Democracy - How much have you thought about it?
Like most people in the United States and likely other so-called "Democratic" countries I have been taught about the wonders that are democracy. It is billed as the magic bullet to solve issues of inequality, usher in prosperity, and give a voice to those who have been silenced.
I didn't really question this for the majority of my life. It seemed to make a lot of sense. It seemed "fair" and that adjective "fair" is used to sell it.
It was only as I grew older that I began to consider that perhaps it is okay to ask questions about things I have been told. Perhaps it is a good thing to ask critical questions, as it leads me to better understanding.
There are actually different ways that democracy can be viewed.
Democratic Vote is usually a situation where all the people impacted by a decision vote and the decision supported by the most people wins.
Source: San Diego Free Press
There is another form which is the Democratic Republic. You have a democratic process to elect Representatives who then go on to vote on behalf of the people they represent.
Source: www.humanmedia.org
So how is that different from a Republic? A Republic is the representative part making votes in representation of others. How those representatives are chosen can vary. When we hear Democracy today it is not the MOST VOTES wins situation it is MOST VOTES wins the choice of representative. Or at least that is how it is SUPPOSED to work.
Source: slideplayer.com
Is this a good thing?
That depends. If the population had equal access education, with unrestricted unbiased access to ALL information, and a great grasp of logic and critical thinking then it would be probably better that anything we've seen in history so far.
That does not describe the population at the moment. At this time we have a population that believes in FREE SPEECH as long as you say what they want to hear. They don't stop to think "Why bother to make free speech a bill of right?" If someone is saying what most people want to hear then what are the odds he is going to be silenced? So why does he need protection? The answer is... he doesn't.
Source: Of Mule Dung and Ash
Consider this:
- A lie is still a lie no matter how many people believe it.
- The truth is the truth even if no one believes it.
If the masses believe a lie and they propagate it and continue repeating it what chance does anyone have of eventually getting people to see past the lie if anyone that challenges the popular opinion is silenced? NONE.
Source: CommentsYard.com
If the masses believe the world is flat, and a lone person says it is a sphere (or ellipsoid) then does that LONE person being silenced actually change the shape of the world? NO.
I have been speaking about this for awhile and I am not sure everyone still grasps what Democracy truly means. I therefore am now going to switch to a hypothetical imaginary scenario to illustrate Democracy in hopefully a way some of you may not have considered.
Source: github.com
[BEGIN SCENARIO]
One day in the not so distant future a very intelligent, beautiful, and charismatic woman enters the political scene. She comes from a popular background and is well known. She is a wonderful speaker. She perceives a problem. She perceives that sporting events are being used just like the arena and gladiatorial events in the age of Rome. To appease the masses with spectacles of violence, skill, and in some cases blood. She sees the politicians of the land doing what they want as long as they keep the populace enthralled by spectacle. She begins spinning how the events are actually a Russian and Chinese joint venture to keep the population of the United States unaware of their slow dismantling of the nation, acquisition of assets, and placement of those that would follow the lead of the Russo/Chinese cooperative. This comes after decades of referring to the ills of those countries. This comes after past generations of McCarthyism, Anti-communist scare (continuing after Russia is no longer communist), and China stealing all of our jobs scares. It finds very fertile soil in the minds of the people.
Source: MySecuritySign.com
Then the news starts blasting about how bad these sporting events are, and how they are controlling us. At first people are angry, as the MAJORITY of the population likes these sporting events. Yet the news is relentless and keeps saying these things OVER and OVER again. Eventually the population begins to wonder if there is something to it. A very charismatic figure head keeps saying it is true. Perhaps it is.
Then Congress passes bills restricting the amount of time that such programs are allowed to be aired on media. You may watch a sporting event for 2 hours per week and no more. Some people are outraged, but are quickly put down as being ignorant and not caring about the future. If they happen to be white they might be also attacked for being mad about not being able to watch sports that seem predominantly dominated by non-white contestants. "You're mad because you can't watch the slaves fight any longer?" and this is eaten up. We all know as soon as you pull the racial motivation card it suddenly becomes MORE TRUE. (sarcasm if you didn't get it)
Source: pinterest
Source: NFL.com
Source: NBL
Source: Puck Prose
Source: findingDulcinea.com
Source: Cassava Films
Source: keepcalm-o-matic.com
Eventually as time passes it becomes illegal to watch, or participate in sporting events. This is in the interest of national security, equality, and unfairness.
