| Why Democracy just doesn't work and The Maj Manifesto |
|
|
| 05:02pm 11/05/2005 |
| |
mood:  energetic
|
Now it may strike many people as strange and wrong that I would have anything bad to say about democracy in this day and age. God knows that people have been fighting for democracy and an equal say in society for millenia, and now a large part of the world has it and others are on their way. Why would I, a relativly liberal, free thinking and openminded individual, even suggest removing democracy from life? Two reasons, first -there is no real democracy in our world today, and two -democracy in itself may not be the best method of government.
Before I get into the swing of this, lets take a brief history lesson and do a little timeline of democracy to put all this into context. Democracy originated way back when, 400ish BCE I believe, in Athens Greece. What brought about this small democracy in a very authoritarian world you ask? Well, originally Athens had a tyrannical or oligarchy government. At this time tyrannt wasn't a dirty word, it simply meant a single ruler with ultimate authority; an oglichacy would be a small ruling class making decisions for the people.
Now what happened in Athens at this time as there was a shift in military strategy. The olichacy derived its power from military strength, only the wealthy could afford the weapons and armour to defend Athens, which granted them the right to participate in government. Around 400 BCE however, tactics changed and the new strategy was large numbers of people, with less expensive armour with altered tactics. This allowed the common people of Athens to participate in the military and defend themselves. Because of the common people now defended their state, they wanted a say in how it was run, and so democracy was born.
In the Athenian democracy all citizens, all Athenian born males, were allowed to vote on every single piece of ligislation; in fact it was considered disgraceful not to be involved in government. The Athenian commons had gained self-government, but they had the responsibility to be involved in that government. Some state officials were selected at random, or elected, and always for short terms so that the state was an organic entity with a constantly changing leaders in certain sectors allowing the government to represent all people. Many offices were selected from individuals of a certain community at random, and it was their responsibility to best serve their community. Other offices were elected to by all people, such as Pericles.
Lets fastforward to today and look at democracy today and why it doesn't work. The problem with today's democracy is two fold: people do not hold the actual power to govern themselves. We live in the age of representative democracy, and this does not work. Back in Athenian times, it was every citizens duty to vote on the passing of legislation; they had direct control over what they did and did not want to happen in their society.
Our society is lazy and stupid; people cannot be bothered to learn what legislation is being passed, they cannot take the time to learn of matters of their state, and so they elect representatives whose full time jobs are to vote and learn on their behalf. One factor which makes representative democracy futile is capitalism. The job of a representative is that of a politician, and as such they must be elected to their post by members of their community. How do they become elected? They campaign. How do they campaign? With lots and lots of money. Take the United States as an example. Huge corportaions line the pockets of politicians to help put them into office, and as such the politician is in a position that they need to pay back these companies by supporting lobbist groups. Thus the power to govern the state has not been put in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the elite wealthy upperclass corporate owners; we have another oligarchy.
The representative democracy also has the failing of political parties. Political parties are a major obstacle in the way of a "functional" representative democracy. Political parties simplify elections far too much, and make it too easy for people when it comes to voting. Let us look at Canada in this situation. Citizens who make their judgements upon whom to cast their ballot for base it almost entirely upon which political party they are a part of. In Canada, I may like the conservative running in our riding, however, I would be unable to vote for that person because Stephan Harper, the party leader, scares the absolute shit out of me and a seat for my representative would help make him Prime Minister.
Political parties also lead to blind following. Voters feel too allied to certain parties based purely upon their name and previous mistakes, policies, etc. If all representatives were to become independant, then citizens would be forced to learn about their own candidates and their policies and views rather than rely upon the banner a particular party is waving.
We currently live in such an age that if we chose to, we could all vote upon all legistlation and have a say in our "democracy". How? Through the internet. Barring the ability of a hacker or corporation to tamper with results, this would allow most of Canada to vote upon legislation in a fairly consistant basis. This brings back the right of self government to the people, not some oligrachy.
My second issue still becons -is democracy the best form of government we can have? Should the people be allowed to govern themselves unconditionally? My answer: would you allow a child to make a stupid decision or would you intervene?
