eventually, one would be blind to say we have the pinnacle of human achievement here. Democracy is just a moderate phase of facism or communism when charisma is more important than ability to those who try for power. Democracy also harms progress by presenting the illusion of change when the same system remains in place. Without violent revolution every now and then corruption only builds and builds unless the system is a dynamic merit based power structure, and even then thsoe eventually succumb. Hitler was elected, Ahmenejad was elected, mayn terrible US presidents were elected, I would say more than half US presidents have been terrible since the vaunted "jacksonian popular democracy movement" wheras the levels of good Venetian rulers and councils outnumber the bad and incompitent.
Monarchy is dead, so too will democracy die, and I hope I am the one to bury it in a shallow grave next to the other misguided ideologies.
All one needs is seperation of powers and a document of law, as we see now in the US and in other places these things alone tend to be fine, but when the masses get involved things are not so fine. Is it coincidence that most forward thinking laws do not come from the populations but the courts, who are educated specialists? ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 05:52
|
Implicit in your argument is the idea that the goals of mankind are givens - and that you know what they are or should be.
Why is your opinion on what should count as 'earning' better than anyone else's?
If someone develops an AI system to make decisions (perfectly possible in the future though not now), who programs it? Who decides what it should be trying to achieve with its decisions?
AI might be a method to develop the ideal tactics or strategies to use in a war. But how can AI decide which side to fight on? Who tells it who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?
What goals a society sets for itself is a totally subjective matter. You shouldn't confuse efficient development of methods with the development of ends the methods are supposed to achieve.
AI makes no difference at all to the problem: Aristotle's observations are as valid now as ever.
------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 07:09
Are you talking about Kansas farmers or a farmer from Kansas? Why you think that you are so superior from him? Is it a problem of Kansas or of farmers? And how can you evalluate if someone is doing something for his country or not?
What about physically challenged people, who can't enlist in the army, or the poor and the un-educated? It's very easy for someone to think for these people that they are mere and that we don't need their opinion or vote, because, we know better than them, oh wait that's fascism.
It is also foolish to believe that all newborn infants, don't have innate rights. You want your people to change their mind over a matter, go talk to them, inform them , educate them, but don't take their right to think for themselves.
Is it a coincidence that these courts are working in democratic states and not under authoritarian regimes. Maybe, you should check some laws that came from Nazi and Stalinist courts, by educated specialists (no doubt about that), but with a pistol against their forehead.
Tobodai, I don't know where you live and how is the political situation there, I think that you live in a democratic country. If you lived or even visited a country under authoritarian rule, you would thank god for your right to vote. Because, believe me your ideas wouldn't make fascists or communists, happy. The only political system that gives you the right of speech and involvment in politics is democracy. -------------  Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 07:16
|
The reason so many of us think that Western humanism is so great is
because it has built very successful modern nations and also has
typically embraced values which make it seem more pleasant to the
alternatives such as tribalism, theocracy, Confucian communalism,
totalitarian communism and fascism etc. Until a viable alternative to the values of Western humanism is developed, best to stick with the tried and proven. Most states who follow the alternatives are less successful in terms of security and prosperity than the states who early on latched on to the values of Western humanism and the Enlightenment. An exception to this I can think of is Singapore, but is that state founded on a viable alternative to Western humanism or rather the peculiar brilliance of a founding father (which, expires much more easily than political values). Every society, from the most primitive tribe onwards, comes with notions of social justice, fairness and rights. These notions are inbuilt into the human psyche, a result of our ancestors' many years adapting and evolving to functioning as effectively as possible in a troupe style social system. Power leads the holder to withdraw their sensitivity for the needs of others, to become insular. When governing a people, one must be sensitive to the rights of their subjects and not too inclined to neglect their needs from the comfortable perch atop an ivory tower. ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 23:17
|
My original point is that people just accept western humanism because they see it as the best, they are as indoctrinated as a Hitler youth. These resposnes seem to prove it, there is no real diversity of thought here but a overwhelming desire to salvage the status quo ante of what everyone, right or left, has decided to agree on. Where does this beleif that voter participation increases freedom coem from? Privacy and democracy are not freinds, nor have they ever been.
glc, I dont prented to even think there is such a thing as a common human goal. WHo makes the rules, who should? The most able. The smartest. Those capable of adapting to change, which of course menas people without overt ideologies and religions (the very impediments that get people elected to socities detriment!).