[END SCENARIO]
I chose sports for my scenario because I know it is massively popular. Yet I wanted to illustrate how popularity can be swayed by well placed propaganda, and the appropriately positioned figureheads.
I would argue that the majority of things that are attacked, banned, censored, and restricted can be distilled down to being activities very close to what I have presented in my imaginary made up scenario.
Democracy is a VERY scary thing in such an environment. The person with the loudest voice, or who controls what you hear can through effort sway the masses. They can alter opinion through continued application of propaganda.
History shows that this works. It was used extensively by Nazi Germany, and we have taken it so far beyond their beginner level understanding of its application that they seemed like amateurs.
Think about this when you watch ANY news source (whether called Fake or Not Fake) and you might start to see some patterns you didn't notice before.
I want to leave you with a quote from a very interesting man Lysander Spooner. He happens to be a very rarely mentioned person in the United States past that I admire a great deal.
Source: NotBeingGoverned.com
"Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally - perhaps more than equally, because more boldly - rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power." - Lysander Spooner
Steem On!
outstanding! resteemed.
Thank you.
Democracy was born in ancient Greece. And democracy is dead in ancient Greece. The famous Greek philosopher Plato called democracy power of the Sophists. The Sophists were very good speakers. They brought verbal manipulation of people to perfection. Modern democracy is largely similar to the ancient Greek. Democracy, communism, socialism are not able to exist in perfect condition. They are contradictory and incomplete. Under any of these systems can hide subtle tyrants.
Democracy is only one . There is no such a thing in our world today with some exceptions. Socialism and communism are systems for controlling the money . Democracy has a close relation with the human nature as a natural entity and not as a monetization instrument. We are in crisis because we don't live in Democracy . The "system" uses the word to deceive people...
The problem with democracy is that it makes people believe what the majority chooses is the best choice and often this is not the case. Democracy can keep a person from sharing great ideas for thinking the ideas will only be accepted by a minority and therefore never implemented, democracy also drives people to waste their time trying to figure out whether they are in the majority/minority, some even go as far as creating these divisions for what they see as their profit.
the majority of people on the planet are actually, technically, mentally retarded. the statistics prove this. this is why we have a shining, magnificent future staring us in the face, and we are still trying to get the world's population to recognize the importance of individual liberty, toilets, and not killing people who won't submit to some or other religion.
They are easier to control, and distract with shiny things if they are kept this way. I believe this is intentional. If we start to pay too much attention they can simply pull out the race, religion, sexual preference, gender, or make fun of a body part card to make us forget things.
It is like putting a shiny thing in a hole to catch an animal.
agreed. it is amazing to me that the people keeping it this way should desire a world full of morons. the intelligent ones are the ones interesting to me. imagine what the world would be like if half the population were functional geniuses.
We likely would have already expanded to the moon, Mars, and Asteroids already at the very least. That is just in terms of space. How many great ideas are killed intentionally?
just look at the online patent record, if you want to get a beginning of an idea about how many of our great ideas are left to collect dust. they are killed intentionally by simply not being used, funded, or paid attention to.
the patent record is a good place to look because patents are not issued to things that cannot be demonstrated to work. i have found list after list of inventions that are all completely explained. if they are more than 17 to 20 years old they are usually listed as "abandoned", which i suppose means you can do with them what you like.
I agree, and these are very good observations.
The ultimate analogy for democracy is gang rape.
The majority(males in this case) did what they wanted to do...and the minority(females) had no choice in the matter.
Freedom of speech is the freedom of me to tell you what you don't want to hear.
It does not include me insulting you.
So many people have problems with this concept.
insult is only exempted from freedom of speech only if it can be demonstrated to cause physical and/or financial injury. i can call anyone anything i like so long as i do not cause them physical or financial harm by doing it.
we already have laws against incitement, defamation, assault, and murder.
we don't need thought crime, or feelings crime. these are why it has been popularized that intent is important. this is not so. outcome is the metric, not intent. at least this is so under common law, based on reason, and not sophistry designed to limit liberty of natural rights.
hate speech is already being manipulated to create tyranny against certain opinions, but that is all it is, a manipulation, not reason.