Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

stoned thoughts on a healthy nationalist perspective and retard-free democracy

Okay, I'm completely high and I don't know if this idea is fully formed, but what if someone was trying to become a citizen of another country and got stopped by a native of the country(and a nationalist with a similar perspective most in the country ideally) at the border, and said,

"nope, this is an exclusive country and completely foreign to your interests and understanding of the world and you might be raped by the natives so it would be best if you stayed where you are for all of us."

If the individual who stopped the would-be immigrant was espoucing the same worldview of most of his country, would the country be engaged in a healthy nationalism?


Furthermore, what if this ideally nationalist country had a democracy? Is democracy ALWAYS a flawed concept even if it is composed of mostly quality people?
They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

A democracy of quality people would elect to end the democracy.

A democracy of quality people would elect to end the democracy.

so you would agree that democracy is ALWAYS a bad idea, and this(democracy is ALWAYS a bad idea) would be a worldview naturally espoused by this democracy of quality people? Why?
They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

I wouldn't put words in his mouth, were I you. Democracy's a terrible idea, maybe always, maybe not. I don't see where it applies benevolently to any task myself, even amongst a group of 165 IQers - they're still accepting the lowest common denominator as a go-ahead solution to a given problem set in front of them if they approach it democratically, which I doubt they would, since people that smart tend to look outside of their own ego at the larger picture which surrounds us all, something democracy has no traffic with. Democracy exalts the individual's immediate interests, as they agree with the interests of the Great Unwashed. No one can go forward in such a system. All are held back by the slowest moving member of the herd.

I guess, reading the above, that I agree with what you're telling Cargést he agrees with. So I'll shut up.

I'd say that "democracy" will always be a bad idea except in a situation where a limited number of individuals both highly intelligent and highly knowledgeable of/skilled in the field in question are the ones deliberating the course of action.  At this point, the idea of "democracy" as a "method" (madness?) of government has disintegrated, and it is the perspectives of masters that are being weighed against each other (thence, such situations would almost universally yield immediate agreement upon a single course of action).

I didn't intend to put words in Cargest's mouth at all. Just trying to make sure I understand as his first reply wasn't very clear/helpful.

What about the nationalist perspective I mentioned? Is it healthy/realistic? I'm just trying to make sure my understanding of nationalism isn't completely flawed.

Very interesting posts though. They've inspire me to pick up The Republic again.
They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

I think democracy works out much better when we don't think of it as a decision-making process. I get the feeling that the way democracy in the U.S. was intended only to prevent tyranny. It's there so the people can clearly state when a leader is out of line.

But over time, things changed. Now, democracy is an instrument of the culture war/class war. Different groups are trying to outvote each other to determine what direction the country goes in. This won't work out for anyone. A few years ago, 49% of people were pissed because Bush was in office (he probably stole the election). Now, a different 49% are pissed because Obama is in office (he's probably not even a natural-born citizen). Within the past few years, at least 98% of people have found themselves dissatisfied the system.

I remember years ago someone wrote on this forum - "democracy worked much better when only white, male land-owners could vote" - I think they may have been on to something. When a society has a clearly stated values system, elections are not battles waged against fellow citizens.

So it's not just a problem with crowdism, the lowest-common denominator of a group. It's also a problem with special interests, group against group, and everyone nowadays is a part of a some special interest. Even if they aren't able to publicly name it or say it.

Different groups are trying to outvote each other to determine what direction the country goes in. This won't work out for anyone.

You've identified Schmitt's Concept of the Political. People insist that diversity works and that detractors are only in disagreement because of some sort of irrational bigotry. But in fact the diversity works just fine people are all uninformed when it comes to political philosophy. I guess widespread ignorance is another reason why democracy fails, particularly acutely if there has been a revolution of mass enfranchisement.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793