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

Login with username, password and session length

Is democracy really the problem?

Is democracy really the problem?
December 31, 2007, 02:16:34 PM
Given that:

-Only a very small portion of the U.S. population actually votes.


-We know the system is corrupt anyways. Rigging elections, T.V. ads etc.


-The electoral college is not a truly democratic organization. Read this document:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ElectoralCollege.html

We must ask the question:

Is democracy really the current primary cause of degeneracy in the U.S.? If not, then was it at any point the initiating cause of degeneracy in the U.S.?

Discuss.

Divus_de_Mortuus

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
December 31, 2007, 02:40:53 PM
Things were just fine when only white male property owners could vote...

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
December 31, 2007, 03:30:11 PM
Democracy lowers standards because the majority of people are by nature not willing to think about making right, unselfish choices. The passivity (not only in voting) you talk about is just one symptom of dumbed-down civilisation.

passivity = degeneration, if that answers you better.

Dunkelheit

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
December 31, 2007, 04:05:49 PM
Nothing can really be distilled down to having a singular and absolute primary cause. There are many factors in any situation. The question you should be asking is not whether democracy caused the current situation, but is democracy really needed in order to have a healthy functioning society?

As for the realities of what is called democracy these days, those who don't vote are in fact participating. They are exercising their right not to vote and their apathy has a political impact. You also mention advertising, which just shows one of the many reasons democracy doesn't work. The majority of people are stupid and are easily fooled.

Divus_de_Mortuus

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
December 31, 2007, 08:33:02 PM
What is the alternative?

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
December 31, 2007, 09:58:22 PM
Quote
Is democracy really the current primary cause of degeneracy in the U.S.? If not, then was it at any point the initiating cause of degeneracy in the U.S.?


Not neccessarily, but gives the degenerate a big chance to make a degenerate impact on reality.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 01, 2008, 05:41:41 PM
The alternative is looking back at history, learn from its mistakes and analyze the political system in the past that produced the best results (political, cultural and other) with the least problems and mistakes. Then this system should be applied with contemporary means into the modern time, taking what can be used and discarding the rest. Too hypothetical? ;D

I know, I'm not smart enough to provide definite naswers about this, some people of greater intelligence and will should do that, I would be happy to serve in the trenches, so to speak ;)

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 01, 2008, 06:58:25 PM
Quote
Given that:

-Only a very small portion of the U.S. population actually votes.


-We know the system is corrupt anyways. Rigging elections, T.V. ads etc.


-The electoral college is not a truly democratic organization. Read this document:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ElectoralCollege.html

We must ask the question:

Is democracy really the current primary cause of degeneracy in the U.S.? If not, then was it at any point the initiating cause of degeneracy in the U.S.?

Discuss.


Democracy can only exist in an already spiritually degenerated society. It emerges out of the loss of contact with the transcendent. This results in the decadence of the aristocracy and the perversion of the principles of the state.  As a result of losing its transcendental core, the state derives its legitimacy from, instead of eternal values, the irrational and collectivistic will of the masses.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 02, 2008, 02:37:26 AM
Quote

Democracy can only exist in an already spiritually degenerated society. It emerges out of the loss of contact with the transcendent. This results in the decadence of the aristocracy and the perversion of the principles of the state.  As a result of losing its transcendental core, the state derives its legitimacy from, instead of eternal values, the irrational and collectivistic will of the masses.


Exactly. Democracy is a natural consequence of materialistic, quantitative society.

STS

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 02, 2008, 03:54:38 AM
Quote
Is democracy really the current primary cause of degeneracy in the U.S.? If not, then was it at any point the initiating cause of degeneracy in the U.S.?

Discuss.


Allowing millions of diverse voices- even those at the lowest grade of intellectual development- to each have a say and dictate how society will be run is disastrous.

All societies were built to accommodate the values and needs of the majority; changing this concept as Democracy allows it breaks apart society's ability to address problems and implement solutions, and creates anarchy since no common goals & guidelines are agreed upon or upheld by the populous.

Democracy affords that because it plays on the theory that "everyone is created equal" and should therefore have input in the way things will be.

