Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time.
-- E. B. White
This is funny, and of course flies in the face of the idea that with democracy, you automatically get the right or best solution.
But... I actually think democracy is very simply a way to keep fighting to a minimum. "We're seven guys who want to paint the boat green, and only four of you who want to paint it red. You wanna make something of it?"
29 comments:
Don't you just wish that our governments could get it that simple.
Actually, it is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's on the menu.
The notion that 99 people have the authority to violate the rights of 1 person is pretty repulsive to me.
Philosophically, I'd say it's a way of stating that be it good or bad, people have the sort of ruling regime they deserve.
Well, they WOULD have, if the rules of the Democratic Game were respected. Even in neo-feudal Lebanon. EVEN with all the political money spent at every election.
The thing is, the rules are STILL not applied. Fraud is massive and in broad daylight.
I wouldn't mind it if my country were backwards SPONTANEOUSLY. That would be... normal! What really bothers me, is that people are forbidden from changing things even if more than half of them are being intelligent more than half the time.
It's exactly like biased/rigged figures in statistics. The action is very subtle, but it is designed to have major effects by tipping the scales in the wrong direction every time they can be tipped rather easily. Converting a subtle reality into a completely falsified binary result of "more often tipped scales".
Typical example in Lebanon : systematically moving thousands of voters (in a country of about 4 million inhabitants) from the curcumscriptions that are guaranteed to be lost to those which are very uncertain. End result: a completely un-representative parliament, for the sole benefit of the corrupt cheaters!
Democracy is probably the least bad of all known political systems. Provided it's not rigged by dictators or meddling external powers.
As much as libertarianism feels seducive, the more you let people rule themselves at a small scale, the more you go towards the major dangers of anarchy. I've very recently seen the western starring Clint Eastwood, Hang Them High. The "Law of the West" was quite libertarian...
If some demented cult decides it can rule itself without interference, and perform human sacrifices or rape children, Libertarianism cannot do anything against it. I already see that very argument being used TODAY: in the name of "religious freedom", many liberticidal cults prosper and abuse unchecked.
On the other hand, enlightened tyranny sometimes works quite nicely. Ataturk helped his country (Turkey) move forward, while democratically elected "soft islamism" is pushing Society the other way today. People actually live better in Syria today than in Lebanon. According to the very official Mercer Human Resource Consulting latest report. In fact, life in Nairobi (Kenya) and Islamabad (Pakistan!!!) was officially better than in Beirut in 2008. {:-(
Do you know what would happen if, tomorrow, the Assad regime were toppled in Syria? The mayhem and madness of another Iraq. The islamist fundies are ready for it.
Another thought : do you know how often in history China was a united country, instead of a bunch of constantly warring kingdoms, Afghanistan style? (See the videogame series, Romance of the Three Kingdoms.) About 50% of the time! China's power today, and hence its economical success, and hence its living standards, are ensured by a unified country, kept together in spite of its many ethnies by an authoritarian rule. See the Uyghurs, strongly tempted by an independent islamic regime... If government corruption wasn't so bad in China, I'd readily support the current regime style as the undisputed lesser evil. Which it is, but given its style I cannot condone it.
[Rats. Like they say, "sorry, I've got to split". Split this post, that is!]
Take Iran. In Iran, a corrupt regime is taking full advantage of the vital necessity for Shiites to keep a united front, not really against "Amerika" asmuch as against the vastly dominant Sunni muslim world. In Iraq, Al Qaeda is constantly targeting the Shiites, when it's not the Kurds getting bombed. In Pakistan, most terrorist bombings do the exact same: nearly always against the shiite minority. In Lebanon, our Sunni Prime Minister is constantly "visiting" Saudi Arabia to get his instructions about whether or not to welcome Hezbollah, main representative of the Shiites, in the new government. (Shiites are THE most numerous community in Lebanon, and 95% of them are fully pro-Hezbollah.) Faced with an outnumbering fanaticism, Shiites have no choice. To simply survive, they must stand firm, buck and rear. Showing weakness means the end. It was so for them since the death of Muhammad (check the history of Islam). So they "pick on the biggest and meanest one, and give 'im all they've got". Namely, Israel and the USA. And in the name of unity, Ahmadinejad can leisurely smother all questioning in his country by calling them "sellout traitors". A very convenient sick game, where social progress is constantly the main victim.