Too much is made of democracy equating sucess, I think sucess equates a situation stable enough to handle the weakness that is majority rule.
But I speak too much of government, and already the immense creativity and 3 dimensional thinking of those that have been told since they were born that democracy is great and thus swallow it hook line and sinker is already out and calling me a fascist. Since I already said that the reason I dont like democracy is that I think its a branch of fascistic thought, this makes no sense. Physically challenged people, even a quadrapilegic can still dictate a novel or come up with an idea, everyone can do anything that requires some modicum of humanity to move their standing ahead. The only right one is born with is the right to live ones life however one chooses as long as they harm no one else. This is a basic rule most can agree on, but it does not agree with democracy.
I am and always will be a libertarian opposed to government meddling in the affairs of anyone who is not harming anyone else. My hatred of democracy comes from this. The majority is dangerous, to privacy, to indipendence. they seek to impose moralistic regulations and when they cannot do so through brute force of their numbers they elect (or install or support in the case of say Mussolini or Franco) someone who will retain power by appealing to their silly supersticous ways and appeases the majority by scrapegoating the minority.
Right now in the US, pundits and politicans use poll numbers to badger peopel to support things, things that are wrong, intrusive, stupid, and unstrategic. It brings back my point, the only reason we dont see mass repression in our so suposedly great societies and we actually have higher standards of discourse in our societies is only because of constitutions and speration of powers. Neither of those things are part of mass-rule, they run against it and impede it, much to the betterment of society.
As I said before, the court system and the documents of law drafted by a few exclusive people are the true pillars to a societies sucess. COuntries with opression lack these factors, not popular rule. For in fact, when a country is tyranical it is usually because the only way to support a governmetn with no sound legal basis and no reliable interpreter of the laws is for a strongman to do things to either win over the masses or scare them. Either way all tyranny and injustice is reliant on the complacency, cowardice, or complicity of the mass. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 00:43
|
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all other that have been tried from time time" -Winston Chuchill.
IMO the problem isn't democracy per se, I am a solid supporter of Democratic Socialism, it's demogogury and populism. The best way to prevent that is a strong constitutional court, a bill of rights, and a process of amending the the country's constitution that requires a supermajority. Another thing is that election campaigns should be publically funded, this prevents special interest influence that angers the populance and causing it to support populists who say they will "clean up the governent." Finally, media enterprises should not be allowed to be part of conglomerate corporations, since those conglomerates end up using the media businesses they own as propaganda outlets. ------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 02:39
|
Well ok, I can concede some of your points. I think the democratic elements of the US are the most dangerous doesnt mean I cant live with them if they undergo some massive reform.
But as much as I dont like corporate media, I like government media even less.
I guess I should explain why I have turned so virulently against democracy which was a form of government I liked fine until about 6 months ago.
When you realize that not only are all your opinions in the minority on every single conceivable issue, but that the people around you tend to be far less informed historically and poltiically, you dont want their majority so much as gaining any power over you. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 05:18
|
Who would you like to be your leader(s) Tobo, and why?
Here's a list, you may add some more at your choice: I.V.Stalin, Attila, A. Einstein, Isaac Newton, Torquemada, Julius Caesar, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Ben Gurion, Moshe Daian, Osama Bin Laden, Gandhi, Confucius, Isoroku Yamamoto, Tokugawa Ieyasu.
*what's that, "an artificial AI"
 ?**I would like to build a semi-artificial semi-inteligence (SASI)
 . It might work better than our current leaders. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 07:16
You keep ducking the question by moving into an infinite regress. Who decides who is the most able? Who sets the criteria for defining 'able'? Same with 'smart'. Who decides who is 'smart'? What is 'smart'?
Autocracy says the autocrat does. Oligarchy says a chosen few do. Democracy says the majority of the people do, sometimes with limits on a simple majority.