If philosophy, ideas and guidelines emanate the construct of a society, or a civilization, then Democracy as an ideological blueprint for society is the worst possible thing this world has ever seen.

STS

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 02, 2008, 04:19:34 AM
Quote
What is the alternative?


Look for things Democracy routinely attacks like (just for example)- racial/cultural homogeneity, eugenics, militant "greenism", (self) discipline, non-'progressive' gender roles, allowing only the best to rise to the top & hold positions of authority and so on. These things would be mandatory institutions in a sane "alternative" to Democracy.

These things impede Democracy and things like Capitalism too because they will offend some, deny others a chance to make money and exclude most from life by default. That happens because "everyone is created equal" (even if they should be led away and shot).

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 02, 2008, 05:26:12 PM
Quote
Is democracy really the current primary cause of degeneracy in the U.S.? If not, then was it at any point the initiating cause of degeneracy in the U.S.?


Quote
Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise: the good at which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?

What then?

The rulers being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?

To be sure.

There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same State to any considerable extent; one or the other will be disregarded.

That is tolerably clear.

And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary?

Yes, often.

And still they remain in the city; there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited their citizenship; a third class are in both predicaments; and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution.

That is true.

On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting—that is, their money—into someone else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State.

Yes, he said, there are plenty of them—that is certain.

The evil blazes up like a fire; and they will not extinguish it either by restricting a man's use of his own property, or by another remedy.

What other?

One which is the next best, and has the advantage of compelling the citizens to look to their characters: Let there be a general rule that everyone shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk, and there will be less of this scandalous moneymaking, and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State.

Yes, they will be greatly lessened.

At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.

Very true.

They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue.

Yes, quite as indifferent.

Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another's way, whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting, on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellowsailors; aye, and they may observe the behavior of each other in the very moment of danger—for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich—and very likely the wiry, sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh—when he sees such a one puffing and at his wits'-end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another, "Our warriors are not good for much"?

Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking.

And, as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no external provocation, a commotion may arise within—in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness, of which the occasion may be very slight, the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies, and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and may be at times distracted, even when there is no external cause.

Yes, surely.

And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plato/p71r/book08.html



Divus_de_Mortuus

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 02, 2008, 07:53:33 PM
Ugh, everyone in this thread thinks the term "democracy" is exclusively egalitarian to all demographics. This discussion had simply lead us back to...

Quote
Things were just fine when only white male property owners could vote...


If there is a solution at all, it is that. Monarchs and dictators at this point are unrealistic and always lead to instability, and can single handedly destroy a society. Hitler lost WW2.

This system may have faults to, but what do you "nihilists" hope for? Utopianism? Get real. There is no perfect system. Remember what species we belong to.

So far nothing has worked. We need to look back in our history and find the most successful system, and try and fix what went wrong; empowering the worthless and granting them the same societal value as a property owner or contributor, leading to a culture that rewards those that choose the easy, weak path.

A version of Americanism that brings a similar level of freedom and prosperity, but also protects European culture and doesn't reward weakness isn't unrealistic. Well, at least at one point it wasn’t. We will find out sooner or later, won’t we men?



But, beyond all that…

We may have to face an ultimate truth that since our species’ evolution has left us with zero genetic or instinctual data on how to successfully run a large, modern and complex society, and since our society has completely negated further evolution with social programs and medicine, that there is no possible solution and humanity is invariably doomed to destroy itself and this planet, irregardless of any intellectualized attempts. Our instincts may never be conducive to the societies we create. I will provide an example. Christianity has been utterly destroyed by Science and archeology, yet never the less, church parking lots are ever full. Even in Europe, where religion has taken a recent nosedive(replaced by consumerism), one major earthquake or economic panic would send them streaming back to Church in droves. In less tolerant times, when faggotry was punishable by persecution or worse, men whose wiring was crossed on a biological level still engaged in homosexual activity.

More and more, I fear this is the ultimate reality.

Hmm, I think we might have heard this theory before? Oh wait, isn’t that what Death metal has been saying all along?

