Democracy

[cjs55]

From a taboo site, a fun little article:

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/socrates/

There are a few hiccups in the thinking but overall its pretty good.

Oh, I guess I should ask for thoughts...

[Storm]

It's really interesting ...

[Claverhouse]

That is Beautiful.

Absolutely Beautiful.



[ deeply moved & about to study the rest of the site ]

Claverhouse :ph34r:

[coffeezombie]

A democratic government can allow the creation of any kind of government. That's kind of the beauty of it. An aristocracy does not allow this. People are stuck with the same dumb families in charge for generation after generation. We all know that democracy isn't perfect, though. The rights of the minority are routinely trampled on. A benevolent dictatorship or monarchy is always better than a democracy, but one cannot have faith that that will always happen. In the end, monarchies just end up being democracies anyway with rival factions competing to put their favorite member of the royal family on the throne.

[Architectonic]

There are a few hiccups in the thinking but overall its pretty good.


A few?

Democracy can be argued against with better points than that....

[Claverhouse]

Reporting back:

Their ezine is brilliant too.

exponentiation ezine (http://www.anus.com/zine/)

[ Issue 1. ]



Government Reveals Five-Year Plan to Utopia

February 2, 2005
American States Press Service

WASHINGTON, DC (ASPS) - At a candlelight ceremony to remember the victims of September 11, President Bush announced that the United
States will realize Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia within five years.
"America will be a shining beacon to the world of personal liberty,
freedom, individuality and comfort," he said. "We will conquer hate,
despair and inequity, and will create a new Utopia."

Speaking from the heavily-guarded podium in front of the gaping pit
where the World Trade Center towers once stood, Bush pledged to end four years of infighting that have prevented the reconstruction of
what he called "a symbol of our country, and what makes it great:
our freedom." He delivered his forty-minute speech before going
indoors after high winds began blowing garbage and crack cocaine
paraphrenalia from the nearby Freedom Park.

Bush continued, "Not everyone will immediately desire personal
freedom and the liberation of women, minorities, the oppressed, the
retarded and the insane, but if they want to live in some backward
feudal state of idol-worship and primitive toilet conditions, we
will crush them like the evil they are. Utopia has conquered such
backward superstitions and paranoid, deluded religious fanaticism."

Darla Hofheiser, president of the dissident group Wiccans for
Abortion and Medical Marijuana, held a protest sign bearing the
words NO FUTURE WITHOUT ABORTION, said she was disappointed in the president's speech. "If this is to be Utopia," she said, "Everyone
must be represented, and -- how is that possible, when he won't
allow abortion and medical marijuana? We have to agree to disagree."

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Roger Cardozas expressed a
contrary sentiment. "The right wing will always justify itself in
terms of freedom, but where is the freedom for a Mexican-American
superstate within what is erroneously called Texas and New Mexico?" Cardozas then departed for a keynote speech to the Association of
Mexican American Students, entitled "Aztlan - Our Right and
Destiny."

Further down the street, protestors from NAMBLA voiced a similar
sentiment. "How is it that in this grand scheme, men who like to
share their love with young boys and their peachlike buttocks are
not included? Freedom means freedom for everybody," said NAMBLA
protestor Jorge Rosenberg, who was joined by a crowd of every race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation in chanting "Freedom for
everybody."

In the promenade across the way, however, emotions ran high in a
different direction. "I won't feel free until I know I live in a
country ruled by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior," said Theresa
Baxter, founder of Methamphetamine Addicts for Christ. "He is
everywhere, if you look for him - in the heart of every human being,
in the kindness of strangers, and in the tiny people who run under
the table when I'm cranked."

Speaking from the White House, Attorney General John Ashcroft
responded: "There are people out there who fear our Utopia, and we
will take each one and using modern military hardware, send him back to his primitive gods in pieces, so that our democracy cannot be
threatened by those who hate our freedom." He was promptly chastised by the National Organization for Women (NOW), who characterized his speech as "sexist" and "denying the right to women of being freedom fighters for the backward, primeval regime of their choice."

On the street outside the press conference, Joe "Wipers"
Washington-Perez was gathering half-eaten hot dogs from a trash can while proposition cars stopped at the light for a windshield
cleaning with a greasy rag. "Freedom ain't free," he said. "Takes
two hours to find a full pork hotdog in these dumpsters, and I'm
caught between the horsehead nebula and the Yeast God."

