Socialist States of America still not learning the lessons

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

(yours)...Find another forum to promote this loon.

The rest of your post was fine, but direct insults and telling people to "take it somewhere else" are strictly not allowed. Call this an informal warning.

[Armistead]

Democracy is a great 3/4 mile race horse on a 1 mile track..

[Hitman]

The very design if flawed from the starting line on, and rewards the worst politics and politicians, while making it almost impossible for those of higher human(e) qualities to come to power and infleunce

I agree with with that mostly, though I'd complete it with an idea that the greeks already suggested: A democracy is only as good or as bad as the society that enforces it. If you have the average society with a majority of idiots, uneducated, irrespectful, etc, then the resulting democracy is at that level. Of course a democracy composed of a handful of intellectual and reasonable people would work marvels, but that will not happen. It won't because sadly societies are not like that because of a basic antropologic reason, namely in social groups of animals there is hierarchy and a majority must be idiot to be manipulated and sacrificed in benefit of the continuity of the species (Think of any animal species organized in communities and you will see hierarchy and some dying for the others). Nature ensures thus that there is ample supply of idiots, and the clever/powerful elite do the rest by using it for their own convenience. Giving theoretical equal power of decission to the idiots is of course a flawed way of handling things, but it seems to be the only one that will keep them happy and cheated to continue being sacrificed and working instead of mounting guillotines in he champs Eliseès.

Further (short) reading on what the greeks diagnosed already centuries ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos

sadly societies are not like that because of a basic antropologic reason, namely in social groups of animals there is hierarchy and a majority must be idiot to be manipulated and sacrificed in benefit of the continuity of the species

I don't know where you got that idea from - but it has nothing to do with anthropology (I have a degree in the subject).

[Hitman]

Your right should have probably said biological

Originally Posted by Hitman

Your right should have probably said biological

That would be wrong too...

[Bilge_Rat]

again Skybird, you love to make long posts, but what is the practical alternative to the liberal-democratic state?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hitman

I agree with with that mostly, though I'd complete it with an idea that the greeks already suggested: A democracy is only as good or as bad as the society that enforces it. If you have the average society with a majority of idiots, uneducated, irrespectful, etc, then the resulting democracy is at that level. Of course a democracy composed of a handful of intellectual and reasonable people would work marvels, but that will not happen. It won't because sadly societies are not like that because of a basic antropologic reason, namely in social groups of animals there is hierarchy and a majority must be idiot to be manipulated and sacrificed in benefit of the continuity of the species (Think of any animal species organized in communities and you will see hierarchy and some dying for the others). Nature ensures thus that there is ample supply of idiots, and the clever/powerful elite do the rest by using it for their own convenience. Giving theoretical equal power of decission to the idiots is of course a flawed way of handling things, but it seems to be the only one that will keep them happy and cheated to continue being sacrificed and working instead of mounting guillotines in he champs Eliseès.

Further (short) reading on what the greeks diagnosed already centuries ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos

The Greek had no illusions about democracy. They favoured a small social elite that was about 5% - maximum 15% of the total population to be allowed in assemblies to vote on issues that affected the community. These 10% must have been male, they must have been rich and materially contributing to the community, they must have believed in the gods and they must have honoured their parents and forefathers and honour the rites by which the dead forefathers got honoured. Especially the latter was very important and was called into examination not rarely when a new young man demanded access to the assembly. These people were what constittues the citizens of the community. The others - wqere of lesser social value than citizens.

In ancient Greece, the "demos" originally meant a small village, and later, the "deme" was the smallest local administration cell (surprise, surprise: again the reference to having communities as small as possible!). The "demos" was not the totality of the whole population. At that time, the governing inside the demos meant the self-governing of the "citizen". But the citizens were an elite that was discriminated against the ordinary population. the term "citizen" originally refered to an organise band of armed men - a small military unit, ion other words. Men who served under arms, were free people and were citizens, whereas unfree people - most of the population - were forbidden to carry arms or to gain access to the governing assembly.

So, where "democracy" was meant at those time sin a positive context, it meant something like the self-governing of small administrative entities like a small city, and a criterion was that from the top of the hill where the assembly met, all of the country and community being governed must have been in view, and places that laid beyond that viewing range could not be claimed to be part of this community. In these assemblies, orthodoxy and conservatism were demanded and defended to protect culture, identity and rites, and the way this elite was identified could only be described as being aristocratic.

