Democracy, where does it really start?
Democracy, a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.
It is very clear that a true form of democracy hasn't existed in any government.
The people in power, even in "democratic" nations, most of the time exploit their position for the benefits of the elite.
In a true democracy the government should serve (all) the people, so we have a system where the people are the master and the government the servant (not derogatory).
In all our attempts to create a true democracy we automatically start from criticizing (fairly so) the government (servant) but we completely disregard our own responsibility as The People (master).
Each one of us complains and protests for the unfair system and corruption of each government but have we really asked whether we have done our part, individually, our work on our selves, have we properly studied the world, our mind, the history, our biology, psychology? Have we worked on maintaining a healthy body and mind? Have we properly raised our children for the world that we want?
Is it really a surprise that the government will be sick if the voters are unhealthy?
We can easily start protesting that we can't do the things mentioned above because we live in a corrupted society, that we are trapped, but if one is honest one realizes that that is just an excuse.
We ask for a good behaving servant but are we worthy of being The Master?
If the servant has wreaked havoc for millenniums, is it not the Master's responsibility?
So a government can not be ruled by its people if The People doesn't exist.
In the end, my position is that there will never be a true from of democracy as long as The People (master) is missing and so failing to put the servant (government) in its proper place, and that starts from the hard work of every individual on their (all-directions) development.
P.s: I'm not saying that we should not remain critical to the government but what good will it do if an unhealthy person keeps complaining and protesting in front of the pizza place for selling them the pizza.
P.s.s: This is not as much a political argument as a change of perspective, direction when it comes to trying to see the solution to a problem.
It is very clear that a true form of democracy hasn't existed in any government.
The people in power, even in "democratic" nations, most of the time exploit their position for the benefits of the elite.
In a true democracy the government should serve (all) the people, so we have a system where the people are the master and the government the servant (not derogatory).
In all our attempts to create a true democracy we automatically start from criticizing (fairly so) the government (servant) but we completely disregard our own responsibility as The People (master).
Each one of us complains and protests for the unfair system and corruption of each government but have we really asked whether we have done our part, individually, our work on our selves, have we properly studied the world, our mind, the history, our biology, psychology? Have we worked on maintaining a healthy body and mind? Have we properly raised our children for the world that we want?
Is it really a surprise that the government will be sick if the voters are unhealthy?
We can easily start protesting that we can't do the things mentioned above because we live in a corrupted society, that we are trapped, but if one is honest one realizes that that is just an excuse.
We ask for a good behaving servant but are we worthy of being The Master?
If the servant has wreaked havoc for millenniums, is it not the Master's responsibility?
So a government can not be ruled by its people if The People doesn't exist.
In the end, my position is that there will never be a true from of democracy as long as The People (master) is missing and so failing to put the servant (government) in its proper place, and that starts from the hard work of every individual on their (all-directions) development.
P.s: I'm not saying that we should not remain critical to the government but what good will it do if an unhealthy person keeps complaining and protesting in front of the pizza place for selling them the pizza.
P.s.s: This is not as much a political argument as a change of perspective, direction when it comes to trying to see the solution to a problem.
Comments (111)
That depends on how far back in history you look. If you stick to civilizations with a written record of governance and law, then the statement is true. If you went back through human organizations that left only oral tradition, their forms of government are not at all clear.
Democracy at work (a 'true' democracy) would seem to result in some form of tyranny for some regardless of what we do.
The ideal is more likely to be systems that are used for certain circumstances. For large-scale projects a more tyrannical/authoritarian approach makes sense and the 'democratic' ideal would kick in right after said project is complete ... rather than the 'Master/s' holding on to power after the need has subsided.
I have a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Conference explaining the teachers' role in making good citizens, patriotic citizens, and the Democracy Series of grade school text books written when we began mobilizing for the second world war. Before education for technology the priority purpose of education was defending democracy in the classroom, so the students could make us a strong democracy, as Thomas Jefferson said education must do, and as you explained our need to be educated and responsible.
I think you're essentially saying things I've heard fairly often over the past 40 years or so. There's truth in this. Why aren't here any great leaders today? Because there aren't great voters. Gore Vidal used to run as similar argument about it being voters rather than politicians letting the country down. He had a great line - Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half
The problem is more complicated. There is no 'The People' as such there are just people - cacophonous, diverse, polarized people. Clearly they are not united in what they want from a society and seem willing to go into battle to defend their views. How does one build agreement from such a messed up, confused, uneducated, disengaged, superstitious cohort? I'm not saying it can't be done, but it does seem to be a key obstacle.
Alternately, it's not people who matter wrt power. It's money.
Democracy happens when aristocracy declines and money comes into the hands of the common people. Money makes democracy and money ultimately undermines it. When the whole thing becomes too corrupt, the power goes back to dictatorship, and along with it, the money.
The aristocracy should definitely be slaughtered, though, no matter who's in charge.
Agree.
I will say, though, that one discrete positive step forward we could take is Ranked Choice Voting. Too often, you're voting for the lesser of two evils, or maybe there's a great 3rd party candidate but the media doesn't cover him and you know you'd be "throwing away" your vote. So you don't vote for the actual better candidate who you'd truly prefer, but the most pragmatic choice. RCV helps avoid that "spoiler effect" and could actually lead to more variety and higher quality of candidates.
Flawed electoral process is very much part of the problem.
Any of the proportional representation systems would be better than first-past-the-post, but this is meaningless in a two-party system. How to make room for more points of view, more factions, more vested interests.... You can't. as long as all the power is held by the elite that's been holding it for decades, if not centuries.
The only way democracy prevails is if there is no class of governing people. The rule of the people presupposes that the people can govern their own lives. So long as there exists a class of masters democracy is impossible.
Similar arguments are made about consumption. Hey, you choose to smoke and eat fast food, thats your right not hurting anyone else. Just giving people what they want, what they asked for. Sounds great very principled.
But all of that is nonsense, of course. And if you want a reason for why society is how it is, look no further than the belief that everything depends on the individual person a belief your entire post presupposes.
Conservatives are usually excellent organizers. I assume it's because they're usually older, and their cause is associated with religion and traditional values.