Either you are saying you believe in autocracy (some one person should decide these questions) or in oligarchy (that a select grouo should). But you then have the problem that haunts both those 'solutions' - who picks the autocrat, who denotes the oligarchs? You can't just say: the people best able to, because then the infinite regress just kicks in.
If you want anyone to pay serious attention to what you are saying, then simply define what you mean by 'smart' or 'able' or 'best' and tell us who decides what those words mean.
That you think so doesn't mean it is true.
I agree they shouldn't call you a fascist. Aristotle was no fascist and agreed with you about democracy.
Except that he couldn't see any better practical solution.
But you've just given a democratic reason for accepting a rule. If the majority cannot be trusted, how can you say that 'most can agree' on it is a reason for accepting it?
Or if it is a reason for accepting that rule, then why not others?
You're having your cake and eating it here.
True.
Which is of course a reason for asserting that the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were responsible for the criminal actions of their country, and therefore cannot be considered 'innocent victims'. ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 23:59
|
You want what I deign able? The ability to strategically asses a situation without an ideology, the ability to know of cultures and thinking aside from ones own. Most importantly for the able, is the lack of a religion or dominant ideology outside the personal sphere. If you want to know my rankings I put Democracy over monarchy (as hereditary sucession is a proven failure of nepotism of the worst kind) and over personality cult driven dictatorships. I do however put either the complete lack of government, the non hereditery oligarchy, and the moderate dictator over democracy. and of course one of my implications is not so much that most people do worse in a democracy. I agree most people do better, but not everyone is in that most section. This is why I like the Mamluks, the small slave section of th epopulation took over completely because their intrerests where not being observed.
Its also a misjudgement to say that my repsect for personal privacy is democratically inspired. Tsar Alexander II, Chinggis Khan, and the Venetian COuncil ccared alot less about meddling in private affairs than the people of the US , UK and France ever did.
Oh and did you know that in many ways Imperial Japan was more democratic than the US and the UK, most of those politicians were elected? ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 00:02
Religious nuts and idealogues wouldnt be on my list, so Reagan Thatcher, Stalin, Osama are all out.
My personal favorite leader in modern times is Mustapha Kemal. I think if one is going to go democratically a Turkish style system is best. The military should be indoctrinated with a progressive forward looking ideology and forceably remove any nutcase the plebes like from power.
Its ironic cause I fight with nationalistic Turks so much, but the whole world needs someone like Kemal, the US especially. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 10:02
Not really. What I want is your justification for thinking your definition of 'able' should be adopted by anyone else.
Sometimes it has been, sometimes it hasn't. Same is true of any other form of government. Again, check your Aristotle.
So who protects the weak?
Yes, I knew that. Indeed I frequently point it out to people. Of the eight major powers involved in WW2, on the allied side there were three democracies (one of them a monarchy) and two dictatorships. On the axis side there were two dictatorships and one democracy (a monarchy).
Not terribly clear cut.
------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 23:35
|
SO you think democracy protects the weak? Please explain how. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 06:45
Not what I said. Democracy quite often fails to protect the weak. I would have thought I'd been quoting Aristotle often enough to indicate I'm aware of the flaws in democracy.
My question was who protects the weak in your system. ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 11:04
|
You seem to fit into Heinlei's "Starship Troopers" universe. Read the book don't watch the movie, and you may find your ideas there. Value: there is no absolute definition of value. Valuable is what people think of being valuable. Credit cards are useless in a neolitic culture.
Authority=responsibility. The worst for the democracy is that people think they have "rights" and that they are not to be hold responsible for using (and abusing) their rights.
GWB probably the most contested leader the world knows of.
He was elected but there are lot of US citizens that don't like him and didn't vote for him. But they also didn't vote for Gore. So they are responsible for GWB being elected.
I don't know much about Mustafa, Tobodai, but from what I read he fits into a definition of "illuminated leader".
My favourite would be Tokugawa Ieyasu. But (fortunately) I don't live in 16-17th cenury Japan.
So, is there possible for the people to ever come to their senses, the whole of them, and act responsible?