I firmly believe that the average person is below average intelligence, and even those that aren't can be immoral. Many people in our and other countries are frankly too stupid to truly understand issues and make important decisions (whether in a representative or direct democracy). Many people vote for candidate without a firm grasp of the issues at hand, and many others simply do not bother to grasp for these issues and simply vote for whoever has more facetime on T.V. or gives the impression of best representing them. Socrates himself hated democracy because he understood that the masses could easily be manipulated by a persuasive person into doing foolish and wrong things.
There is also the issues of morality. Who's morality shall govern a people. In Canada we've just had the issue of same-sex marriage. Should a people be allowed to descriminate and strip the liberty and freedom of others if the majority believes they should? Hell no. There are two sides to every issue, but the freedom of one person should never be infringed upon by the beliefs of another if they do not harm them in any way. There are also universal morals which should be carried out in our society no matter how many people disagree. If all the country believed it was right to kill all white males to punish them for the racism and violence millions of white males have done in the past, should the act be carried out? Hell no.
In cases of moral dilemna and questions of right and wrong, it would be far better to have an Enlightened Despot, a ruler with an enlightened attitude who can rule absolutely. Such a ruler should not represent one class or social group of all society, but all of them. They must be removed from the state and able to oversee it with no consideration for any particular group, but for the greater good of all peoples, both in their country and around the world.
I propose a solution to the dilemna of a functional government, which both cares out the will of the people, free from the influence of capitalism, corporations, and religious sects, as well as checks it on grounds of morality and libery and the good of all people on this Earth.
I propose a system which is a mix of representative and direct democracy, along with enlightened despotism.
First and foremost, the leader of a nation shall be an enlightened despot, though with limited power. This enlightened despot must be nominated be a large selection of the people and uphold qualities which promote liberty of all people despite race, relgion, sexual orientation, and ideology, as well as demonstrate that they have an acceptable degree of education, not neccessarily by their degrees in university nor marks in school but to be intelligent individuals. A full list of potential candidates shall then be posted upon the internet, via a very secture system of creation I could not possibly hypothesize. All citizens of the nation would then vote for individuals. These citizens must vote not for candidates on the basis of those who best suits their ideals, but for the candidates who are most enlightened. Voters would also not vote for one candidate, but all. Voters would be required to educate themselves upon the character of each candidate, and demonstrate they possess such knowledge through a relatively simple quiz perhaps, and then decide whether each candidate is enlightened or not. The candidate with the most "enlightened points" would then become the enlightened despot of the nation, with six other "enlightened chancellors" who represent different backgrounds and perspectives and are selected from within the top ten to fifteen most enlightened candidates.
The job of this enlightened despot, and his chancellors is to act out, as Rosseau put it, the 'general will' of the people. That is to say, not the majority of people, nor even a high percentage, but the highest ideals of the people. As such, the enlightened despot and chancellors would carry out actions for the greater good of both the people of their nation, and of the world as a whole. They would be unable to enact new legislation, but would be able to edit it or halt it on enlightened grounds.
The role of the enlightened despot is also to respresent the nation of the world stage, and make decisions in international settings. The chancellors exist to check the power of the despot, and are from different backgrounds so as to provide a full spectrum of perspective when "the enlightened" make decisions. Though the despot is to act as representative on the world stage, when the despots disagree, resolutions shall be carried out by a vote between them, and the despots vote shall count for 1.5 while the others count for 1. 1.5 allows the one chosen most enlightened to have more sway, while prevent the possibility of a stalemate.
The basis of government, free of "the enlightened", shall be representatives from the people. These representatives would form the higher levels of government offices who propose plans much as government offices do today. These plans would deal with the issues of Health Care, Education, Military, Energy, Infastructure, etc. These ministries would propose plans for programs and the expenditure of money in their given fields. These plans would be put forth via the internet to all citizens within the nation and they would vote upon such a plan, but this vote would not be merely to approve or disapprove of it. Voters would agree or disagree with certain areas of the proposal and give brief answers why (perhaps from a menu selection). These votes would then be computer tallied and the Ministry who had proposed the plan will analyze it, make according edits, and rerelease it highlighting edits. A there would be a second vote. This process would continue 2 or 3 times. After the third or so time depending upon the proposal, it would be brought before enlightened and they would make any edits based upon enlightened ideals of tolerance, liberty, and freedom.
The ability of voters to vote on legislation would be restricted to those it would affect directly and indirectly. For example, if there was a plan to plant trees in a park, only residents of the area would be allowed to vote for or against said plan.