Rahim Taghizadegan mentiones also this nice little detail: the realm of public affairs, in whose governing the citizens (the free, arms-carrying men) were not only allowed but were expected to participate and take up responsibility, was called "demosios". On the other side, there was the "idios", the sphere of privacy, private household, the non-public life behind the walls and doors of your home. This was seen in a negative, disadvantaged connotation, because the idiot was a poor dog or a fool or an unfree man who had to do the work in the household or his job and had no time and no inspiration to make an engagement for public issues, he lacked the educaiton for that as well, and finally was not allowed to do that. Thus our modern negative understanding of the term "idiot". Taghizadegan points out that this discriminatory weighing was necessary and understanding, because the private household - the "oikos" - was holy and untouchable (protected private property as well, not that carrictature of property protection we have today), whereas to safeguard the common good and a solid living basis for all the community - the "polis" -, public engagement was necessary as well. To engage yourself in the public part of the demosios was needed and encouraged and thus was seen positive, compared to somebody just withdrawing into the privacy of his own life in his home where he could not be of any use for the common good.

So, with this idea of aristocracy, there als came an udnerstanding of that the aristi8cracy had to accept the respnsibility coming with the privileged status. There also was the udnerstanding that not everybody had what it takes to be part of that elite. Those without having own investements at risk (the ordinary man, the unfree, the slaves, the poor) were excluded from decision making so that they could not make decisions that would redistrubute welkath that was not theirs into their pockets (I cut it very sort, you get the point, I hope). Also there was understanding that not every stranger of wealth could be allowed into the aristocracy if he did not accept and integrate into the cultural rules, because that would destroy the cultural identity of the whole polis. And finally there was understanding of the need that those wanting to decide needed to be of the education standards to be able to decide, while it would be a great danger if just any imbecile dumbhead, who had his intellectuality from counting flies in the streets, were allowed to effect the future of the polis. I recommend Christian Ortner's very entertaining, but precisely diagnosing "Prolokratie. Demokratisch in die Pleite" (in German) on especially this problem that is haunting modern democracies so very much: it is one of my prime arguments against a general right to vote in political elections.

The Romans followed that separation between aristocratic public life and idiotic private life, calling them "res publica" and "res privata". "SPQR" in the legions' emblems indicated the identity of the army and the senate - the citizens (free, carrying arms, male) and the political privilege to participate in governing. While senators and legionaires were not one and the same person, that the soldiers were speaking for the senate was implied. IOn modern times, some fascists argued and still argue that only those who have served in the army, are real citizens and should have full rights to civil rights and offices of political power.

You see, democracy is a highly discriminatory (and to some degree even intolerant) affair. It refers to self-governing local communities of very small size that function feudalistic-aristocratic, are hierarchically structured, and where the majority principle - that today we mistake to be the most important feature of democracy - oinly is used in the giovenrign assembly of the full citizen's elite.

In other words, today'S modern understanding of "democracy" is a distortion that has little to do with the original meaning of it. When the Greek city states grew in size and corrupotion blossomed as a side effect from that, democracy was made available to the wqide oublic, the citizenship was opened for access for more non-elitarist people, and there it all started to go down the drain. From that time on, "democracy" became synonymous with the "tyranny of the majority" , the "dictatorship of the canaille". It then was seen as something that was to be avoided, at all cost.

Max Weber's phrase "Dilettantenverwaltung durch Beutepolitiker" (=dilletantic administration by predatory politicians) describes it quite well. Why that necessarily always will be the result, both for human and practical reasons, is analysed and diagnosed by Hoppe in compelling precision and logic. If you use his model of arguments to describe the EU or the US, you will see how very very right he is in his descriptions of symptoms and predictions of what will come at the next lower level of the drain.

Originally an economist, he also has correctly predicted the reasons for and the outbreak of the financial crisis 2007/2008 - more than 10 years in advance. He also has published huge amounts of comparing studies relating capitalistic and socialistic economy models. But I have not dealt with these separate publications in detail - too specific for my needs and interests. the general summary I got in his more general essays and the democracy book serves well enough for me.

A last note by me, because it comes to my mind right now: even if the population is well-educated, that does not mean that people make decisions on the grounds of reason and ratio. Their preference will still be to value the immediate present and near future over the distant future, and the greater a group, the lower the groups' mean IQ. Psychological variables that have nothing to do with honesty, nobleness and qualification, will still determine the outcome of candidate elections in public majority votings. Hoppe even explains why in our understanding of democracy, necessarily candidates of low humane value and integrity come to power and rise in the hierarchy, while those speaking the truth and doing accordingly will remain non-influential and unimportant for the most. Where as in an feudal system or an aristocracy, you have at least the chance that somebody will get prepared well for his later duties and by chance also is an honest character, and thus will take his post as a qualified and serious commander, in our modern democracy such candidates get filtered out and it is made impossible that such people come to power in high offices - we see that in elections throughout the Western world: we always get the bigmouths, the liars, the cheaters, the blenders, at best the disappoint, but often they act really criminally and irresponsibly. And even this gets rationally explained by Hoppe as part of the logical interest that leaders must have in a modern democratic system (different to a feudal system). The system makes sure that only a certain type of character can successfully advance in the political hierarchies - and that character is described not by the noble and rational, but the low, anti-social, bad features of humanity.