Hello, because I started to be grumpy in the thread, "Why I hate the times we're living in", I will continue on the road of grumpiness. I don't like democracy. I don't prefer something else, but I don't like democracy. Why ? Because it's a regime who turn people into sycophants and beggars. The best hope for someone living in a democracy is to beg something from people in power. And they have the slighty illusion that every four years they have some power on their leader, and that their begging could succeed. Democracy encourage people to divide themselve into clans, leftists and right winged and hate each other. It encourage people to believe in all sort of fairtytales, and communism, fascism are direct consequences of democracy, because democracy encourage people to consider their leaders as the one which will solve their fantasies. And what is a communist or fascist dictator than someone who take the power with the promises to realize the fantasies of his people ? Democracies are based on our desires, and ancient philosophers warned us on our constant thirst of desires. Democracies are based on propaganda. That's the nature of what happens especially before elections. Some "facts" are repeated and repeated. It doesn't matter they're real or not. They just have to be repeated. It's not based on logic, but in the looking. Most of the time, the candidate which was voted the most was the one who spend the most money on his campain. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...actually-buy-more-votes-investigation/355154/ Even if I don't like democracy, that I have clearly royalist sympathies, I doesn't wish for something else. That's the human nature which is flawed. The caprices of a dictator are worse. And that's why I reproach to democracy, encouraging people to search answers at the outside of them, not the inside, and that is what makes democracy evil. Seeking for something else than democracy is the same illusion.
Based on what you wrote here, I would say that it isn't democracy that you hate. But Plurality Voting. If we were to do what we should have done a long time ago, and DUMP Plurality Voting, replacing it with something more sensible, (like a Ranked system) you might like it a bit better... I know I would. At a minimum, we'd then no longer have to worry about our election system encouraging us to divide up into clans, as you mentioned, leftists and right winged, hating on each other and being drawn towards the extremes. Yes... we would be a lot better off. -Meta
VoltreAltesse, I understand where you are coming from and I would agree with you. I don't like democracy because it is majority rule. Which kind of means mob rule. Just because more people agree on something doesn't make it right. It is unfortunate that people vote for their leaders expecting their leaders to fix their life. People are responsible for their own lives. People are responsible for fixing their lives. Not some great leader in government. Although, I don't really think democracy is the problem. I'm pretty sure the United States is a republic, or its supposed to be Where every individual has unalienable rights and these rights CANT be voted away by the majority. For some random example, a woman will not get raped even if she's in a group with 5 men who would all vote to have sex with her. I need to educate myself more on our government, but the United States is called the United States for a reason. Each state is supposed have it's own political values. There isn't supposed to be federal government or large government that we have today that controls all the states so powerfully. But because we do, our leaders have so much power over our lives. Which gives the majority too much power over the minority because the government isn't decentralized. So, if the government wasn't so overbearing, rights can't be voted away, and we maintain our freedom, democracy shouldn't really be an issue because whatever issue that is being voted on, isn't that important because it's not messing with our human rights.
Democracy at the local level of government can work with a simple majority form of rule. At the State level a two thirds majority would be more desirable. Powers at the Federal level of government should be no more than what a majority of both the people and the States are willing to allow, and repealing the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way towards returning powers to the people.
As I just posted on another thread - democracy is the least worst form of government. Actually, with the whipping system it's 'dictatorship' by any other name. It's usually sewn up between two main parties, and it depends upon which of them is the more successful at broadcasting propaganda (think 'dumbing down'?) who will win an election; they'd obviously like the winner to be their own party, of course, but at least the loser is still in power as the opposition, so essentially it's win-win for them both. But either way the concept is a mere illusion, and designed to ignore the small minority of the electorate who are able to ask (shall I say) awkward questions. And Freedom of Information? Forget it because that's an illusion too, in that pertinent information can be, and often is, easily redacted.
Democracy's okay, just needs a bit of work, that's all. Don't confuse it with mob rule or rule by the majority. If you have that then you don't have democracy in the liberal democratic sense, you simply have a winner takes all approach. A liberal democracy - and this applies to constitutional monarchies and republics alike - do not condemn the minority to powerlessness. The minority still gets a say - you can see it in the Westminster system where the biggest minority becomes the Loyal Opposition and in the United States system where minorities get their own spokespeople in the Senate and the House. The point is that the minority is never silenced and can work until it is favoured by the electorate (remember them?) and the minority becomes the majority and the previous majority hands over power to the incoming minority-which-is-now-the-majority. It's not a fixed thing, it's constantly moving. That's the beauty of a liberal democracy, it's a process, not an artifact. This is why the electorate must guard against those who attempt to make a permanent majority by stuffing around with the politico-electoral system. All governmental parties eventually fail and we all carry on moaning about them and how useless they are and we vote another lot in. Good eh? We can actually do that. Try that in China. Not going to happen mate - one-party state and totalitarian in its approach.