This system of government appears to give great amounts of power to the enlightened despot and the enlightened chancellors, however, there are restrictions put upon them. Their positions are maintained for only so long as the people support them. This means they could rule for a few years or a few months. Support would be based upon voters again. There would be a seperate autonomous authority to whom voters could send responses stating that they did not support the despot and chancellors and give a grounds for which they did not accept them. If a significant majority of the people respond that they do not agree with the despot on a certain issue or a minority on many issues, then a referendum shall be held to fire the enlightened. If the enlightened are fired, a new batch shall be elected.
Such are the major philosophies of my proposed form of government. Yes it can be tedious, yes it can be frustrating at times, but it allows all people to have a say in their government, while allowing the masses to be checked.
The alternative to my proposal is of course to vote for me as monarch of Canada. After all, I promise to uphold the values you hold dear, bring life, liberty, and happiness to all, and do what it right for our nation. You may not trust me to uphold my duties as your lifelong ruler, but how can you trust any current politicians to either? |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Originally a comment to someone else's rant |
|
|
| 07:37pm 14/04/2005 |
| |
Wow. Neolithic and Paleolithic times eh? Someone's been taking some World History classes. I suppose it's time for me to pull out the ol' History Hat and comment on your post(s). Thus for your handy reference this is a reply to that nice dialogue between velvetjane and taiyoken, sadly however someone (I don't know who cough cough) turned off the reply function.
Anywho.
Humans are argueable the stupiest and the smartest creatures on this planet. We are the stupidest for about three reasons: we can be grossly ignorant and intolerant, we have the power to utterly destory this planet, and we're not unlikely to do it.
It looks like you're taking up a sort of Biblical arguement. Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge begets evil. A little bit of Rosseau as you say that as arts and science reach their perfection so does humanity's corruption.
I prefer a more Socrates-ian perspect. There is only one good, knowledge. Only one evil, ignorance.
You can say technology is making people stupid, which will result in the end of the world, but really people have always been stupid, which can cause them to be "evil". Lets take stock of things that humanity has done since it popped up on this planet those many million years ago.
circa 200 000 BCE: Homo sapiens first appear on earth, standing out from the rest of the animal kingdom with their large brains allowing them to plan in advance in case of disaster. Technology includes burying urns of water in case of drought.
That's some pretty dangerous and lazy technology that those homo sapiens have got. I mean burying urns to ensure their survival in a drought? Almost as dangerous as that pointy leaf that Australopithicus picked up a few hundred thousand years prior.
Circa 8000 BCE: Neolithic civilization. Humanity has began diverging itself into specialized job classes such as farmer, merchant, priests, etc. Agriculture is around allowing for farmers to no longer be nomadic in constant search for food.
Circa 3500 BCE: Fun times in Mesopotamia. Towers built, woman turned to salt, waring city states, development of early weapons.
And the history continues for another four and a half millenia, so I'll just summarize: Iron Weapons, Greek Triads, Egyptian Slavery, Roman Barbaric Gladiator Combat, Chinese Civil Wars, Gunpowder, Middle Ages of blood soaked Crusades on unsuspecting Muslims, genocide of natives in America, Napoleonic France, the British Square, World War I, Stock Market Crash, the Holocaust, Nuclear Weapons, Cold War, stupid war on terror.
Quite a history we've had. And it looks like you're right. Technology has been our downfall.
Without weapons God knows that people aren't able to kill each other in large numbers. God knows nothing worse than the Nazi Holocaust using those tech savy gas chambers has ever happened. Oh wait, the Egyptians with little more than pointy sticks managed to enslave in working camps and eradicate millions of Jews. Oh and Alexander massacred the inhabitants of Persepolis with a few swords. And don't forget those millions upon millions of natives who died in America because some Europeans had a cold. But I digress.
Forget killing other people, humans are become more and more intolerant of others because of widespread media propeganda. Oh, but the Athenians had propeganda against the Spartans and Persians about 2 millenia before the printing press.
Laziness though right? Computers make people lazy. People don't have to think with computers around. And work! No one works any more, it's all automated and computers do it. Can't do that without technology. Well how about slavery? Not the most high tech means but it definitely cuts down on the ol' workload. There have been slaves since civilization erupted back in Mesopotamia. You think you're lazy? Try having someone peel grapes for you and til your land for food because you're too "noble" to do such a thing.