It's more likely because, at any age, they are believers in Law and Order - that is, top-down governance, chain of command, bosshood (they prefer to call it leadership): a pyramid structure of power. Which, of course, tends toward some form of monarchy. Liberals are loosely organized, constantly shifting power relations, leadership and policy: it seeks consensus (mostly in vain). Which, of course, tends toward anarchy. A functional democracy, whether it's a trade union, bridge club or nation-state, has a structure based on some shared principles set out in a constitution; its leadership is chosen from among the members, rather than a ruling class and its policies are designed to respond to the needs of the polity.
Any system can work, so long as the governed believe in it and support it.
It doesn't. The people make the most progress when there's violence in the air.
Quoting Vera Mont
True, although rule of law and monarchy are directly opposed concepts.
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree except liberalism isn't really about consensus. At it's heart, it's about morality. For the liberal, if the choice is between living morally and dying, they choose death. The conservative puts life first. Or at least that's one way to look at it.
Dont worry your little heads about it. Go back to naval-gazing. Because thats worked wonders the last 40 years. :up:
Whereas random whining has elevated the downtrodden. :up:
:lol:
Not at all! The very oldest written legal code was decreed by Hammurabi, king of Babylon. Monarchs don't generally make arbitrary decisions over civic organization - when they try, they're usually deposed or assassinated. They operate within a system of accepted principles and values, just as theocrats, democrats and bureaucrats do.
The phrase "rule of law" as is generally used in modern western political parlance is assumed to refer to a legal system enacted by a congress or parliament, because that's the system we're used to. But laws are enforces in every kind of political system. Authoritarian systems usually have more laws than liberal ones and a lot more of them pertain to the citizen's [moral] private life.
Quoting frank
It's about the principle of personal autonomy and civic co-operation. In practice, it seeks consensus, in preference to imposing one person's or faction's decisions on everyone else. Which conservatives very much do.
Quoting frank
Then how come conservative governments the world over build up bigger armies, spend more money on weapons, start more wars and execute more felons?
I'm glad to see you accepting that labor unions were once powerful in the US. You denied that the last time we talked. Doing some history reading? :up:
Because, you know, history.
I agree that rule of law evolved from earlier forms of government, but the phrase specifically means a society in which no one is above the law.
Quoting Vera Mont
I'm not sure which kind of liberalism you're referring to. I was using the word in the American sense. American liberals do fervently want to impose their view on others. That's in line with the importance they place on morality. If slavery is wrong, it's wrong for everyone.
His organizational backbone was religious. I explained this earlier.
And conservatives dont?
Quoting frank
Morality isnt as important to conservatives?
Social conservatives do. Again, it goes back to the importance they place on morality.
Quoting praxis
In the grand scheme of things, a conservative view is more about practicality. Individual conservatives vary.
"Jesus Guns Babies" are each rather impractical, truth be told.
It's worth noting that because democracy is based on majority vote, it does not neccesarily attend nor reflect the needs or marginalised groups, minorities.
Minorities therefore in voting likelynwoukd not get their say acknowledged unless their concerns are considered by all who are voting. An exercise on informing, due publication, thorough journalism.
Jane McAlevey
Or we can go with posturing on the internet.
Is it?
As usual, you have no clue what youre talking about. ::shrug::
It's a fascinating topic to me, how leftism succeeded post war, and how we ended up here. I'm just not going to discuss it with a rabid dog.
Well, when you put it that way, sure, those things are very practical for those that know how to use them effectively, but not for those that don't.
No, they want to liberate everyone from the oppression of others. The hallmark of American progressive politics is the striking down of conservative laws and limitation set on the power of the ruling class.
Quoting frank
More like "In a nation based on holding "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Therefore, everyone should be free.
(Also, the suffragette movement, and the abolitionist movement and the temperance movement and, as previously noted, the union movement were all pretty well organized. Revolutions, too, at the beginning, but they get out of hand.)
No, laws were always laws, whether formulated by a king or a chief or a prelate or a council of elders. And the law is never applied equally to rulers and ruled; in fact there are often sections that are entirely different, both in the letter of the law and in its execution, for sub-groups of people. Sometimes there are specific exemptions; sometimes it's a systemic variance of enforcement.
There is no actual "rule of law"; that's just a picturesque phrase; rule is done by rulers, laws are enforced by the armed agents of the rulers. Once a constitution is written, there is a known framework for how laws are made and applied - which framework in not adhered-to by all administrations - which officially limit the powers of the ruling class and even the monarch - but unofficially, the elite are nearly always better able to escape its consequences. Except, once every couple of generations, the ruled get fed up and punish them all.
Thats perfectly fine. Im not interested in discussing anything with you, given your history. In case you need it explicitly stated which you do.
Democracy requires supporting institutions to function, such as 'the rule of law'. It's true that those with wealth and power enjoy a privileged position but there are still limits under the rule of law.
Every form of government requires supporting institutions: the civil service, the judiciary, the enforcement agencies, the taxation branch, trade and commerce, municipal and road maintenance, shipping and marine traffic.... 'the rule of law' is neither and institution nor an agency: it is an idea. A nebulous one, open to interpretation.
Quoting praxis
There are limits under every kind of legal system. In most, obligations of each tier of the ruling classes are also laid out. Human societies all, without exception, operate under a rule of law...
... except when they're collapsing or breaking down; then there is brief period of chaos and lawlessness, until a new order is established and formulates its own legal code.
It's pretty specific. It means that no one is above the law. It's a feature of democratic arrangements that lack aristocracy or monarchy.
Where is it written and how and by whom is it enforced?
Quoting frank
It's a feature of human organizations.
I'm kind of surprised you haven't googled it.
Quoting Vera Mont
Nope.
No. Kinship groups, for instance, dont even require a military.
In any case, the topic is specifically about democracies. Democracy requires a lot of support in order to effectively function as a democracy.
Quoting Vera Mont
No. In a totalitarian society, the leaders can legally do pretty much anything.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."
I think he was right about that as far as his moronic base goes, but not for the majority of the country.
All cultures live by social agreements. I am glad I am not living in a conservative Muslim society where a woman can be killed because her head was not properly covered. I am glad I live in a country where someone who acts like Hitler can be put on trial and hopefully prevent what happened when Hitler was in a power in a more authoritarian country, perverting the teaching of Nietzsche and embracing the mentality of thugs who make killing people who are seen as defective, acceptable.
However, the steps taken in the US following 911 might give a person reason to be concerned. Who ever thought in the US people would be denied public transportation if they did not have the required Identification? Or that thugs could come so close to taking over the Capitol Building with a belief that this could become an overthrow of our established government.