Just some perspective.
The hard realities of Geopolitics force themselves on ideals like "how best would a country rule itself with respect for everybody's freedoms?". Same for the hard realities of mentalities, and of simple plain human stupidity.
We have a proverb in Lebanon: "The weapon, in the hands of the shit-head, it wounds." Just try giving a hammer to a toddler...
Would you grant the same amount of freedom to a primitive brute and to a wise philosopher? To the one who shoots and yells "Because I want/said so!" and to the one who wants to also respect the freedom of the remaining 1%?
I say, ensure education to people, free and universal access to knowledge and information, let them free to choose in a democratic system, and you WILL end up in the best of all realistically possible worlds. With time.
Of course, in the meantime, we'll still be thrashing about in (relative) barbary. Like the character of Einstone, created by Tex Avery: the plight of a genius born in the days of thick cavemen...
P.S.:
"The notion that 99 people have the authority to violate the rights of 1 person is pretty repulsive to me."
We're in full agreement there, Kent. As much as the shit-heads should not be granted power over others, that's the limit of permitted interfering. Violating ANYBODY's rights is repulsive, and shameful for humankind.
Then again, History is filled to the gums with such abuses. In whichever system followed. From the most libertarian to the most authoritarian.
:-(
"I've very recently seen the western starring Clint Eastwood, Hang Them High. The "Law of the West" was quite libertarian..."
Of course, the REAL, ubiquitously armed, "Old West" was actually less dangerous than the "civilized", heavily governed, "back East". Look into the comparative murder rates if you don't believe me. But, the myth makes for good movies.
"But, the myth makes for good movies."
I think the scenery also helps a lot... :-)
My parents LOVE Westerns.
The thing is... I grew up in Lebanon in the Seventies-Eighties. Where the only remaining "law" was that of armed individuals or groups. So I'm sure you'll understand and excuse me if I don't put too much trust in the self-regulating ideal virtues of suppressing governments.
I've lost count of how many times I've closely escaped death because some irresponsible primitive had been handed a weapon. Be it only from stray bullets falling from the sky, or poorly aimed shells/rockets. (Maybe not ALL of them poorly aimed...)
Total freedom isn't the optimal system everywhere...
We have a saying in these parts: "Ask the one who tried it, not the wise man who thinks"...
"I've lost count of how many times I've closely escaped death because some irresponsible primitive had been handed a weapon."
Sounds like you'd be safe as houses if *all* of them had weapons.
Democracy is the worse possible system.
A monopoly is a system of 'good' is a bad thing.
But a monopoly in a system of 'bad' is a lot better than a wildly distributed 'bad'.
Democracy allows access to the levers of legal violence to anyone - including really bad guys who will do anything to get it.
With no surprise, they get it.
Further, under democracy - it has unlimited justification "the majority said it was ok!" with diffuse responsibility "it wasn't me - it was everybody!"
Unlimited justifications for evil with no responsibility..... I cannot imagine a more dangerous mix.
I think democracy is slightly over used, as a word I mean. Its a small part of a successful system. Things like access to justice and a free media are at least as important.
Well said, Sukiho.
Black Flag, you also make some good points. Looks like you've seen al the... "red flags"! ;-)
Read Swift lately?
If people voting was sufficient to ensure freedom and justice, dictatorships would suppress elections, instead of grossly rigging them.
They are not afraid of justice and freedom, that won't happen. They are just afraid of the other guy getting the power and money.
I disagree about that exclusive statement. Sure, power and money are conjoined siamese. But oppression is always about a tight minority exploiting the vast majority. Tyrants care very much about preserving that state of things too, not just about beating the envious competition. Orwell wrote all about it: how dictatorships managed to take the worst of Democracy and "gloriously" magnify it tenfold (or more). "Four legs good, two legs BETTER!"
Have you seen what sort of insane palace Zimbabwean overlord Robert Mugabe lives in? I'll just give you a very tiny hint: massive gold toilet seats in a large marble shrine.