Well, surely technology is making people more ignorant? I mean they have the ability to gain knowledge but only want to surf for porn right? Well how about the Terror during the French revolution where anyone who looked at your funny could be executed after being massed in a group of 20 to 30 people and being tried for crimes you may or may not have committed, and being executed regardless of the crime without appeal 24 hours later via mouseur le guillotine.
The fact is, that our generation is the smartest generation ever to be born on this planet, ever. Egyptians? Pretty damn good engineers, but they didn't know which was North was. Greeks? Damn find Architects, but they couldn't take a derivative to save their asses. Romans? Brilliant infrastructuralists, but they sure as hell couldn't tell you where light came from. Chinese? Indians? Huns? Russians? British? Italians? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Our generation is til on top, with knowledge to spare.
We are also the most liberal and social tolerant generation ever. In 18th century france it was a crime punishable by death to say you didn't like the government. Today I can send a letter to Parliment saying that I think they're motherfucking sons of bitches, and what will happen? Not a damn thing. We're about to pass legislation allowing same sex marriage. We have a national health care system. We recycle. We don't spit on black, white, yellow or orange people free from prosecution.
We are also, in general, the most peace loving generation in history. The age of Empires and emperors is gone. Poland hasn't been taken over for a few decades, which is a definite sign that the totalitarian style of thinking is on the decline.
Computers making people not needing to think? What do computer do for people? Nothing. Not a god damn thing. When was the last time you woke up to music your computer had composed for you for a class project. Ever seen a computer write a Physics essay? How about make a movie? Juggle? Nope, nope and nope. A computer is only as smart as the person who is using it. You must type in your essay, you must conduct your research, you must proof-read your work, you must comprehend the laws of physics, you must cut and paste raw footage to make a movie. A computer simply gives you tools to do things that otherwise a human being could never possibly do. Given enough time, a large group of Austrolopithici on typerwriters could eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare, or I could simply order a copy from Amazon.com. Simple choice.
But that's all the bad stuff. Sure there's a lot of it, but you're looking at one side of a ten sided coin. Lets take a look at good things humanity has done. All of which that would not have been possible without technology.
The Sphinx
The Roman Collusium
The Phoenciens Alphabet
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Geometry
Algebra
Calculus
Medicine
University
Agriculture
Fireworks
Architecture
The Drum
The Cello
The Violin
Macbeth
The Printing Press
"I think therefore I am"
Sailboats
Calligraphy
Fishing
Martial Arts
Yoga
Buddhism
Islam
Julius Caesar
Titus Andromedus
Voltaire
The Mona Lisa
Anatomy of the Human Body
Tea
the Enlightenment
the Renaissance
Code Napoleon
Aqueducts
Baths
Telescopes
Microscopes
Horseback riding
the Highland Fling
Multiculturalism
E = mc^2
Nuclear Fission
Hydroelectric Dams
One Small Step for Man
Hamlet
Don Quiote
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Pizza
Sculpture
Evolution
Starry Night
the ceiling of the sistine chapel
biology
picture of Andromeda
Overture 1812
Swan Lake
Les Miserable
Information at the touch of a button [ie. the internet]
and of course one small redheaded boy and one small brown eyed girl
And one soon to be new addition: Nuclear Fusion. Sure there are A-Bombs, and H-bombs, and C-bombs and D-Bombs and enough bombs for every letter of the alphabet [even the Korean one], but that's not what E=mc^2 is. Nuclear Fusion is about twenty years away. We will see it in our lifetimes. What is it? Unlimited, cheap, clean power. Enough to power the entire world for eternity.
So, technology is leading to the ultimate destruction of Earth? Quite possibly, but humans were stupid to begin with. Technology has
nothing to do with it. Technology makes people smarter. It may have disasterous consequences for a time [industrial revolution] but it works itself out eventually.
You can say technology makes people lazy, I prefer to think that it frees up our time. Without technology you couldnt write that rant, one because you'd have no computer, and two because you'd be out there foraging for food hoping that you wouldn't be preyed upon by some animal larger than yourself. The ability to not have to worry about our survival gives us the ability to focus on other things, the things that matter: art, science, philosophy, love.