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 23:04
|
Dear Tobo I'd first recommand this La Boétie short essay written in the 16th c. since then nobody has done better. It is called: On Volontary slavery. He was supposedly 19 when he wrote it. http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm - http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm I do see some little problems in your general speach. This is secondary but your vision of the Venitian constitution is completely erronous. About 300 nobles formed the Great Council, the only source of political power and their sons would take their place. Getting in required a little more than writting an essay; namely a few thousands ducats. Saying fascism is democracy is impossible. I think you are misguiding your missiles. fascism is the ultimate form of state power and democracy is a state as well. Most of the things you say are against the state not against democracy. Here are the two arguments to support the existance of a state agaisnt the libertarian attacks. • The state is the best way to control both social life (who has murdered who) and economy (who is trusty and has the licence to sell and who isn't). • The state forms an arena where conservative and progressive forces fight and usually after a long struggle the progressive wins. Take for instance the Civil Rights Movement, without the backing of the US federal government, most likely mini apartheid would still be going in the US. The state multiplies the power of the group which own it. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 01:18
|
Democracy's two (and I would say fatal) flaws are, one that it does not do whats right, just what most people want, secondly it breeds mediocracy rather than good leadership. Quite simplyn democracy is a utopian dream, unattainable, impractical best forgotten about. Which is why there is no country in the world which is democratic at all. Simply put, a modern head of state or government isn the equivalent in most ways of a King, Caliph, Emperor, Dictator. The powers that he enjoys are in most instances those one of the above would recognize as being inherent in their office.
If their is an example of an imperial office in todays world, than I would say its the American Presidency, the man who holds that rank, has the power to wage wars, create new laws via Executive Orders, disregard existing ones, appoint officers of state, blow up the world, and a host of others. I would say that the two Rossevelts for instance, or perhaps Jefferson and Lincoln, were as much dictators, in the scence of the power they had, as say Loius XIV, as much of an Emperor as Augustus, or Trajen.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 07:58
|
The question is not whether democracy has flaws, because it undoubtedly has.
The question is, what do you replace it with that is better? The alternatives are constitutional government based on democratic (not necessarily simple majority) acceptance, or imposed autocracy or oligarchy. Or of course no government at all.
The autocrat or the oligarchs can only be self-imposed (because if they are selected by the people it is a democratic system). Self-imposed dictators and self-imposed oligarchies are shot full of flaws when it comes to governing stably and fairly. And no government at all is hardly a basis on which to build a society. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 08:32
|
You can replace it with anything. The only essential is that the person or body exersizing executive powers", be responsible to another person or body. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 09:10
Who would that be? And who decides who he or they should be responsible to?
Those are the questions you and Tobodai are ducking. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 11:02
|
A King can be responsible to parliament for instance, or in Coke's immortal words, "the King can have no powers except what the law give him". ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 17:46
You absolutely right about the nobles thing, which I adressed as the fatal flaw in the Venetian system, still even with such a huge flaw Venice's amount of bad leaders proportionally to its good ones is much lower than say the US or the UK. Theyre bribery is also nothing compared to the halls of congress. At least that bribery went to the coffers of the state and not a personal jet or a bridge to nowhere.
I think you just made a fatal flaw in saying democracy is NOT state worship and fascism is and then went on to say how important the state is. As I said before, the reason any progressive things ever happen is because of oligarchic organizations like the Supreme COurt (an unelected body) that goes against the ignorant bigots of the masses (democratic society). Most of western societies societal sucess comes from the will of enlightened elites and not the populace.
Fascism is thus a branch of populist democratic thought as you cannot set up a fascist government without a majority consensus built on the petty and supersticious hatreds of the masses. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 19:58
|
Hum hum hum. I was wondering why I didn't like your all idea. Then I remember: what you are advocating has a name, it is called the FUHRERPRINZIP. Its is the very base of national-socialism. A leader will come out from the mass to skip them to the most glorious days of their History! Heil! I of course do not assimilate you with the nazis yet that is indeed how your speach sounds like. If you have an elite ruling the country they have to come from somewhere. I guess you are refusing the government of the wealthiests or the government of the nobles, so as gcle would say where do the power would come from? Interestingly you point out the fact unelected bodies were at the origin of "most of the western societies societal sucess". This may be partially true in the countries of common law (namely US and UK and for that matter the EU) but it is defently not the case in the rest of Europe where it is almost always the elected bodies that are at the origin of any move (after usually the due pressure from society). This goes from allowing syndicate, separating church and state, banning death penalty, and so on. Some countries like Italy are so disgustingly democratic that the most important questions are often left to referundum. And I'm not even talking about the Swiss. Finally what you are failling to see is that if in democratic societies unelected bodies have any form of sovereignty it is precisely because they are chosen and closely depend from the elected ones this is true for all the judges, the suprem court, and even the military HQ (not mentionning the ministers, secretaries) etc. The one and only exception to this rule (we needed one, didn't we?) is the English Lords who are indeed not elected (I think though I'm not completely sure). ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 06:19
Well, in the first place the Supreme Court is nominated by someone who is elected, and the appointment confirmed by a group of elected representatives. So it's a democratic system, which you are claiming to be against.
