The failure of democracy throughout history

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

I’ll add even more to those last two posts.

The entire idea of the American experiment was to let states have their own laws … see which ones work the best and then make them federal. But now we’re a global nation… you can think of every country as a US state. We need to pick the best ideas from around the world now. Not just US states. And make them federal law. The Supreme court fucked up. And they’re the ones in charge now. The president doesn’t matter and congress doesn’t matter. That’s what Trump did to us

22

The entire idea of the American experiment was to let states have their own laws … see which ones work the best and then make them federal. But now we’re a global nation… you can think of every country as a US state. We need to pick the best ideas from around the world now. Not just US states. And make them federal law. The Supreme court fucked up. And they’re the ones in charge now. The president doesn’t matter and congress doesn’t matter. That’s what Trump did to us

I don’t agree but I don’t fully disagree. Conceptually you may be on to something here. The idea of various states all implementing their own policies is smart. The part I disagree is when you say that we need to pick the best countries laws and make them federal law. The whole world is still garbage, so I think we still need to be in the “experiment phase” for now and you are being premature.

23

It will take 100 years to repair America. But it will survive.

maybe so, but the damage was there long before Trump.

And in case you’re wondering…
I’m not a democrat. I have no political party

As am I, but it just sounds like yet another MSM anti-trump rant… would you be ranting like this if a demonrat was in office instead? The way you write about Trump gives off a vibe that you do not view demonrats as a danger to America.

24

Well. look what happened in Portugal
They made all drugs legal, and people got off them
Why does human psychology work that way?
Nobody knows. It’s like in France where they let their children drink wine with dinner and they never become alcoholics.
It’s like when native American tribes only use tobacco for ceremonies only and they never become addicted.
We have better ideas out there. Not that I think drinking and smoking are wrong… I actually think they should be prescribed by doctors on the taxpayer dollar for people who need those drugs to be functional citizens. Numbing their symptoms from the vast spirit world.

Fortunately for me.. I’m smart enough to out debate all my spirits. Others don’t have the same luxury. Alcohol always quiets the voices. I don’t ignore people, but I want them to respect that I want to be left alone sometimes.

25

I just read your last message. Oh, you’re going to go that way. I call Biden the hair sniffer in chief, just like I call Trump the pussy grabber in chief. I’m not going to take on the karma of our politicians… I only vote for myself. I’ll take the hit if people vote for me.

26

A lot of the super wealthy it’s just nepotism and inheritance, they have no formal education, they’re just given their money or wealth from one generation to the next within transference. Still, this doesn’t stop them from pushing rigorous educational standards on everybody else.

Artificial intelligence and complete total automation has everything to do with the capital ownership of everything in conjunction with the elimination of wages everywhere along with physical labor completely. Of course, what to do with all the useless eaters or human cockroaches through their eyes made obsolete to simply exist? Kill everybody off who isn’t them with an endless mobilization of robotic militarized drones? The real end game of technocratic transhumanism.

27

No, I am just saying democracy is an inefficient government organization that is easily susceptible to corruption and hostile forces (oligarchy) taking over it.

28

I can’t fault nepotism since it’s something I would do if I could, but in a smart way that doesn’t produce a next generation of entitled morons. I admire how Jewish families engage in nepotism, they value their close family and extended family to get jobs and help them be successful. I have seen examples of this in real life. It’s one reason there are so many Jewish people in high status positions including over-represented as billionaires. They look out for each other, give each other preferential treatment, deals, and support.

But yeah, you are also not wrong. Inheritance and nepotism ultimately lead to an end game where the tiniest sliver of the populations owns almost everything, and we are getting close to that if not already there. The weird thing is, despite how inheritance and nepotism are natural in terms of wanting to take care of your offspring and value your own family, which I consider as good values not only in the evolutionary sense but morally, these things also happen to break the meritocracy in the system. And without functioning meritocracy, a real free economy ‘for the people, of the people, by the people’ will not exist.

The ONLY way to stop the uber rich from owning everything and renting our lives back to us as serfs is to use GOVERNMENT to enact anti-trust laws, very limited inheritance allowed, really enforce anti-nepotism in finance and business, and to put a massive tax on wealth above a certain level. I mean on wealth, not on income. Like we already do on land with property taxes, which are a specific kind of wealth tax. But we should only do such things above a certain threshold of monetary value, say 10 million dollars.