Before technology humans still did stupid things, and still beat the shit out of each other and still killed each other for little reason. But at least now we have art, science, philosophy, and laws to protect us from being kicked the shit out of. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Excerpt from a University Application |
|
|
| 01:47pm 12/03/2005 |
| |
mood:  anxious
|
Simple Pleasures
Recently, I’ve been a little peeved by the apathy that many people seem to carry around with them like sack of rotten fruit, which creates a horribly unpleasant expression on their faces. A shadow of “Who cares?” has descended upon the citizens of the world, and is seeping into just about every facet of life. Your teachers don’t care, your government doesn’t care, your parents don’t care, your friends don’t care, that man on the bus who won’t let you on because you forgot your student card obviously doesn’t care, so why should you? It’s an attitude that seems to be engulfing the minds of the youth of today, and many adults as well.
People seem to have lost touch with what’s important in life. “Is it religion?” you may ask. “Culture!” others cry. Still more shout: “Education!” No, my answer is far more simple than that: “happiness”. There are very few things that seem important in life when one is not happy. Few people care about scientific discovery when they are starving. Fewer still are intrigued by art when they are at war. In order to lead a successful and meaningful life in other fields, such as art, culture and religion, one must find what make one happy, and do ones best to maintain that.
No matter who the person is, and how much he or she doesn’t care now, they used to care. Despite how bitter those caretakers may sound about their grievances, they used to find joy in a favourite activity, and some still do. My friends, despite all their sarcasm, love music. My fellow instructors at work, though sometimes surly, know how to have a good time. My mortal enemy enjoys a good bike ride now and then. My Grade Nine shop teacher loved Scrabble. It seems that just about everyone has one small delight in life. It isn’t an extravagant pleasure that make these people happy, just a simple thing that gives a little sunshine on an otherwise cloudy day.
Take my nemesis the bike rider: he is loud, arrogant, ignorant and miserable a good 98% of the time; the other 2% he’s riding his bike. No matter how uncaring and horrible a person may otherwise be, when he’s happy you can’t be irritated by him, nor him by you.
That may very well be the key to a good life: find at least one activity that fills you with joy, and do it as much as possible. In a society of consumption where expensive electronics, elaborate clothing, and other extravagant items are the main commodity, humanity has lost touch with the reason we buy these things: to make ourselves happy. I firmly believe that it is the simple things in life that make us happiest; things where we can temporarily remove ourselves from our hectic and stressful lives and allow simply exist. Give it a try; after all, a bike ride now and again isn’t a bad trade for inner peace. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| The Joys of Cooking Vast Amounts of Raw Meat |
|
|
| 09:18pm 13/11/2004 |
| |
mood:  full
|
Today gets a 8.5/10. It started up with getting up at around... 1045 and a nice warm shower. I then proceeded to fairview to watch "The Incredibles" with Meaghan. It was really good, except for all the loud kids in the birthday party behind us. I also ruined the movie for Meaghan by predicting who the main villian would be, how he would die, and the surprising purpose of one of the characters. I am the God of Foreshadowing I swear.
After this we proceeded downtown on the way relaying stories of interest and amusement to each other, the likes of which are not suited for this entry. We got off at college and got some smoothies. I finally reached 7 and got a free smoothie; it was very good. We then walked to Queen Street where Meaghan finally found A Perfect Circle, and some Goo Goo Dolls. I searched in vain for sometime to find a good sweatshirt for a reasonable price as my last one was lent and lost. It took a while, and I'm not totally happy with it, but I am pretty damned warm.
After that we finally went to the Korean Grill House, which was amazing. We had a bit of a wait but when we sat down it was awesome. All you can eat $15.95, which includes beef, pork, lamb, shrip, tuna, squid, ox tongue, ox liver, and a hell of a lot of veggies. We spent a good hour and a half cooking and eating lots and lots and lots of food. I must say there's something immensely satisfying about cooking and eating huge quantites of meat. I approve in total of this place. I want to go again. The only problem was when the check came. Me and Meaghan were going to split the bill of $40 (including drinks and tax, however, Meaghan was $20 short of what she thought she had. This led to me running out of the restaurant, finding the nearby CIBC closed, finally finding an ATM in a convience store, going back and paying. Meaghan, it seems, became worried. The funny part, is when we left, Meaghan turned a corner, and found that one of the Scotiabank machine's doubled as an ATM... and paid me back. Stupid... Scotiabank.
We then had icecream crepes, and I came home. Good day. Tomorrow's going to be a bitch though.... |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=88.8){kind=small}
lagalos's journal