Speaking the dwindling crowd, as nightfall arrived and the city area
outside White House security bastions became an unstable war zone
between drug dealers, SWAT teams, skinhead gangs and rapists from every ethnic group and gender-orientation, Bush continued. "Once
Utopia is established," he said. "We will live in peace and
prosperity forever, unless evil is destined to thwart our progress."

"We cannot tolerate evil," he continued. "If they insist on fighting
us, it will touch off a war between Utopia and the empires of evil."
After a momentary interruption as iconoclastic rally racers crashed
into the crowd of Falun Gong protestors outside, Bush was asked for
his contingency plans for that event. Looking startled, the
president said quickly, "Well, it will bring about the apocalypse,
and all the good people will be called home to God, of course."

Israeli scientist invents cure for death

January 31, 2005
El-Shaddai News Services

GAZA CITY, ISRAEL (ESNS) - The remarkable announcement was made today that yet again, modern science has triumphed over nature, and this time conquering an age-old fear: Israeli National University
scientist Haim Vorenberg has invented a cure for death. The cure,
administered through a machine in which the user sits, makes use of
a new subatomic particle discovered by Vorenberg, the vader...

...
Vorenberg previously worked on missile design systems and was
responsible for the remarkable Israeli "Tikkun Olam" missile, which
during the first Iraq war shot down one Scud, four Piper Cubs and
uncountable pigeons brainwashed in the suicidal death religion of
Islam. His list of accomplishments is long, including honorable
service in the US Army Intelligence division before the Tet
Offensive, Director of Safety Regulations at Three Mile Island, and
Environmental Regulator at Love Canal.

"The machine is very fragile, very expensive," said Vorenberg. "It
requires rare materials, like South African diamonds and white
Russian gold," he said.
South Korea, a nation of 48 million Koreans, has struggled for wealth and independence in the highly competitive South Asian region for many centuries, being tossed about between China and Japan like an inflatable love-doll. "We decided, at last, to go to the source of business knowledge in Asia: Southern California," said President Roh Moo-hyun. "Since over a third of Los Angeles is owned by Asian businesses, it is hard to say yet who is annexing whom."

There's rather a nordic feel, but at least they're trying...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Eileen]

This reminds me a bit of Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience," in which he poses the very controversial question--if limited monarchy is a progression from absolute monarchy, and democracy is a progression from limited monarchy, is that where it stops? Is there nothing more liberating than democracy?

I love that I get to teach that work. It's pretty bitchin'.

[jimkopelli]

Sweet. Ass.
Also gonna read the rest of the site... if I ever have time again...

[Shai Gar]

yes eileen, archism based on a set of principles and intellectualism

[cjs55]

The taboo part of the site is mainly racism/tribalism, with a slice of anti judeo-christianity (sounds so much better than anti-semitism) which I'm sure (if you explored the site) you have gotten to. I will not fail to admit that I have taken a large amount of my personal philosophy from these pages. I do not entirely buy the tribalist aspect of the writing, but I have destroyed my previous knee-jerk response to such a thing (which was illogical and pre-programmed by society). This alone is a wonderful benefit of reading the writings of prozak and the rest of the site (and becoming, in some sense, a nihilist).

I don't doubt that some of the rhetoric on that site, if explored, would be the cause for many many interesting and enlightening debates in this forum. I have been wary to introduce the site for the reactions it may get (and the reputation/stigma it may bring me), but I think it is extremely interesting and wonderfully destructive; such a thing should not be kept under wraps, and many people on these forums will find it interesting despite the taboo thought (I believe because of our type).

But even considering our type, it is still no shock I took an article which presents the least of that sites' taboo ideas to begin with...

[MacGuffin]

Am I supposed to take this seriously?


Socrates: But then there must be someone to restrict them?

Bret: Yes, a wise leader.

Socrates: So how is this different from a king?And why would the king be wise?

[cjs55]

Bret assumes we would need a wise leader to keep liberal ideas flourishing, but this is not the focal point of the argument. Obviously not every king would be wise, nor every elected official. This fact doesn't particularly have any relevence to the point of the article, which is a negative argument against democracy (not a positive one for monarchy). The point is not that kings are wise, but that democracy/liberalism cannot uphold the foundations on which it is built due to its inherently paradoxical nature.

[coffeezombie]

This reminds me a bit of Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience," in which he poses the very controversial question--if limited monarchy is a progression from absolute monarchy, and democracy is a progression from limited monarchy, is that where it stops? Is there nothing more liberating than democracy?