And that would never happen, since the wealthy own the system. They already bought the government, hence why the government itself has become evil. Government in principle, law in principle is a very good thing, because it is the only real way to push back against oligarchy. This is because government is the only legalized use of force and in principle no amount of wealth could prevent it working against you if you commit a crime… except we know humans are corrupted by money and power, and by threats. And now we don’t even enforce existing anti-fraud (e.g. 2008-2009 great financial crisis) or anti-trust laws (e.g. Microsoft, Google) so yeah. Nothing much to see here.

Mass murder by robot drones, or some kind of stealth kill signal or a real pandemic is certainly the end game they are working towards. There is no doubt about that.

2 Likes
29

We are all of us, or at least most of us, working toward the development of the system that will eventually kill us all. This is particular true if you work in any tech-related field.

1 Like
30

To be fair, I am not arguing against the organization of government, instead merely against the democratic style of government.

31

Yes I do understand that. Was just clarifying ideas generally, more so for my own benefit.

1 Like
32

I would say that, despite all its shortcomings, I still prefer democracy over any kind of tyranny or monarchy. I don’t believe in politicians or political representation. But democracy favors a “laissez-faire/laissez-aller” mentality that is more to my liking than the rigidity of any type of tyranny or authoritarian government.

33

Democracy is a tyranny, the worst kind of tyranny for those who have eyes to see what it really is rather than what it pretends to be publicly. Laissez-faire, free trade? The concept of free trade is the most laughable one in economics. For me, democracy and oligarchy or plutocracy is all the same thing virtually indistinguishable from each other.

34

I was referring to the laissez-faire/laissez-aller mentality in the sense of “live and let live”, “leave others alone”.

I’d agree that in democracy, to have power means to have money.

1 Like
35

Sounds nice on paper concerning idealism, but I find in reality to get people to leave others alone you need a big stick to force them to and without that big stick they don’t listen to you. The big stick becomes very necessary.

2 Likes
36

Yes, you need to fight for your territory against trespassers. And to do that, you need money. But even so, when I have my space guaranteed against the intrusion of others, I don’t care about what they do with their lives and I think most act the same way towards me. In an authoritarian world, everyone seems to be paranoid about others. As a really private person, the best thing others can do for me is leaving me alone.

2 Likes
37

I prefer a world where everybody has freedom, opportunity, and happiness rather than only having the opportunity to buy or purchase it privately if they’re lucky in affordability.

1 Like
38

Ok, now I see you’re a true Marxist.

Have to go now, man, I will answer you as soon as I can.

1 Like
39

Yes, and in a very important way this hits close to the proper and true meaning of politics, which is a significant branch of philosophy. Politics is the study of how best to organize human society, in particular with respect to what we call laws. Because laws are the instantiation of legalized (allowable under the system) use of force. As such, they have immense power to push back against the merely “might makes right” and “lucky by accident of birth” that we see in the natural world.

The deeper problem here, ignoring for the moment all of the corruption and abuse of politics that has already occurred (politics today is entirely co-opted by the super-rich top 1% of the 1% class for their own interest) is that we still live in the natural world, we live within ‘nature’ (conditions of reality). Our ability to use politics to rationally, logically and ethically construct rules and laws for society to counteract things about the natural world we don’t like is ultimately very limited. Not only by the external factors but also by the internal factors of the human psyche. We are somewhat hive-minded and tribal beings, having just recently risen up from the dirt of the animal kingdom. We are not yet mature enough as individuals, as a species or groups within the species to really construct properly logical societies that would ameliorate the many errors and ills which arise as a consequence of the “natural world”.

And even if we did achieve a near-perfect social organization, would it satisfy the animal instincts inside us? We would crave danger, risk, novelty. Battle, conquest, victory, struggle. All of this is quite natural to us. We cannot breed this out, not for another many thousands of years at least. And perhaps we would not wish to breed it out.

1 Like
40

IMG_0915
IMG_0915750×705 126 KB

IMG_0914
IMG_0914750×922 162 KB

I think unless every individual has the same amount of power and property as everyone else, so that both power and property (and responsibility) are jointly shared, and nothing is owned by the state because the state is redundant, would the system actually be a self=other system, and not merely claim to be.

Those sherking their responsibilities or hoarding power or resources from others would be held accountable in such a system. There would be none of this laissez-faire bullshit people are brainwashed by “too big to fail“ con artists to think would be a good idea.

1 Like