They're not exactly governments, either. And they all become a military when need arises. But they still have rules of behaviour, understood by all members.
Quoting praxis
In large groups, yes. But then, so does monarchy, oligarchy and theocracy. A military dictatorship does, too, but the military structure already contains mechanism to carry out those functions. In small numbers, those functions don't require an agency; they can be carried out by individuals. But that doesn't depend on a form of government: a kinship group can be autocratic or democratic or situational.
Quoting praxis
And yet, he's still at large. Rule of law doesn't work any more consistently than deposing totalitarian leaders when they overstep the acceptable limits.
His organizational backbone was democracy coming out of the enlightenment and the belief that science and preparing everyone to be good citizens would improve our lives, which it has.
True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice. The US stands for liberty and justice. That is a higher morality but there is a problem with not preparing the young for good moral judgment because without education for that there can not be liberty as that leads to authoritarianism and looks more like what happened to Germany's republic when Hitler took control by appealing to people's anger and frustration.
Your point is lost on me. Nixon, for example, was impeached for abuse of power, obstruction of justice, etc. If a US president is above the law then how could Nixon have been impeached?
Are you suggesting that a democracy doesnt require the rule of law?
No. I'm stating that all forms of government, in order to be effective, do need the rule of law. Some codes are not to our our taste, but they are nevertheless legal codes that are the rule in nations. Some codes contain unfair, https://www.thoughtco.com/property-rights-of-women-3529578discriminatory https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/may.htmand unenforceable laws. (https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/decriminalization-sodomy-united-states/2014-11They're still laws - until the code is changed.
I am further asserting that laws are never fairly and equally applied. The innocent are convicted by mistake, prejudice or callous indifference; law enforcement is lax or overzealous, corrupt or violent; jurisprudence is politically tainted or financially motivated; legislation is partisan or self-serving.
Rule of law may approach efficacy every now and then, but is never perfect.
Nixon was impeached in the legislature, but suffered no legal consequences - didn't go to prison, wasn't even indicted - unlike his minions. The DOJ seems to be dragging this Trump business out - maybe hoping he'll die of natural causes before they have to act - even though the worst of his crimes are glaringly obvious, committed on camera, with millions of witnesses.
No, it really wasn't. He wasn't included as a beneficiary of the American vision of the free society. His kind weren't allowed to vote. His foundation was the community of the African
American church.
:clap: and if you look back into the history of the most democratic nations today, their 'upper class,' used to refer to the majority of people who lived there, as 'peasants' or 'serfs,' or even just 'scum.'
Quoting universeness
I really think that is a matter of power, who has it and who does not. With power comes respect and the more important education is to getting things done, the more power and respect educated people have. I think our democracy and universal education has greatly increased individual power but we seem to be developing an attitude that destroys human dignity, appreciation, and respect. I am afraid our republic has been on the same path the German republic took. Our materialistic focus has damaged our values and our past goal of human dignity a priority. There was a time when we valued people for their character.
In the present, it may be people of color who save our democracy because they have to fight for a more perfect manifestation of that democracy and sadly they have to fight against some of our most patriotic citizens who are still prejudiced and in denial of the wrongs done.
We have been in transition ever since we left the wilds.
Humans are far more curious than cats. We want to know where every path leads., so, after a few thousand years of trying to, we have not got there yet but we will.
I have a very simplistic overview of human beings. I see two main types.
1. Those who care as much/more about that which exists outside of themselves as they do about themselves or they can be convinced to.
2. Those who only care about their own lives and those they love.
When we do unite and organise and push for change, it works very well and progress is made.
It's true that this is often short lived, corrupted and even reversed at times but overall, we are progressing. I am in the Pinker camp with:
Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In 75 jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.
I don't think he is suggesting we can all rest comfortably in the knowledge that the human race IS slowly breaking through into a better way of life for all humans and for all objects in the universe that come into our sphere of influence. But I really dont think our species is totally toxic, do you?
I really think we need to talk about all the positives and not always focus on 'the gory headlines.'
Yes. We were talking about his organization, not his goals.
In something as big as a nation, even the small one I am a Citizen of, there will be very different habitats depending on the fortunes of different people. And is there any chance that an immigrant in a no-go area stuggling to make ends meet taking multiple jobs, a striving family father in a lower middle class area, an a middle-aged woman, born in a habitat rich on cultural and social capital having chosen an occupation of interest and following progressive values to do something good with her life, could three persons like that be unified as a people?
Whether the last two can both see themselves as members of the same group depends on the circumstances. There has to be a basis for unity like religion, ethnicity, or nationalism. Sometimes exterior threats unify people across economic lines.
The immigrants are a different story. They can be like invisible members of the community. For instance, there is slavery in the US, but few know about it. It's immigrants who have fallen prey to exploiters. Even if law enforcement tries to help them, they lie about the conditions they're in because they've been threatened. They have little hope except to know that their children will be American citizens.
One of the reasons they come to the US is that their own countries are in turmoil. In many cases this stems from previous American action designed to cripple them.
So ultimately, there needs to be a global authority who can put a stop to behavior of the kind the US has demonstrated. That would help immigrants everywhere.
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
I know what it's supposed to mean and is sometimes naively believed to mean in countries that are supposed to be and are sometimes naively believed to be democratic.
I contend that those beliefs are incorrect, which renders the phrase nothing more than a slogan.
Oh good grief.
Democracy starts with the government and the very act of voting only occurs when it's fairly organised by the government. The people will never rule over the government, and at best, we can task the government with serving our interests. In applying accountability to the government, upholding the law fairly and ensuring free and fair elections.
It's US propaganda to blame the voters, but when you look outside, to failed democracies around the world, the truth becomes clear. It's never the voters or the people who lack, their conviction and honesty and ability to see what needs to be done is never the problem.
Those parts of the government that were supposed to hold officials accountable are the people's spear and their rights and protections are their shield. When their spear and shield are faulty, that's a truly dire situation, and the democracy is already gone.
At best, the responsibility of the people is to try to their best ability, to maintain those weapons. To protest when they see it's not working. If we're going to talk about the US specifically, the problem is that there's a huge concern with the shield - rights and liberties and much less about ensuring government accountability. The US democracy is pretty fucking awful when it comes to doing that, despite the propaganda to the contrary.
There are democracies around the world that care about both and they're doing quite well, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.
Not possible because if some people want something, it has to come from someone else. Someone is always the loser in a democracy, and democratic elections are often decided by around 30% of the population.