Secondly, I don't consider the body that issued the Dred Scott verdict or settled the 2000 election in Bush's favour (just for starters) to be a particularly progressive one. In fact the Supreme Court, in its very constitution with life tenure, tends to be conservative, which is why it still reflects the values of the late 20th century rather than those of the Bush administraton.
How are you going to set up ANY governmental system other than by popular consent (democracy) or by force?
And why do you continually duck the question of who chooses the elites?
That decisions should be taken by the people best qualified to take them is so painfully obvious that it's trivial. I'd guess every teenager that starts looking at political systems comes up with it.
The questions of interest are who decides who the best people are, and who decides what they should be trying to achieve?
------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 22:51
|
Yes you poiinted out my argument nicely glce, The court is the best form of government in America because it is th eleast elected, unfortunately their appointer is still elected, thats probbaly why they are too conservative. If someone pragmatic and intelligent enough managed to conquer all or most of America that already shows more skill than being elected because of phony promises.
How should one choose rulers? Create them. Why should a person that runs a bank a farm or a tanning salon presume to know anything of rule? If you truly need a ruler, and smart peopel really dont but most are not smart, they should be someone who has devoted their life to understanding the ways of the world, science, economics, politics, history. Know the world around you so you can come to a balanced conclusion. Of course there shouldnt be one just in case they have hidden pshychosis, but a council of such people who are appointed by the people they suceed. Of course such a system would have massive flaws, but at least if I was forced to fight against the government or disagree with it I would know it wasnt done simply to galvanize the voters with something idiotic. The liklihood of the reason making sense, even if it conflicts with my goals, is much higher.
Your too obsessed with some ideal of person who I think is about to come over the horizon and set things right.
I am a realist not an idealist, all systems have flaws, but Im providing all these societies that think there is only one best form of govermnet that no, there is not. All have benefits and all have flaws and if you agree with most people than democracy is for you and thats all well and good, but it is not good for me. When you find yourself the minority in almost every single major position you realize your intrests are not being served (and whats the point of paying taxes and obeying if they are not) and that you must either seize control, back someone like you who can, or move somewhere else. All of course are ideas I consider as future realities for me. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 23:08
|
and Maharball, maybe that would explain why organized crime corrution and incompitence are so prevalent in Italy, I mean these people have thier own shameful democratically elected ruler. I can tell you much as I may disagree with certain policies of his Castro is a far more compitent man than Burlesconi ever could be! Hes not elected you know! ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: BMC21113
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 00:41
|
-Unfortunately, I do not really feel that the majority is capable of truly deciding what is best for their country. It does pain me to say this, as I do believe in Democracy and would not trade the rights I posess as a United States Citizen for anything in the world. This claim comes from the overall influential public, those whom often blindly follow that which is told to them instead of actually thinking for themselves. I feel as though all citizens should be entitled to equal rights, though that does not necessarily endorse the idea of true equality. When I speak of equality, I speak of talents, characteristics, personality traits, etc.... People are not all leaders. If they were, the term leader would in fact be nonexistent. Being said, perhaps the single greatest flaw in a Democracy is the assumption that all people can and should decide the fate of our country. As of now, "block" voting is often a manifestation of fast talking politicians. Most people are fairly oblivious to that which is going on around them, and thus, follow policies and ideas that look nice, yet have no foundation in feasibility. We can break this idea down a level further and examine the basic structures of society in general. Now, we can all agree that people are either successful or unsuccessful for a reason......I mean, we can not all be PhD's. Of course we should all have the opportunity to pursue this goal if we wish, but in reality, there is no way a society of doctors could ever get along. Take a successful independent business man with little education. There is a reason he is more successful than the competition...personal characteristics and successful traits.....