Communism is more liberating than democracy. It doesn't work because people are too selfish at this stage of their evolution.

[MacGuffin]

Bret assumes we would need a wise leader to keep liberal ideas flourishing, but this is not the focal point of the argument. Obviously not every king would be wise, nor every elected official. This fact doesn't particularly have any relevence to the point of the article, which is a negative argument against democracy (not a positive one for monarchy). The point is not that kings are wise, but that democracy/liberalism cannot uphold the foundations on which it is built due to its inherently paradoxical nature.
I mostly found it interesting that someone can come on this site and post about proving the existence of God and every atheist and agnostic (rightfully) jumps all over his arguments.

Then something is posted that is a little more in line with some people's personal views and the flaws are skipped over.

Personal bias figures into thinking alot more than people seem to realize.

[booyalab]

I mostly found it interesting that someone can come on this site and post about proving the existence of God and every atheist and agnostic (rightfully) jumps all over his arguments.

Then something is posted that is a little more in line with some people's personal views and the flaws are skipped over.

Personal bias figures into thinking alot more than people seem to realize.

Pat response to this argument (so no one else can make it)

Yeah? well uh, EVERYONE has a bias..so there.

Seriously though, I think if we compared the worst of democracy that is professed in this dialogue with the worst of an aristocracy or communist regime.....I'd still choose democracy.

The part of this dialogue that pisses me off the most is that he compares a greater than average example of aristocracy (wise leader) with the worst possible example of democracy (everyone's delusional and ignorant). Oh yeah that's clever.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah? well uh, EVERYONE has a bias..so there.
Yeah everyone does. I obviously do on this issue. At least I can recognize it, you fascist! :smooch:

[booyalab]

Yeah everyone does. I obviously do on this issue. At least I can recognize it, you fascist! :smooch:

1. You're wrong and I was lying(for objective reasons that I wouldnt expect you to understand). I was blessed without a bias.
2. I could only endorse myself as a fascist dictator, since I dont have a bias.

[C.J.Woolf]

After I get a biasectomy I'm gonna replace booyalab as fascist dictator because it's better to not have a bias but also to know what having one was like. :devil:

[euterpenc]

"Democracy"

*thumbs down*

*gives collective the finger*

[cjs55]

The part of this dialogue that pisses me off the most is that he compares a greater than average example of aristocracy (wise leader) with the worst possible example of democracy (everyone's delusional and ignorant). Oh yeah that's clever.

I agree with you on your thoughts about aristocracy, but I disagree about your thoughts on democracy. The only possible democracy is the one where the majority is delusional and ignorant, because the majority of human beings will always be delusional and ignorant. Not that there's a problem with that, but it just seems to be a fact of life.

[booyalab]

I agree with you on your thoughts about aristocracy, but I disagree about your thoughts on democracy. The only possible democracy is the one where the majority is delusional and ignorant, because the majority of human beings will always be delusional and ignorant. Not that there's a problem with that, but it just seems to be a fact of life.

He doesn't say "the majority" he pretty much in effect says all.

[cjs55]

Socrates: What if these individuals constituted a majority?

Right.

[booyalab]

Right.
ok I sit corrected.

On the other hand though, let's pretend the US was a 'pure democracy'.

There's always going to be the same options, and intelligent people can be and are represented among the members of a party as frequently as dumb people. If intelligence was a perfect indicator of how you'll vote, then all of the dumb people would vote for one person and the smart people would vote for another, assuming there was a huge difference in candidates. I know alot of people here would say Bush is a dumbass, but would all of those same people say I must have been a dumbass to vote for him?

[cjs55]

Actually its been said that republicans have lower IQs than democrats on average...but seriously now...

As of now I don't believe any intelligent, wise, and knowledgable person would be particularly happy with either of those candidates/parties in office. Neither of them have any overaching domestic goals, each party just trying to appeal to mob sensibility while pursuing other non-helpful paths. However, I could see an intelligent person voting for one of them just because they were 'the lesser of two evils'. However, this does not mean you that if you felt this way, you were intelligent in the matter. But anyways, you may be voting for Bush for some esoteric pragmatic reason, not because you idealistically think he's an brilliant man (or the same for Kerry).

I find it interesting that you automatically assume all intelligent people will agree on everything. I find that doubtful: Things are complicated. Wise people will probably agree a bit more on things. That doesn't mean much. However, while they probably won't agree on everything, the conclusions they do come to will still be much better than the conclusions of the majority.

