Wednesday, July 31, 2013

The Fire Of Democracy

Democracy is supposed to be a way to arrive at communal consensus, first, by everybody having his or her say, usually sitting around and having something intoxicating to soothe the nerves and the mood, and after hours of listening to everybody and each has said until there is no more to be said, a decision is made which may not necessarily be what one wants but something which everybody could agree to comply and obey.

This is the traditional way of how small villages make decisions such as in choosing a village chief, how to hunt, who to cultivate, what the ceremonies in the community will be.

In larger societies where inter-personal relationships are de-emphasised and where system-efficiency and accuracy become the real concern, the first thing that arises is a sense of mistrust.

This mistrust has overcome the sense of fairness that the idea of democracy is supposed to engendered that the practice of democracy is now an entire farce. No one agrees to be abide by the majority decision, as the majority failed to take care of societal concern. Descendents of the rough warring tribes, even if robed in the best suits and dresses, are unable to give the right of way to everybody who comes by, trying in their little narrow minds of how to take what little leeway the minority may enjoy in pursuit of their own way of life.

The tendency for the majority to induce social injustice which when pushed to the limit causes the minority to revolt or, in modern terms, to protest in huge numbers of which the modern telecommunication gadgets are just an aid.

That mass rallies leading to violence and oftentimes death is an unfortunate consequence of the modern pursuit of an old ideology of democracy. The Greek idea of democracy gave way to the Roman idea of republicanism, the latter of which was propelled by militancy and the dictates of the guy at the top on the whole world.

Democracy is not a sacred cow; individual rights are. No one system of government is right for everybody. The best system for any society is one that promotes peace and prosperity and freedom of all people in that society.

Democracy is closely linked to freedom of speech although both are not the same.

Freedom of speech is an individual right that must be defended until the freedom of speech of that person inhibits the freedom of another person.

In the modern world of social networking or mass inter-personal communications, there are many people who share the same or similar idea and there probably as many or even more who do not.

Politeness requires that we endorse a person's view to show social cohesion, and when we do not agree, we may keep our opinions to ourselves. Unless of course that view may jeopardise an entire section of society to live or to prosper.

Once again, social justice demands that we fight bad views and all politeness is thrown out of the window. But such fights can also be overboard when people start coercing others to share their particular views to fight so-called social injustice. This coercion, this use of force is repugnant. The proper way is persuasion, by force of reasoning.


walla said...

In trying to exercise more force of reasoning, it is difficult to accept that one should put politeness above social cohesion.

There are a number of reasons. What is deemed acceptable politeness is acceptable only as defined by those at the receiving end.

If one disagrees with them on their points of view, then to remain silent would be tantamount to letting them continue their merry ways.

If these merry ways impinge on the human rights that are said to be above even a democratic system, then to remain silent is tacit acceptance of authoritarianism.

If that by accident happens to be roundly good, then there would be no need for contrarian points of view so that there won't be need to try and be relatively polite since there won't be any social non-cohesion to disrupt.

However if that by no accident happens to be roundly bad as perceived by communal non-consensus, then counter-arguments must be advanced to contribute to developing a more rational consensus based not on the same element that defines what is polite or impolite.

Presumably this way of arguing things can be considered the use of excessive force that may exert some strange effect of inhibiting the freedom of speech of others.

But then again, that's just also a point of view, for that matter a perception, which is the smaller the more one concludes that the method of flame-baiting in order to generate arguments is so the ancient these days of making easy candid, open and rational comments on anything under the sun.

Carried to its inevitable conclusion, flame-baiting may even be said to be impolite and only excusable because one sees a lot of that in today's political snafu's.

walla said...

The present political situation is plain (and qualified as a plain point of view only):

might is right.

Were might is human right, there would be no need to chase polite communal consensus.

But now, might is just right as defined by the might-wielder.

Should one have to pray hard the might-wielder in one's midst won't go off the edge one fine day and decide that might is more than right?

Or should one do what needs to be done, however painful it may be, what with the dismantlement of all democratic institutions and avenues in reflection of the continuing saga of dismemberment of human rights?

What happens then when even providing alternative points of view is considered seditious against a setting defined by the very same might-wielders whose stands are opposed on grounds they are working against the long-term sustenance of good governance, for that matter the continuation of the means for communal consensus?

Is surrender the only option as price to pay for relative politeness just to support polite but parasitic political power play?

walla said...

Let us continue with another option. Say, we abandon reasoning, whether forceful or otherwise, and just be darn polite.

Then for the sake of politeness, we shall say it's alright to lie, cheat and steal because all that is for the greater good of a multi-racial society.

Meanwhile to make sure it is alright to do the abovementioned, we shall have to make sure the humans in that society remember they belong to different races otherwise it would be hard to call it a multi-racial society.

This means we must continue to divide them for the overall good of all. In other words, play them against each other so that we can continue to run the place in order to ensure peace and order needed for them to operate their respective what-ever's.

When that happens, it is only polite to ignore all the bad side-effects. After all, badness is a relative phenomenon. What you consider bad, i consider good because it is only good for me even when i know it is bad for you.

After all, might is me and right is not thee. That is the way of this world. Learn to accept it and get on with your life, i hereby decree.

My assumption, some would say presumption, is that so long as i serve the majority, the minority will be alright because when the majority is satisfied, it will have no grounds to turn on the minority.

Which explains why now and then i must exert myself to make sure all know who's the boss.

You may say that's just trying to be mighty. So what, i ask? You want my job? I am just a sin-eater so that the cause can remain pure.

Don't be impolite. Think of the sacrifices i have to make when my karma bill comes up for settlement. Hopefully my personal sacrifice will be evaluated favorably.

I however may not get through all this material finery acquired in the course of sacrificing my equanimity for the greater cause of those clueless hoi-polloi who know not how near the economic edge we now are.

Persuasion, force of reasoning. I realize the remiss in not being persuasive enough here. But that's just being polite to myself.

walla said...

Only seven numbers are needed to define this universe. One would have thought there would be more. But at present, it appears not so. After all, only seventeen different molecules have defined our history as the human race. One however is not told if it's just one race, what would have been the course of our history.

So if small is in effect big, how can majority be deemed sufficient reason to sustain the plurality that is a multi-racial nation?

Oops. Too much force, or reasoning, there.

One must be more mindful. One race says something and it sounds true and right. The government of the day immediately loses no time to retort another race has also said something. Whether that second thing is true or not is immaterial. The point is to counter-balance so as not to cause friction to spark.

This has happened quite a number of times, for those with eyes and ears.

Why can't the modus operandi be just the truth and the right?

When that is so, then all will see that such a government is so. Then all will be able to aspire to higher and better standards so as to break free from personal prejudices that are prejudicial against the sustainable long-term health that was the original remit that was the reason for wrong wanting to be right to be might.

If people are not given the chance to weigh options and other points of view, how can they know whether theirs being the only ones they know at the time of reacting are the right ones to continue adopting?

Whether options and points of view come from minorities or majorities shouldn't be the issue. If statistical weight is the only thing driving this planet, we would all be reaching some final stage in evolutionary chill-off by now, wouldn't we?

Oops again.

walla said...

walla said...