-Being said, what is the meaning of all of this? It is simple, we are all unique individuals, not all of which are capable of making complicated decisions regarding the fate of the nation. Instead of politicians, many crooked, attempting to advance their agenda based on underhand deception, we should allow the capable to decide for themselves. Now, I understand that this is a controversial position.Determining what exactly "qualifies" a person as capable of making decisions is another issue in itself, though I feel that you can see where I am going with this....... ------------- "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace"-George Washington "The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."-Xenophon |
Posted By: BMC21113
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 00:43
-I agree alot with you here Tobodai. I think that you make several very good points.
 ------------- "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace"-George Washington "The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."-Xenophon |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 00:51
|
Yes this is my original point, that has been lost in the subsequent thread. And I have to say BMC that block voting and similar stuff is a very valid point you bring up I missed entirely. I think everyone is born equal as they have yet to show by their actions what they are. Thus I regard all children (exciept for my devil child nephew) as equal, legally. Once however you graduate from high school although you should forever retain rights to live your private life however you wish you should not immediatly get voting rights. I mean tome there are 10 year olds who are smarter than some 50 year olds and cannot vote because of their age, while a couch potato welfare sucking parasite like my grandfather can merely because he is older. One way I wouldnt have a problem with democracy is if there was a voting liscence you had to get. It tested your knowledge of history political events and geography. Only those that could pass this test (and pass its renwewl when they are old and getting senile) can vote. I would accept that system. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: BMC21113
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 01:04
|
-Well, I think you covered the overall idea very well throughout your posts. A "merit" voting system would probably work well, though it is a very slippery slope. As several others have mentioned in this thread, including myself, it is very difficult to choose who these people are and/or should be. I believe that "merits" should be earned by accomplishments such as: home ownership, education, clean criminal records, historical and political knowledge, IQ, etc.... This may not be entirely fair, but I have never heard anybody say that life was fair. I guess this system would be somewhat of a "modified" democracy. Everyone has a right to vote, though not all votes have equal weight. With the correct system, once all votes were tallied accordingly, the votes would probably represent themselves in the best direction for the country. ------------- "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace"-George Washington "The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."-Xenophon |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 02:17
|
One central idea I want to cover is best said not by me but one of my heroes:
"A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 05:17
No I can't see where you are going.
At the moment (in democratic societies) the choice of who is capable of making decisions is made by a majority (not necessarily a simple majority) of citizens.
What are you suggesting instead?
Tobodai ducks the question again by saying the new leaders should be appointed by the old leaders - without saying how the original leaders are chosen.
There is no reason to suppose an unelected oligarchy would be any less corrupt - or corruptible - than an elected one. And it would be a whole lot harder to deal with once it had become corrupt.
With regard to the idea of 'earning' the right to vote, this is of course illegal in the US at the moment specifically because of the corruption it led to, particularly in the South. Which is not a bad reason for it being illegal.
Moreover though you are still up against the basic question of who determines who has the earned the right to vote. Maybe in Georgia it should be 'people who have studied the Bible and accept it as literally true'?
If there is an overall solution to this problem it has to be with improving the education of the electorate to increase its sense of reponsibility for its government. Tough, I agree. And there are minor changes that help: proportional representation, capping the amount that can be spent on political campaigns, guarantees of free television time and the banning of paid political advertising....
There is no ideological situation to the problem; merely a number of incremental improvements that can be introduced from time to time.
------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 15:11
|
I will admit that democracy is fine if everyone is educated and intelligent, but I do not beleive that everyone is intelligent or capable of being rational.
Democracy is what is ideological thats how they get elected, not like some great unelected leaders of the past who appointed based n skill rather than political thought their underlings.