Quoting universeness
What is the name of that book or where do I find that information? I have heard the New Age is a time of high tech, peace, and the end of tyranny. The people of the New Age will not be able to relate to our past because their experience of life will not give them the information they need to relate to a more primitive time. That is like us trying to relate to the first humans venturing out of Africa. I believe we are headed in that the New Age direction and have been on that path since the Enlightenment.
I am listing to a professor's explanation of the Enlightenment. :rofl: I pay attention to all explanations of the Enlightenment because it was such a pivotal time in history. Do you realize the philosophy of that time, the conviction of reason making life better, triggered the Awakening. The Awakening is the birth of Evangelical Christianity. It is theologians defense of religious doctrine and I mention this because I think that is one of the barriers to fully manifesting the New Age that needs to be corrected BUT!
We can not get rid of religious notions that prevent progress without raising awareness of what reason has to do with a high morality and democracy.
Amazon
You might also watch:
Every silver lining has its cloud!
Quoting Athena
If reason, rationality, exemplification and even demonstration, fails, after many attempts, and we are (I hope) barred, from forcing an individual to support all efforts to create a progressive, humanist, secular, global, society which is benevolent to all species and all universal objects that come into the sphere of influence of the human race. Then I think the best we can offer the dissenters(and the criminal or nefarious), is regular or perhaps even permanent (matrix style) existence in a VR/AR world where they can experience the 'rapture,' of their choice, until they die.
I am sorry but I do not have the information necessary to understand what you said. I do not know what matrix style is or VR/AR worlds. Do those letters stand for virtual reality and artificial reality? If those letters mean either, I do not have any thoughts of such needed for meaningful meaning. Those words are only words to me without meaning as some possible world realities.
That's ok, it's easily explained. The matrix is a series of sci-fi movies, starring Keanu Reeves. You could easily get a synopsis of the plot from a wee google search, if you have never watched them.
Yes! VR/AR is virtual reality/augmented reality. VR is a total simulation. AR uses the real world as the background and augments your experience by adding virtual characters and events.
If you have never experienced a good quality VR headset experience, I would highly recommend it.
It really can completely fool your senses, your brain can have real difficulty not reacting to what you are experiencing, as if it was really happening. VR/AR is still in it's infancy but it's possibilities are very powerful indeed. Perhaps in the future, we may achieve holodeck tech such as:
It would be wonderful if we could use this technology instead of drugs. How about replaying history and changing it and watching what happens when history is changed. I love the original Nintendo games and being able to redo the past section of the game and get better results.
Also I remember a movie where a grieving person was able to sit and talk with someone who past. That would be so wonderful. Maybe we could resolve many personal problems with such technology? Psychotherapy linguistics makes a person aware of how s/he remembers the past and then rethinking it because linguistics is about how we talk to ourselves and tell our life stories in a new way. We can change our story and change our lives. With better technology the process could be even more effective.
I bookmarked the other video and love that it spoke of Daniel Kahneman. His perspective can also be life-changing. His perspective gives new meaning to Socrates' "know thy self". This is an important part of understanding secular morality and the sense of responsibility that self-governing people must have.
VR/AR/Future Holotech might mean we can each experience the world as we would personally make it, quite soon. Maybe that will be better than the good feelings and fantasies experienced under substance abuse. Perhaps it will even be cathartic for many, perhaps it will also confirm, that the REAL world is the only one that can offer each person REAL experiences that the best and most convincing holotech never will.
Humans WILL travel every possible path. Such is our nature.
We live in very exciting times, perhaps it has been ever thus for every human generation. Such is the nature of relativity.
I know historically when we harnessed electricity and could lite our streets, people thought we were in the Age of Enlightenment.
Humanity has not always progressed as it has since the Age of Reason, that moment in time when our loyalty shifted from the authority to explain everything and dictate what and how things would be done, to relying on our own reasoning and giving the power to the people to decide what will be and how it will be. Before this moment in time, we were in the Dark Ages and yes they were really dark because the Church had destroyed liberty in a fight for its power. Scholasticism began making things right by reviving the thousands of years of progress that ancient civilizations had made before the Church took control.
However, from the time of the change in authority from a few with power and authority to everyone having a say in governing decisions, we did not have the vast knowledge we have now, nor the material means to make life totally different. We are in a moment in time that will change the human experience as much as our experience of life was changed when we climbed down from the trees.
We are in the Resurrection. Geologists, anthropologists, and related sciences are resurrecting our past and it is our duty to learn everything we can from them and to rethink everything we believe to be true. We have gone from Socrates' mandate to know ourselves as individuals, to knowing ourselves as a species. And so, as it is in heaven it will be one earth. But God didn't build Noah's ark and He is not going to clean up the earth and make it new. We are 100% responsible for what will be. Only by getting our act together can we have free will and heaven on earth.
Democracy is rule by reason. It begins with asking, how do the gods resolve their differences and concluding they argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. Only when we get our understanding of what is, and what we want right, can we get good results.
Democracy is not efficient. Autocracy is efficient. We are still working on getting our act together and we are still dealing with the mentality that supported kings as authority over the people. We are as autocratic as we are democratic and we seem to understand autocracy and the good reasoning for it, a whole lot better than we understand democracy.
What we achieve, depends on how we educated our children and why we educate them. Public education is like a genii in a bottle. The stated purpose is the wish and the students are the genii.
:clap: We can no longer afford to scapegoat nonexistent gods.
Quoting Athena
:clap: I don't need the fake hope of fictitious god's to help me in my life, I just need good people like yourself to exist.
Well yes, it is the history of democracy as it originated in Athens. The folks of Athens asked, how do the gods resolve their differences? As you know, their gods had plenty of differences, and yet they are immortal so they can not resolve their differences by killing each other. Their conflicts went on until reason ended the conflict.
One of the most important gods isApollo, the god of reason. I don't know if any other mythology has a god of reason. Apollo was born when Athens was in turmoil which pressured people to rethink everything and come up with some solutions. You probably know Socrates was opposed to some of the stories of the gods and he asked...
Is Zeus a good god? Everyone was sure he was. Then Socrates asks, is it good to commit adultry, and everyone knew of the trouble in Zeus's and Hera's marriage, and they had to answer, no, it is not good to commit adultery. See the dilemma? Can evil gods do good? Athenians did not believe evil people could do good. If good happened because of the actions of an evil person, that was just a fluke.