And that's just the guests bathroom!
Meanwhile, cholera decimates his ragtag population because of lack of clean drinking water. But "it's all the fault of the evil colonization from the West several decades ago, my fellow citizens". Emphasis on "fellow"?...
What still baffles me, is the boundless stupidity of large numbers of ordinary folks who heartily support him without even getting any significant advantage in return. The best ally of sneaky oppressors is the boundless potential of human stupidity. Baaa... I mean, but let's not bring up the discussion on my OWN country... {:-P
I'd better bring it up leisurely on my own blog. Some day.
I've always say that education is essential to the evolution of nations. Starting with basic alphabetization. But it's not enough. Knowledge is only one component of wisdom. A bonus component. Education itself is much more that standard school stuff.
To give an interesting example, my dear Granny is practically illiterate. She never got the chance to go to school, thanks to being born in poverty. But she's practically taught herself to read, and is the perfect opposite of naive. Nobody cons her, not even the pros. Once, her phone rang, and an enthusiastic voice said to her: "Congratulation, Madam, you've just won a big sum of money from *******!"
Her immediate reply: "Yeah yeah, sure! What about my butt, is it chicken?" And she hung up: "If someone I've never heard of says they want to give me money, it means they hope to get back lots more from me."
Then again, my Granny was born neither in Zimbabwe nor in Lebanon. Perhaps there's a hint here?...
My brother read this in the news, a while back: in South Africa, several men broke into a single mother's house, and raped her six months-old baby girl, almost killing her. Almost, but not quite. She might have been better off... Why did they do that? Because of their firm belief that fucking a virgin cures AIDS. (BTW, my apologies for giving you nausea like this...)
There's no helping such people before THEY start helping themselves.
People generally have the rule they deserve. Especially if no outer superpower invaded them to instore said rule by sheer overwhelming force. Most derelict "growing" countries have only themselves to blame today.
[Genetic splicing signal detected. GATTACA...]
Democracy? The least bad system for nations that pulled themselves slightly above the primordial oozing mud and the vital need for merciless "enlightened" tyranny. [Clearly, Iraq wasn't there yet when it got "liberated".] Lebanon had less corruption under the Syrian rule that ended in 2005... (Speaking of which: there was no sheer force overwhelming invasion there. The past Lebanese Government INVITED the Syrian Army in, to help ward off the havok of Arafat's PLO. They just stayed afterwards...)
Libertarianism is too closely related to anarchy IMO. I believe no nation today is mature enough to make it work properly. Not enough individuals like Kent ready to take up the responsibility with enough maturity.
The ideal System? It could only exist with ideal citizens. Of course, at that point, there would practically be need for no more System at all, save for some basic coordinated organization.
My friend L5E4 is writing a utopic futuristic novel called "The U" (if I remember the name correctly). It should be an interesting read when it's published. Ever since Plato's Republic, fictions on utopias have brought interesting hints on this topic.
BTW, "Utopia" is precisely the name of Plato's Republic (or its capital city?). In Greek, it means something like Neverland, or "the Place Which Exists Nowhere".
Maybe he had it all figured out already?...
"The ideal System? It could only exist with ideal citizens. Of course, at that point, there would practically be need for no more System at all, save for some basic coordinated organization."
Exactly. *Then* you could have libertarianism.
Or with really ideal citizens, anarchy.
By the way, Iain M. Banks' Culture books describe a wonderful Utopia, which is kept interesting by most of the stories taking place at the edge of things.
Of course, I see "anarchy" as libertarianism in full bloom, and I also see it as the only "system" that works in the real world even though bad people do not cooperate.
The stories taking place at the edge of things are usually the most interesting in such instances.
Has any of you read Parabellum Tango, by excellent French author Pierre Pelot? (I don't know whether it's been translated to English...) A very interesting take on an attempted utopia, possibly dystopia but it remains unsure for most of the story.
In this story, people deemed worthy of libertarianism are welcomed in the "nice place", and each have their own personalized PLC, Personal Law Code. For instance, say, a repented alcoholic's PLC will forbid him to drink a single drop. Ensuring the absense of relapse of marital violence. There seems to be no police, only a minimal administration.