Finally, the amount of people intelligent and wise enough in many of these issues is extremely low in my eyes (and I wouldn't give myself the 'right' to vote on most issues, at least yet).

[booyalab]

I find that doubtful:

there must be something wrong with my English, because that was my point.

[Geoff]

there must be something wrong with my English, because that was my point.

American, dear.

-Geoff

[booyalab]

FINE *stomps away*

[cjs55]

there must be something wrong with my English, because that was my point.

Yes, I knew that was your point. Instead of


I find it interesting that you automatically assume all intelligent people will agree on everything. I should have said: I find it interesting that you assume that I would think that all intelligent people would agree on everything. (or something like that). So my bad.

[Jacque]

From a taboo site, a fun little article:

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/socrates/

There are a few hiccups in the thinking but overall its pretty good.

Oh, I guess I should ask for thoughts...

hmm...wouldn't those who'd vote down democracy instead perpetrate violence as a matter of principle rather than show that freedom really works no matter the end. And then, isn't an uprising more democratic that a vote. It takes more motivation for you to risk your life, which people are more thoughtful about...I hope. So if you utilized your freedom to end democracy by voting then you are not free for you are still but conforming to the process you wish to end, therefore it cannot be a democratic vote, but a bloodless revolution. And if the tally was met by some foul play in the interest of self preservation and voting is discovered to be a hoax, did you not get what you voted for, an end to democracy, if not in name - complaining about a freedom you never had, in which case you were in a captive state seeking awareness, freedom. If the politburo had disolved its own government, or a dictator liberated his own country, would that not be the same contradiction. In these political systems, it is not the general majority which possesses political self determination, but the few and their freedom to exercise power. Is any system ever immune from these things where human beings are involved.

And if freedom must be given under the condition that were never had it, from what hidden corner of society does it arise? Is it the few sharing control, their freedom, with us? And is this actual freedom or is it another form of control?

-my thoughts

[Edmond Zedo]

This reminds me a bit of Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience," in which he poses the very controversial question--if limited monarchy is a progression from absolute monarchy, and democracy is a progression from limited monarchy, is that where it stops? Is there nothing more liberating than democracy?

I love that I get to teach that work. It's pretty bitchin'.
I like the essay as well. It's too bad civil disobedience can get you thrown in prison for life.

[HeyBooU]

Is there really such a thing as a real democracy in this world? I don't think there is. And if I'm right, then it seems this article was meant to insult and debase something that simply does not exist(and hopefully will never exist). Which seems quite pointless to me.

[Claverhouse]

Is there really such a thing as a real democracy in this world? I don't think there is. And if I'm right, then it seems this article was meant to insult and debase something that simply does not exist(and hopefully will never exist). Which seems quite pointless to me.
No, Virginia, Democracy does not exist and cannot exist, but as a yearning imposed by the ruling bodies of this fallen world, and as the ultimate desire of all morons to be free and take charge of their own destinies it exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Democracy ! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no child-like faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe in Democracy ! You might as well not believe in fairies ! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the ballot boxes on Voting Day to catch Democracy, but even if you did not see Democracy coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Democracy, but that is no sign that there is no Democracy. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see congressmen dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Democracy is the ultimate goal set before mankind and the eternal struggle to achieve it makes any sin or tyranny allowable; and it's painted backdrop promises equality and freedom beyond, in the ever-delayed attainment. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Democracy ! Thank God! it lives, and it lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, it will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.



To put it another way: the essence of Democracy is the mob screaming 'Burn the Witch ! Burn the Witch !'


Think how awful it is to frustrate the Will of the People.





Claverhouse :ph34r:

[HeyBooU]

That put a tear to my eye.

[coffeezombie]

Is there really such a thing as a real democracy in this world? I don't think there is. And if I'm right, then it seems this article was meant to insult and debase something that simply does not exist(and hopefully will never exist). Which seems quite pointless to me.

Some old New England towns work as true democracies where everyone in the town gets a vote.

[cjs55]

The argument in the article is just as concerned with liberalism as it is with democracy in my opinion...

As far insult and debase goes, I don't see insults exactly flying here. I wonder why you say that? Debasement certainly exists however in a logical paradox...

And Claverhouse, you sometimes have far too much fun!

*drunken philosophy is usually a failure. hopefully I'm not missing a point...signing off....*