Socrates is known for speaking against democracy and yet he also died for it.
I think those who say Socrates spoke against democracy are missing the most important point of what he said. He said ignorance is a terrible thing and that makes a democracy of ignorant people a terrible thing. The gods did not have good morals and Socrates pleaded that Athenians to take up the problem of ignorance and stop feeding citizens stories of the gods that leads to bad behavior. Here is where Apollo is extremely important and there can not be a democracy without Apollo, the god of reason.
Socrates was opposed to spending time on such things as questioning what is the substance of life and is the universal element an atom. Socrates was concerned with our consciousness and moral judgment. Yet today we can easily see how the understanding of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, also shapes our understanding of gods.
Athenians stand out as unique because they broke away from supernatural explanations of everything, and began looking for the physical cause of all things. This put humans on a totally different path from the rest of Asia. It is a secular path and it led to democracy. The Bible is no better for democracy than Homer's stories of the gods.
You do know my effort in the forum would be completely useless without someone who understands what I am saying as you are understanding the thoughts. I could not think the thoughts your agreements bring to mind, if you were attacking me instead of understanding what I am saying.
Here is the miracle of democracy- it is what happens when our minds meet in agreement. The way of Apollo must begin with a willingness and ability to understand each other. When this happens there is enlightenment and those involved can see even more than they did in the beginning of the communication.
Christianity can be deadly to the necessary process as a belief that we know God's truths, blinds us from knowing truth. As soon as we think we know God, we know not God, but only our mental representation of God.
Bottom line, my thinking is only as good as yours.
Bottom line for me when it comes to you Athena is that YOU DO GOOD!
You are reasoning and tracing a path from historical theism, to a democratic humanist imperative.
I am fine with the path you are tracing and the characters you invoke, because, you regularly confirm, that you are not suggesting the gods of the ancients were real. You describe them, as exactly what they were used for, imitation/virtual manifestation/simulation/emulation of observed aspects of humanity and human behaviour and human intrigue.
The only difference between us, in the path you trace, is that I think, that the 'benevolent' consequences of the use of god characterisations, is, in the final analysis, outweighed by the 'pernicious' consequences.
But any small divergence we have in the details of our interpretations of the effects and consequences of historical and current theism, pales into insignificance, when I know that what you DO to help other people, makes me so, so grateful that folks like you exist and have always existed in every generation. May it always be so!
I am very sensitive to the importance of culture. Joseph Campbell said mythology is essential to humans and when they do not have a shared mythology they make their own myths and use the people they know as the monsters and antagonists. That is pretty heavy and I think destructive. It is much better if we have a shared mythology instead of blaming the people in our lives for our problems. He also said mythology is about teaching the young how to be adult members of the group.
The US intentionally had its own mythology transmitted through education. When we began education for technology we destroyed our national heroes and the culture that united us and made our liberty possible. I think that is a big mistake.
If you understand me correctly, I am not opposed mythology being constructed and then manifested as a culture. I am glad you see the Greek gods as human inventions and based on human traits. Athena was radically changed at the end of the Persian wars when her temple was rebuilt to tell the world about democracy. I think we should do all our power to restore her temple with all the statues returned and put in their places. This is far more important to me than rebuilding the Jewish temple.
Each god and goddess is a concept. We can also know them as archetypes and learn a lot about ourselves by learning of these archetypes. Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D." books "Gods in Everyman" and
"Goddesses in Every Woman" are amazing because with her explanations of the gods and goddesses as archetypes we can learn more about ourselves and also the gods and goddess that led to our democracy.
I do not stand alone in valuing the gods and goddesses. Our forefathers had a mural created in the Capitol Building portraying Greek and Roman Gods and Athena is seen there as the Spirit of America and the goddess who defends liberty and justice. As the Spirit of America, she brandishes the sword of Justice and is the defender of those who stand for liberty and Justice. Athena is portrayed as our Statue of Liberty holding a torch and a book, symbolizing the Enlightenment. She also stood in courts as the Lady of Justice and she holds scales for the balance of justice.
Truths are so elusive and perspective has such an important part in our ability to see them. We can totally miss the obvious without the right perspective to see them. Understanding the gods and goddesses as concepts make them very useful. They are also behind our laws.
I ask you to consider reading the books and seeing if they change your perspective.
We all have to go to Hades from time to time to get a sense of meaning. People who do not go to Hades are totally frivolous and I think that is a waste of our lives. But, we should never go to Hades without the help of the gods and goddesses because it is so easy to get lost in Hades. That is to experience depression or even more serious forms of mental dis ease such as psychosis.
Thank you for being open-minded. There is so much to be done if we are going to save democracy. I really do not like what education for technology has done to our attitude and spirit. So much has been lost from our consciousness. This is the mechanical society we defended our democracy against. I hope you see how your values can be served with a different way of seeing the truth. Being totally opposed to the gods and goddesses is very Christian and very atheistic and lacking in a philosophical perspective.
I understand, but I think we can achieve the same goal through the use of truth, and I think the results will be better than the results of using mythology. We can continue to story tell but we don't need to rely so heavily on numinous or supernatural suggestions. We can simply extrapolate and stretch real science.
Star trek proposes a lot of future tech which is not impossible. The flip style mobile phone was so like the communicator posited in Star Trek. Fantasy characters like Ironman are not impossible. An omnigod is impossible. Getting two of every species onto an 'ark,' is impossible.
Quoting Athena
Give me an example of a 'destroyed national hero,' and 'a destroyed cultural aspect that united us and made our liberty possible,' that would exemplify your point here.
Quoting Athena
That's a step way too far for me Athena. How would that be different to calling for a new temple containing statues to a modern manifestation of the fabled Hercules or biblical Samson in the guise of The Hulk? I also have no attraction towards rebuilding Solomon's temple. If I had the power and democratic permission of the majority of stakeholders, I would convert the dome of the rock mosque, Westminster abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, The Vatican, Buckingham palace and every other church, chapel, kingdom hall, Hindu/Buddhist temple, into 'people property.' Units that can be used by the hungry, the homeless etc. The theists, theosophists, royalists can still run them as they do now, but they would not own them, and the main function of such places, would have to demonstrably be, the physical support of those in desperate need. If a homeless person is on the streets, then the local theists/theosophists, would have to explain why they are not helping that person.