666

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 03, 2008, 08:53:12 PM
This is pretty unbelievable.

Look: I get it. Democracy is retarded because it puts the majority in control, and the majority is not very intelligent to begin with, plus is controlled by the bystander effect and other pack-psychological phenomena.

But I didn't ask why it's stupid. Everyone knows it is. My question was whether it is the cause of degeneracy NOW, given the fact that:

1) The "majority" is not controlling the country.

2) The system of voting is corrupt.

3) The electoral college is an institution with very little flexibility or relevance in a modern context.

-So far the only point made that was relevant to my inquiry was that not voting is a direct result of the democratic system, and is in fact a reflection of its weakness. This is an interesting point, but I would argue that in the end it creates a passive population, not necessarily a passive government. Could an intelligent population subsist with a relatively passive central governmen? This seems to be how it worked when the U.S. was founded.

-"Things were just fine when only white male property owners could vote..."

Careful. This doesn't mean that having these white males vote caused everything to be "fine", and the adjective "fine" to describe pre-suffrage America is hardly a word I would choose. Things started to break down well before women had any say.

-To the rest of you:
Think about the question instead of worrying about if democracy is "transcendent" enough for your ego.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 03, 2008, 11:58:10 PM
Democracy, by definition, reflects the desires of the populus. Regardless of how well the system is actually functioning to serve such a purpose, democratic leaders will only work within the limitations set forth by the voters to whom they are trying to appeal. That said, we're not going to see any rapid deurbanization or a paradigm shift in our economic principles. Such initiatives simply would not cater to the sentiment of the common folk. Democracy is not majority rule, but the goals of the nation are very much reflected in the initiatives targeted by politicians.

An example of how things work: So global warming is becoming an increasingly moderate topic; find alternative energy sources, build hybrid SUVs, etc. Heck, economic nationalism may even become popular (again) give the right motives and enough talk. However, the widescale changes needed in our society don't appeal to this interests (financial, social, personal) of Joe Anyone, so potential solutions never enter the discussion.

It isn't as if there aren't folks with good intentions running for local government positions. But who would entertain the possibility of voting for someone who appears to have an all too keen grasp of history, ecological systems, etc.? These weren't the comfortable fraternizers that were part of the culture of oversocialization, flashing plastic smiles and sitting on the debate team throughout college. The majority is not controlling the country, but democracy is like high school, where a representative sample that has something at stake will hoist into leadership anyone with the drive to ascend the social ladder.

People aren't denied the right to vote anywhere, anymore. They are either lazy or comfortably uninformed. Who rigs elections? How do variations of "cronyism" develop? There are already folks in place, and networks emerge through government, the media, academia, and just about anywhere else you'll find people willing to sell-out or emerge from the bourgeois woodwork. I doubt there are any evil geniuses within such a network, however, that would give us cause to pooh-pooh a perceived manipulation of the unfortunate peons. This is simply not the case. There are bumbling idiots up and down the societal strata whose bums are yearning for the warmth of oversiZed pizza ovens.

In case you haven't noticed, I've been ranting more or less in sequence with the tenets you've proposed. I don't remember all that much about the electoral college, because such information doesn't seem very important. I don't see how it ultimately holds any relevance in this issue. Would eliminating the electoral college bring about the much-needed reforms we seek?

Really, if someone were genuinely interested in bringing about an exemplary society within the context of a democracy, an organic network would need to emerge in which communication is placed at centre. There is a term, participatory democracy, in which citizens are more or less required to serve in deliberation of political affairs. What happened to town hall meetings? People are too busy, or they simply aren't held. There are too many fucking people, and communication breaks down. The orientation retreats in scope to maintain perspective, and thus the local is no longer the focus. Now, we deal strictly with the large-scale. I'm waiting for the inevitable collapse, in which most people will die because their local supermarket has run out of Marie Callendar's frozen dinners. (This is most of America, with well over half of our citizenry ranked as "pleasantly plump" or some other ridiculous euphemism.) By then, I'll be in Europe, which has a few more decades yet, if it ever encounters calamity on the same scale as the U.S. What's your plan?