It is not an ideological solution that motivates me but a selfish one (I have no problem with admitting that) I am often in the minority position so I seek to seize power, the oligarchy is appointed by me
 The bigger you dream, even if you miss the objective, the higher youll go. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 15:21
|
And how pray tell is your refrence to the souths old jim crowe laws relevent when they prove my point? Those laws were made after the withdrawal of reconstruction forces by the newly elected southern governmetns, thus when northerners dictated to the south what to do civil rights where better, when they left and gave back democracy to the south they got worse.
Those voting tests were not even based on intelligence, they were based on ancestry. Im talking about a voting test like a drivers liscence that tests knowledge only. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: BMC21113
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 19:11
-I do not think that new leaders should be selected by old leaders, but rather, leaders are elected the same way. What I propose changing is the standard one vote per individual. Here I suggest that all American citizens be automatically granted a "level 1" voting rights. A level 1 voters identification allows all American citizens over 18 years of age one vote. Other citizens would be eligible to increase their voting potential to that of a level 5 voters identification card. This would be determined through a "merit" system such as the one which I spoke of earlier. A level 1 is worth 1 vote....a level 5 is worth 5 votes......
-The basic problem with allowing all citizens one equal vote is that regardless of how qualified a person is, they have the same vote as a person who is extremely unqualified to make decisions. By "qualified", I am speaking of competent and successful people who understand what is good for the future of their country. By allowing those who actually know what they are talking about to have adequate weight in our electoral process would result in a higher success rate of choosing the proper represenatives and determine the best course for our future.
-Now, I favor Democracy over all forms of government in the world today....but as the topic states, the Democratic process has flaws. I agree with this statement. I am only suggesting improvements on our current system, and by no means am I trying to create some kind of Monarchial or Oligarchial rule, but rather feel that certain people deserve to have more "say so" than others. It would be hard to disagree with this idea. Also, my proposal for "levels" of voting rights would also encourage others to work hard and earn their rights. In this system, if you felt that you were not being heard, you actually have the potential to increase your influence in the electoral and decision making process........
------------- "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace"-George Washington "The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."-Xenophon |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 00:43
|
One idea I had was for people to cast as many votes as their IQ, like say my IQ was 140, I'd cast 140 votes, and someone less intelligent would cast 97 or some other such number. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 06:27
The difficulty there is how you decide who is qualified to have how many votes. Should people with university degrees have more votes than people without? Should people with children have more votes than people without? Should the wealthy have more votes than the poor?
In all of whose, why and why not? Who is entitled to decide what the rules should be?
You write as though all decisions were about technical matters which some people have more experience or knowledge of than others. The most important decisions aren't.
The most important decisions are things like 'should education be free?' Or should health services be rationed so that the rich have better access than the poor? Or should civil servants have better pensions than the rest o the population? Or should the country go to war to stop Iraq possibly getting nuclear weapons? Or should home manufactures be protected against imports, thus putting up their prices? Or should there be an established religion?
All of these are essentially moral/ethical questions to do with how the goals of society should be set. They're not technical questions. No amount of education or experience will make you better qualified to decide whether Islam or Christianity should be the official state religion or whether there should be an official state religion at all.
In setting the goals of society then every individual has as much right as any other, because they are purely subjective choices.
How do you define the 'good' future of the country? And if you should define the 'good' why should you have more right to do so than anyone else?
'What is good?' is central to the whole political problem. And no-one is better qualified to answer it than anyone else.
That is a pure oligarchy. It's what oligarchy means.
You see...there you go imposing your own values. Why should people be encouraged to work hard? What's 'good' about working hard? Maybe we should be trying to eliminate the need for work at all.
Certainly much of the time society nowadays simply cannot provide enough work for everybody: so what are the unemployed going to work hard AT?
------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 07:08
I'm glad you said HAD.
IQ tests are only made to belittle, frame and label certain groups of the society. They have no value what so ever in respect to estimate common sense or the values that really matters in politics. Great post gcle
------------- |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 20:48
|
I know, it's such a problem, given how intelligence is so intangible. I also know many people with high IQ's (or at least I think they have high IQ's) who have no sense about them, and are completely uninformed about politics. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 21:14
|
Not to mention that what IQ tests measure may not be "intelligence" at all. ------------- |