Quoting Athena
So, such fabled characters are presently, still represented in American culture, fine. So, let's make the path you are tracing here, from the ancient gods and goddesses to theism, as it manifests today. A reason to insist that such historicity, gives all theist groups/organisations and all of the associated current wealth and access/ownership of property, a legislated responsibility, to directly aid the worlds needy and suffering humans, much much more, than they do at the moment. Their main purpose must be to help alleviate all human suffering and need.
They must use the majority of their wealth and assets to achieve this, or else, the wealth and assets of a particular organisation, such as the Roman Catholic Vatican City can be seized and turned into funds to help the worlds poor and needy humans.
Quoting Athena
I am sorry I cant offer to do that, as I have such a long list of books I want to not just read, but fully understand, and I don't have the lifespan, to add your recommendations to my currently way overburdened list.
Quoting Athena
I agree with you here, but I don't think we ever have to 'go to hades,' as I think it regularly comes to visit us, whether we are ready to face it or not.
Quoting Athena
I think our detailed approach will continue to differ and I suspect you would fight against many of the details of my suggestions about what legislated responsibility, I would lay at the door of all current theistic/theosophist/royalist organisations, along with the serious actions, I would take against them, if they did not comply with the responsibilities I would impose on them.
I suspect neither of us will be allowed to fully reboot the world and have human society function in the way you or I would make it function. BUT, I also think that we would be able to find a great deal of common cause between us and we both scream from the same humanist platform. I am probably more firmly in the 'totally secular/irreligious camp,' compared to yourself.
I would only favour mythology which was not 'scientifically impossible.'
I have to make clear that I never had any interest in politics and my approach on this matter is not political but still people mostly responded to this post in a political perspective because the word 'democracy' is used and that triggers politics in our conditioning.
As far as book suggestions for you, I don't think I have ever read books on this specific matter but the approach of personal responsibility (change starts from within) comes from many sources, like Nietzsche (poor man still misunderstood), Socrates, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Dostoevski, Zen masters, and many others.
A recent discovery for me is Iain McGilchrist. His work is abundant but very much worthy.
What are the years of your high school education and what is a 2nd world small town? The date of your education is important because of the changed purpose of education. Before or after 1960?
Do you know what put you on the path of your book choices? I am looking for understanding what put you on your chosen path that can it be used to interest others in that path? I am asking the same question of myself because we have agreements and what in our characters led to us having a similar point of view when we are kind of going against the flow? I certainly despair at our focus on politics rather than having a more Greek concept of the polis and human nature.
I love books about the brain and made a note to myself that I must have a book written by Lain McGilchis. I googled him and found this exciting explanation....
Quoting McGilchrist
Yes, that seems an important observation and I believe it is directly related to the change in the purpose of education. I think the change was a big mistake. It clearly is rapidly advancing technology but what of our humanness and our polis?
So that created a rebellion in me towards the direction of the current culture, so naturally I found affinity with controversial writers down the ages. Always felt like people lived 180° so I looked for those who were outsiders. One of the first things I read and inspired me was Nietzsche's Camel-Lion-Child story.
A strong influence was also Krishnamurti although it took me some time to really understand him for I was very young.
I strongly suggest McGilchrist because he is really trying to direct our attention to a more holistic approach to reality and he does this through hard science data to begin with and how to understand its implication epistemologically and ontologically.
I sense a strong need to be a little too literal. Did we really believe George Washington cut down a cherry tree and when his father asked about the tree did he literally say "I can not tell a lie. I cut down the cherry tree." or is that a story told to make a point about the importance of being honest? George Washington being one of our national heroes; part of our American mythology, the same as some characters in ancient stories were used to make a point. I speak of a time when history was not technologically correct accounts of history, but a blending of history and good storytelling. I want to appeal to your right brain, not just your left brain.
Quoting universeness
Oh wow, you are fun to converse with and so thought-stimulating! George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and Abe Lincoln walking a mile to give someone a penny, are examples of the American mythology that was transmitted through public education. Stories of Ben Franklin and Danial Boon and others were part of that mythology. Because this mythology was transmitted by grade schools it united us. We stopped transmitting that mythology and we are now very divided.
Quoting universeness
h boy, that is a challenging question! :cheer: :grin: One difference is Athena's temple still stands and was restored but the statues that should be in it are in Briton.
It really matters that the restoration of Athena's temple can not be complete without the statues because that makes the history written with stones, like a book with pages torn out. That building was constructed to teach the world of democracy and every piece of it had meaning. To understand the meaning that is contained in this temple built to teach the world of democracy, it needs to be as it was.
I don't think that is equal to the stories of Hercules.
I want all the places to be protected for the whole of humanity. I think what the Taliban did when they destroyed statues of Buddhas was terrible. But I love everything old and I would love to restore old houses and preserve a memory of their time in history. These relics unite us with the whole of humanity and I don't mind if they are owned by responsible people as long as our shared ownership is respected. When no one has ownership and responsibility, things get destroyed as the Brits and others looted the ancient world.
I think as a matter of principle we need to respect property rights. This is another subject and if you want to debate it let us start a thread for that. That could be a fascinating discussion of virtues. I would not welcome anyone in my home who does not respect private property. I can say that without a doubt, because people have taken advantage of me and stole from me. We must absolutely, return to teaching virtues.
Yipes I am late to a very important date- sorry I got to run.
Said the white rabbit, staring at its big watch! :rofl:
Quoting Athena
Do we really believe that an apple fell and hit the head of Newton and then he repurposed the word gravitas into a crucial shift of meaning of the word gravity. George might have cut down that cherry tree and the story might be true, it's at least credible but Noah's ark remains impossible. This is an important difference imo.
Quoting Athena
Your appeal permeates me(Rcomplex), myself(limbic system) and I (Cerebral cortex). Left and right can work in harmony and unison when they find common cause.
Quoting Athena
I think all those plausible stories of folklore are alive and kicking in the American Psyche but some do have to diminish to make room for depictions such as 'to kill a mocking bird,' 'The grapes of wrath,' 'Inherit the wind (the scopes trial), 'Watergate,' 'The Kennedy assassination,' and my own musings which sees Donald Trump looking in a mirror and the reflection is Vladimir Putin which morphs into Xi Jinping which morphs into Kim Jong-un which morphs into Elon Musk etc, etc. Yeah, I know I need a chill pill! :flower:
Quoting Athena
I hear that more effort is being made to return the Elgin marbles from the UK so, you never know what else may be returned from whence it came, soon enough.