Anybody can apply for "transfer" to there, if they prove they've got the proper civic knowledge and maturity to live there. And people from the "nice place" all have to spend 18 months, not in military service, but in the underprivileged, poorly managed zone, like everybody else there, to gain awareness of the difference that comes from voluntarily following the civic rules of the sort-of elite.
The number of people living the nice life is surprisingly large, far from being a tiny minority. Still, the Zoners feel exploited, and sing the rebellious song "Parabellum Tango", sort of their Blues.
Basically, it's like segregation between those fit to rule themselves, and those not ready for it yet. With no marriage barriers. But the truth is more complex than you'd expect.
Interesting idea. Because immediately there does not seem anything unethical about such a way to run things.
BTW, Kent, don't you think that international Politics are a pretty good illustration of "Anarchy"?
And, therefore, of its many potential shortcomings?
"I'm stronger than anyone else, but I'm not stronger than all of the others, by far, so I'll make allies which I'll call "friends". By anu means necessary. Of course, the other powerful ones will do the same, so it's a chess game with only pretend rules that we claim to be following. In reality, anything goes. Hey, I think I'll overthrow that guy in Iraq. I don't like Iraq."
Well, you get the general idea...
Would love to be able to deny that.
I think international politics is an example of "might makes right", with a fair amount of nihilism mixed in. Just like the false "anarchists" (usually socialists of some stripe) who smash store windows and wreak destruction. They have no problem with Rulers; they just want one of "their people" to be the Ruler in order to impose their "system" on everyone. If you think Rulers are legitimate, you are not an anarchist. International politics seems to be a constant jostling to become the Big Man in the neighborhood or on the planet.
My definition of "politics", by the way is " a means to try to get along with those you don't like". Not the only means, and certainly not the best.
seems to me the entire universe is a state of anarchy but it naturally falls into hierarchical patterns, and humans with their political systems are no different
"They have no problem with Rulers; they just want one of "their people" to be the Ruler in order to impose their "system" on everyone."
Ah, yes, but they do it for the greater good of the world, see? Since their system is naturally the best, as they will testify to you.
Bless their altruistic little souls. ;-p
The bombs are just a transient necessary evil, a temporary worse on the road to the best.
"Houston, next exit. To go left, turn right three times." That sort of logic.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the attic, because there's a leak in the basement I need to fix.
Heil Osama!
"Sounds like you'd be safe as houses if *all* of them had weapons."
Yeah, it would sure cut down on the problem of stray bullet and "joy gunshots" raining down from the sky.
Well, it would, if they were too busy killing each other off... :-P
Wow, Kent, you sure are dumb. You shouldn't have taken so much acid in the 60s. Your drug-addled brain betrays you again and again. Add to that a total lack of understanding of politics, the current state of the world, human nature, and lack of knowledge of history. You are a special kind of stupid.
The 60s? Drugs? I was born in the 60s, and I don't even drink alcohol. Think up *new*, more creative insults please. ;)
May I have a try at that creativity challenge? [cracks knuckles]
"Kent, I knew you were born in the Sixties, because YOU ARE a drug. But me, I prefer to get high on harder stuff. A Dubya Bush is even more toxic than McManigals. To each his own. Maybe you're not man enough for some SERIOUS stuff? Oh, right: you don't drink at all. Tenderfoot."
How's that for creative?
I'll always be there to support my big bro when he gets writer's block.
Which can happen often, similar to tennis elbow, given how hard he does dedicated volunteer work at flaming total strangers.
Call us the fire men. We're one big family. Booya!
Big, HAPPY family, now that's another matter. Happiness would dull our edge.
"I'm no pretender."
P.S.: By "you are a drug", I was of course referring to your political theories being the opium of the people.
Unh! Unh! Who's your daddy?
"I'm no pretender."
"Happiness would dull our edge."
Reminds me of that saying, that the more an army is powerful, the worse the food tastes, because it keeps the soldiers in the mood for fighting.
Well, at least that's what I read in Asterix:
"(gulp) I didn't know the Roman army was so powerful. Yuck!"
[Obelix]: "I'll go gently ask the cook to make us nothing but wild boar from now on. :-)"
Post a Comment