You remind me of my kids. Me: Who wants pizza for dinner? Kids: Ugg! We just had pizza for lunch. Me: How about hamburgers? Kids: Yuck! Me: Tacos? Kids: Tacos make us sick! Me: Then tell me what you want to eat? Kids: We don't know, we just want something good. Me: [facepalm]
@cerberus @Diuretic @kazenatsu @Meta777 @Appleo @Ndividual There can be some improvements there and that. But some flaws will remain. For instance, the propaganda part. A part of the flaws are from a simple origin, everything from human origin is flawed. I think that some structural improvements can be done to democracy, but all its flaws can not be erased. That doesn't mean that democracy has to disappear. Yes, you can improve somehow the institutions. Democracy is like a car, you can improve the mechanics of a car a lot, it may be safer to ride, pollute less, faster, and so on. But it stays a car in the end. There is one ideal system to rule people, the rule of the wisest. But such system can exist only in the world of ideas because there can't be a way to select the wisest people. I don't remember wrote : people will be happy when philosophers will be king and king will be philosophers. But what's a good philosopher. I forgot a grief about democracy : it select his leader under their ability to please people, neither their ability to govern (which can't be defined), neither their wiseness (which can't be defined neither). The logical consequence is that democrat leader are most of the times, if not often, narcissic, manipulators and treacherous personnality, if not with sociopathic or psychopathic tendancies. In fact, sociopathic or psychopathic tendancies are better manipulators. Sorry, I can't find back the paper I read about psychopathics and (wo)men of power. @DarkDaimon I know what I want, not being a beggar. I consider that politician deserve only scorn, even if it's better to keep a small eye on politics. However, any hope on politician is just madness.
Democracy may be flawed in some ways as you said, but if we can't completely replace it with something better overall, then making incremental improvements upon what we have may simply be the best that we can hope for. Sure, the result may not be perfect... nothing in this world is perfect. But as many a wise philosopher has stated, we shouldn't ever let the perfect become the enemy of the good. -Meta
I'm a perfectionnist and I must face some truth, I'm a very bittered man and it influence heavily my vision of the world. Their is two solutions I see to improve the situation : _ Improve slowly and surely the system. _ Better ourselves and working on ourselves to be better people. This point is by far the most important. I'm very bad it. I find this very ironical how a lot of people think it would be easy to change the society, when a lot of people can't even stop smoking or stop their bad habit; People think that they could hope some macroscopic changes, when they're unable to provoke some microscopic change. The sum of all of our miscroscopic change are by far the biggest macroscopic change. I debated for years on politics. My conclusion is that if I want the world changed, I should invest myself in a NGO or something like that, trying to bring the change I would like in the world near me. I think it's rather sad seeing people running after a political savior which will never come, and forget sometimes there is world near them, a world they can make evolve in another way than politics. Politics seems rather to me a trap which drive away people of their real potential usefullness. I'm heavily challenged by a disability unfortunately, and I can't change the world at all.
How does a disability stop you from changing the world? You can obviously read and write. Communication is a great way to change the world because every action starts with an idea.
First, I think there is a lot of people talking without thinking. I would like to talk, and I would like to talk usefully. I speak there for the pleasure it bring me. I'm no philosopher, and I doubt I have the ability to be one. Being a good philosopher is suppose a good way to be an usefull speaker. There is a thing I dislike in this world (among many other), there is few empty places. We're in a world which fight for your attention. Between commercials, religions, celebrities, everyone want to capture your attention. Silence can be golden (this is not directed to you, it's interesting to talk with you). Second, and I'm not proud of that, but I must face the obvious. I let the bitterness of being crippled invade my life. I know I shouldn't, but if I speak, it's words of bitterness which get out. So right now, I try to not speak to much, especially in a public way. I still can read however.
You don't have to be a philosopher to create positive change in the world. I know you may bitter, and silence may be good, but I think there are positive things in everything if you choose to see it that way. A sunny day can be interpreted by a bitter person as hot and tiring. A sunny day can be interpreted by a positive person as a warm and inviting. I was watching Jordan Peterson the other day, and he said that anyone can change the world because everyone is a "node". You may not have an impact like a celebrity or government leader. But you do have a direct impact on the people around you. And those people are nodes as well, and so they impact other people. So it's like a domino affect.
Let's say that I think I lack some academic knowledge for I would qualify myself as a philosopher. I didn't red that much books of philosophy which are most of time quite obscure for me. I didn't read Proust, Kant.. I'm rather a cerebral guy, I wouldn't define however myself as a philosopher, even if I don't doubt you are one.
I believe philosophers are born, and that philosophy doesn't come out of a book. As you say, it's cerebral, and is the consequence of profound thought and analysis.
I'm a traditionnalist, I think we are dwarves on the shoulder of our giant ancestors, and so we see slighty farther. I suppose there can be "natural" philosophers, people which philosophize without the need to have read that much books. Thinking is both a complicated and simple exercize. We have to get some method, or else, we get lost. That's how ancient can help us.