From Wiki:
Athena or Athene, often given the epithet Pallas, is an ancient Greek goddess associated with wisdom, warfare, and handicraft, who was later syncretized with the Roman goddess Minerva. Athena was regarded as the patron and protectress of various cities across Greece, particularly the city of Athens, from which she most likely received her name. The Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens is dedicated to her. Her major symbols include owls, olive trees, snakes, and the Gorgoneion. In art, she is generally depicted wearing a helmet and holding a spear.
Perhaps we could put a statue of Athena beside one of Jane Goodall, Carl Sagan et al and perhaps have a statue of some homeless folks and some other needy folks sitting under such statues in all sorts of well thought out relevant poses. We need new messages! But I agree we should not abandon some useful ancient ones.
Quoting Athena
How about 'What property do you need? and how private do you need your property to be?' as a thread title? I leave it to you to relate such effectively to one of the philosophy categories listed on TPF.
I would like to hear about them BAMS! who stole from you and how that affected you.
Tyranny starts in a system of total democracy. The change to the former is called fascism.
It's a spectrum with the two concepts serving as opposite poles. Opposing forces. Self interest vs. Collective interest.
The variables inbetween are the quality of information spread amongst a society - the ratio of propaganda, fear, and intimidation to honest education, discourse and formal/systematic voting.
Truth verses deceit. Democracy says everyone is equal and that normative distributions know best. Autocracy says I'm the most powerful and everyone most bow to my whims as I know best.
They're also mutual existents, as they both require the other in which to oppose, be contrasted to and manifest in a dynamic.
So, sounds like you have to pick your side, plant your flag and fight for your cause. Agree? or do you see a less binary more nuanced range of choices?
What is a "true form of democracy"?
The word "democracy" comes from ancient Greek "??????????" (pronounced "democratia"), which comes from the noun "demos" (= people) and the verb "cratein" (= govern).
Literally speaking, such a thing is totally impossible, of course. So as a first remark, we can say that democracy is relative. And this in fact is what we see if we examine the governmental systems or schemes of various countries, but also the ruling system of any organized group. The main question to ask is "how much power people have in such a system and in what form?" Based on this, we can state that the more power people have and the more strong this is, the more democratic this system is. And the other way around.
In ancient Greece, the citizens who were eligible to vote were gathering very often in the central market, to decide through their votes about important matters of the state.
In our Western civilization, the closest we can get to that are local or national referendums. (I'm not considering elections, which occur every 4 or 5 years! These consist the most rudimentary form of democracy and have very little to do with actual people's power. Hence the large percentages of abstention in a lot of countries.) We also have local (autonomous) government administrations, but these are more representations of the state government than people's voice.
Now, the Athenian democracy is one about which I think we have more information and details than any other part of the Western worlds and even the whole world. And in fact, it is considered as the origin of democracy itself. However, in its essence, democracy must exist since the early organized communities formed by Man. But I don't see any value in studying such primitive forms of democracy ...
My flag is planted firmly in the middle of the democracy-tyranny spectrum. As I believe not everyone is equal in intention (moral) nor knowledge (education).ideally they ought to be but practically they are led astray by personal preference.
On paper it's pretty clear cut. Binary. That generally democracy trumps tyranny. It is almost always the healthier choice.
However, in a more nuanced sense, I don't think tyrannical leaders/dictators are automatically malign/evil.
I do think it takes a certain set of attributes to be a "Good Dictator" that are generally not common and not usually associated with dictatorship.
For example, exceptional wisdom, insight, reasoning, tolerance and patient contemplation plus an innate core desire to provide for and care for all subjects. To uphold the highest degree of of ethical imperative possible.
If a dictator is open to criticism, listening and taking on board their subjects qualms/ concerns, can accurately identify their own shortcomings and implement corrective action, they're much less likely to be malicious and cause systemic harm.
Easier said than done. As a singular person with inherent bias, prejudice etc. Any of which is their downfall.
However a "Good Dictator" differs little from those who are voted/appointed into power through likeability and promise - mirroring the democratic process with an established and uncensored journalistic review, open public critique and acceptance of resignation if they f*ck up big time.
This is why benign dictators and democratically elected presidents/leaders are virtually the same for all intents and purposes. And this the lines between tyranny and democracy become blurred.
No one is perfect, so a perfect dictator is impossible and never immune to criticism, except for the universe itself - which is an entity that dictates the laws and contraints of physics, chemistry and biology, as well as evolution that determine outright what we are capable/permitted to achieve.
Hence the reasoning behind many that God is the ultimate benign dictator. Enforcing determined law in our becoming, but our becoming being ever more open to free will (as conscious agents). Non interference but fundamentally restrictive in setup. A duality.
I hope that clarifies my position on the subject. I think balance is always in-between opposites. Progress comes from being equal part tolerable/conformative and revolutionary/innovative. Look this is how things are (pragmaticism) but here is what could be (idealism).
Good place to get both arms ripped off. One arm to each side! :gasp:
I will try my best to stop the other side from forcing you over to them but holding on to your arm from my side too strongly might mean I am left with your disembodied arm only. Should I just let go and watch you be grabbed by the other side?
Haha I like the imagery conjured by your writings. But I don't think you have much to fear. The middle is usually the most ignored by both sides.
They're too preoccupied with disarming the opposite pole out of pure abject contempt/denial. Those that directly and forcefully oppose them.
In essence, bigger fish to fry than the middle ground.
Neutrality is not as threatening as the contrasting side as it embodies a partiality of agreement whilst the opposite is the greatest threat. My arms shall remain un-pulled.
Afterall, balance is stable. It doesn't get swayed or pulled upon or it would not be balance.
Quoting Benj96
Only complete fools ignore the middle ground. They can often tip the balance. If you don't feel the pull from either side, then I predict you soon will, if you remain positioned as you are. No mans land is a dangerous place to wander or try to exist in.
Those who try to survive in the middle ground between two such historically implacable enemies, are either very brave or very foolish.
The middle can be claimed by either side all they want. But that doesn't detract from the fact that it is inherently the middle. Of course, both sides want to claim it because it would mean majority. But the middle, by It's very nature, does not identify wholly with one polarity/bias over the other.
Just as nature does not side with predator nor prey. But rather exemplifies the dynamic itself as a neccesity to the health of all cohorts.
Those who ignore the lessons of history (past times) may well be doomed to repeat them! But as you suggest 'You reap what you sow.'
