Barely-Coherent Musings on Animosity, Authority, Ideology, and Democracy

In political debates on social media, it appears that the vast majority sink rapidly into some variant of, "I disagree with your ideas, so therefore you are a terrible person who should suffer harm." Those that don't become that kind of discussion usually started that way in the first place. You can't sink further if you're already at the bottom!

This tendency reveals the weakness of "democracy" as a political system. Progress is not the result of joining bandwagons and going with the flow. Popularity does not necessarily reflect merit. And yet, democracy purports to be virtuous because it is alleged to promote the popular result.

Further, the zero-sum nature of political contests results in a bitter argument between adherents of different ideas regardless their reapective merits. Only one can win out, and the other(s) must lose. The only possible result of this is a bitter factionalism. Co-operation is impossible and compromise satisfies no one.

Worst of all, there is no benefit to reasoned, considered political action. The vote of the individual is so diluted as to be effectively zero. He is outnumbered by people who are content to choose emotionalism as the basis for their political choices. When reason results in an unpopular conclusion, that conclusion is condemned as evil merely because it is dissent, and the one who states it is condemned as anti-social or worse.

Unfortunately, the various efforts outside of mainstream politics are not immune to this effect either. I have been told I can't be a libertarian if I don't lick the boots of the Libertarian Party leadership. I have been told I am not a real anarchist because I do not wish to submit to the whims of Marxists and disagree with the policies promoted by socialists. I have been told that rejecting the usurped authority of government makes me a bad Christian despite the transparent reality that government's commands contradict those of Christ in every way.

In conclusion, then, I ask you to pause a moment when you are prepared to condemn someone because of their espoused ideas. Maybe they are terrible people. Maybe their ideas are terrible, and they are well-intentioned but misinformed. Or maybe, just maybe, they might have a point to be considered. When there is a debate over ideas, challenge the ideas. Don't attack the person. When your ideas are challenged, try to avoid taking it as a personal attack. Amd remember, politics is the worst-possible venue to weigh the merits of any idea, so don't try to dictate how others must live. The Golden Rule is still the best foundation for any philosophy, and if you would not accept the imposition of abuse or authoritarianism by others, do not commit such imposition yourself.

---

I apologize for any typos in this largely stream-of-consciousness text vomited forth though my cell phone. Comments are welcome below.