So not by those who occupied the middle ground then.
Josephus worked for the Romans!
The middle does not assert themselves. Assertion is done by those who are convinced they're correct, the oppositions, the contestent.
The middle ground is the unspoken chess board. The competitors are back or white pawns in the game.
:wink: Life is like a game of chess eh?
Rules are made to be broken.
Why do you think there is no god piece in chess?
Human reps fight human reps in chess, no god influences.
Why do you think the creators of chess were not compelled to include supernatural reps?
Even the human bishop reps have no supernatural style moves they can make, they just move diagonally as their human equivalents rarely move 'straight.' :lol:
HeyI surely someone created a chess set of 'Olympus' Vs 'Asgard!' But it would be boring unless the 'Thor' piece could throw his hammer at an Olympian! How about a Christian V Muslim chess set? Inappropriate?
The pieces have predetermined characteristics - where they are allowed to move. What they are permitted to do in the hierarchy of the chess society. A feudal system. The laws.of "Chess physics".
That feudal system is based on power or ability to move. The Queen being most potent.
The ultimate power would be a chess piece that can move to any square whenever they desire (omnipresence).
And exert their effect (disqualification/removal of any chess piece) whenever they desire or "omnipotence".
And can anticipate all possible moves (omniscience).
But such power renders the game useless. As unrestricted access to power moves is hardly a power play at all. Restriction provides the scope for tactic - clever game play.
If there are no rules of gameplay (physics), there's no point in contest for the title of Victor.
Would that not make god, Gaia, Earth, a planet based transcendent?
That would be too small a god for most theists.
Quoting Benj96
True but we could ask ChatGPT to come up with rules for our god chess. What happens when omnigods clash. To quote a line from the film 'Highlander,' 'There can be only one!' Perhaps we can feed the rules of democracy into ChatGPT to help it come up with rules for deciding the outcome of a clash between Zeus and Odin! OR Yaweh and Allah!
If omnigods clash they're equally matched. Therefore not omni-anything. "omni" pertains to "all". If it is not an all encompassing entity, a singular thing, then it does not possess "omni" qualities.
Is this a mnemonic?
Between, yes. Not in the middle. In no conflict are both sides equal in any particular, including honesty in recording.
Democracy itself is more about how rulers are picked than about what they do, though, and so they sort of become representatives empowered by a majority (at least in theory), which is also due to practical matters (some sort of temporary hierarchy if you will). They tend to promise different than what they (can) keep a marketing type thing.
Any one person is outnumbered by two with a different sentiment/attitude. Individuals in a society could be ruled by organized thugs or a (transparent) democratic majority. Personally, I'll run with the least bad. Don't like democracy? Then just leave the ruling to me. ;)
However democracy is or might be implemented, the details, is another matter, and could be discussed/voted until kingdom come, is my guess.
It's basically about how many people there are. Representation becomes a necessity even if the group of people is rather small.
In my life one example of democratic decision making is for example the private road going to my summer place. The people sharing that road decide on what to do with the road and in order not to create a large hassle about it, every house has one vote (if something would be voted on) independent on just where on the road they live. Of course, one household or land patch has one vote, so there's the representation. And even if there are roughly 20 landowners on the road, some never participate. And only a few do the actual work and keep up the maintenance of the road (as there still are farmers with appropriate equipment to maintain the road).
And in this microcosm you could find (possibly, if the people wouldn't work together) nearly every defect or problem of democracy: the limits of representation (not all adults vote), free rider problem (not all participate in the decision making) and that "power" usually tends to be with some active people as others aren't so interested. Hence these problems are inherent for democracy.
Yet that democracy is so popular and can create stable countries is shown by the handful of cases of the total opposite: Absolute monarchies which are stable and have people happy living in them are basically tiny, extremely wealthy mini-states (Monaco, Brunei etc.). If a citizen has a problem, but can easily approach the monarch, then that representation problem can still be solved with an absolute monarch... assuming the monarch understands to listen to the needs of his subjects. Hence if our private road would be owned by one entity, I think the 20 land owners wouldn't have a problem, if the road would be maintained with minimal cost and the land owners would be listened to. Easy with 20 land owners. Yet they (we) understand how expensive (and thus stupid) it would be to buy the service from some company of maintaining the road would be as the company obviously does it for a profit.
But once there are hundreds of thousands of people or millions that "direct democracy" or "direct connection to the monarch" simply cannot exist. Hence larger absolute monarchies (Saudi-Arabia) or poorer ones can face difficulties, corruption, and usually have to form a police state. The absolute monarch cannot decide everything, thus the underlings have to decide things on behalf of him.
Quoting jorndoe
Yes. And the extremely radical approaches can be left to philosophical theorizing, because usually they have to assume something from the society which simply isn't there.
Quoting universeness
I see you edited, :up:
So in any monotheistic god posit, there is no middle ground, no start point, no end point, nothing linear.
God is not a creature who could be democratic as 'there can be only one.' In your dualist viewpoint, can democracy exist? Wherever you perceive the disembodied part of your individual consciousness exists. Do you perceive that they can communicate with each other or can each only communicate with its own related brain? When you think about the credence you give to the dualist aspects of each of us, do you perceive such as having an ability to inter-relate or are they completely restricted to the physical brain each is connected to and it cannot be affected by any external force or phenomena?
In dualism, how is the democratic imperative communicated?
I am merely interested in how you perceive the methodology involved in how this disembodied aspect of human consciousness functions, as related to such concepts as democracy.
Democracy does not elect 'rulers!' It elects, as you more accurately suggest, 'representatives.'
A measure of 'true democracy,' is how easy it is to remove individuals from authority, when they have demonstrated nefarious acts or actions that contradict the 'contract' or 'manifesto' they established between themselves and those who elected them.
This is totally impossible. Sometimes one cannot even satisfy all the members of a family or even of a small group. For the very simple reason that people's needs differ in a lot of ways.
That is why, in a group the members of which disagree on a certain issue, a voting is carried out. And the majority wins, i.e. get what they want. Sometimes, it's not enough to have a majority, e.g. when there are more that two options, but the votes must cover a certain minimum percentage (50%, 2/3, etc.) This is what they call "absolute majority" (although the term is somehow self-contradictory.)
There is no and cannot exist such a thing as a "true democracy". True is an absolute, and democracy is relative. Groups and nations can be said to be more democratic than others.
Quoting TheMadMan
When and by whom was this is ever been attempted?