2008-12-21 15:39:00
LWK quoting me wrote:
"First of all we have never had a true democracy in the history of the world so the flaws here that are seen cannot be demonstrated."
LWK then continued with:
"That is kind of like saying that, "We have never had true poison in the history of the world, so we can't be sure that diluted poison will kill us." Of course drinking just 10% pure poison may kill you, but since it is not "true 100% pure poison" our theory that it might kill us is suspect? So I guess we have to drink the diluted poison just to be sure?"
JJ:
Wow. I have never seen you give reasoning with so many flaws in it. There was a little democracy even in Communist Russia, but did it kill the empire or even hurt it in any way?
No.
There was much more democracy in our original Republic which allowed for majority will elections on several levels.
Was that a poison to the United States?
Verily no. If anything, democracy has been more like a life-giving force than a poison.
Let's define poison as being true enough if a drink of it can kill you in a short time.
A true democracy is not an impossibility like getting 100% pure gold or a poisonous element. Democracy is not a physical thing, but a principle.
A true democracy is simply a system where each citizen has a right to vote on matters that effect them.
Now anyone could take this word "true" and compare it to the word "pure" and dissect it to the degree that would make the establishment of 100% pure democracy impossible, but I think the average reader who does not see things in an extreme black-and-white fashion can see the principle here.
If the word "true" is a stumbling block we could call it "A system where each citizen has the right to vote on laws and initiatives that effect him and in that system all permanent residents have a right to become citizens."
So I do not have to repeat such a long definition over and over I use the term "true democracy" for simplicity's sake.
LWK:
"It is all about principles. It is through the process of rational thought and logic that one deduces the true principles about a form of government, even if one has not yet seen a sufficiently "true," or "pure" form of that government in actual existence."
JJ:
You are exactly right and this is what I have done in concluding that a true democracy would be a lot better than what we have now. One can compare North Korea with no detectable democracy with the United States with some democracy and conclude that democracy is one of the main items that makes us a more successful country.
LWK:
"If your logic had any validity then we could say with equal force that your claims for the virtues of pure democracy also "cannot be demonstrated" lacking an example."
JJ:
Yes. I do say that. It is quite obvious that something that has never existed and does not now exist cannot be presently demonstrated. Such a thing is an impossibility.
One can examine how elements of democracy have influenced society and then make an educated guess as to the pros and cons of a true (much more accurate word than "pure") democracy. The evidence suggests that it would be a worthy experiment, just as the original Republic was a worthy experiment.
LWK:
"Obviously that is not valid, and neither is your claim that others cannot demonstrate the flaws of democracy without a "true" example having actually existed."
JJ:
We can guess at the flaws of something that does not yet exist, but we cannot demonstrate them in the present. Odd argument you have here.
LWK:
"In the past it has always been the Socialists who claimed that the arguments against Socialism based on principles were flawed because a sufficiently pure form of Socialism had not yet been implemented. It is unclear just how many millions of people have to die in gulags and concentration camps before the Socialists will reach a sufficiently pure system that then will turn into the most benign society the world has ever seen."
JJ:
This argument has nothing to do with anything I have said. I never talked about "pure" anything from a perfectionist point of view that you are taking.
The Soviets had a "true" socialist state though it may not have been "pure" in some eyes. Even though there have been many true socialists states there has never been one true democracy where all have had a right to vote on matters that affect them. Even in Ancient Greece the vote was only available to a few -- but still it worked much better than totalitarian regimes.
LWK:
"If you are going to argue for the benefits of a true, or a pure democracy then I would suggest that you use true principles instead of this sort of 'logic.'"
JJ:
Then you should point out the true principles I have missed. I can see no flaw in my logic, neither have you pointed any out.
LWK:
"It is in my opinion a principled argument against pure democracy that such a democracy can only exist as long as it contains a majority of educated and principled voters. When the majority are relatively uneducated and believe that somehow government can create wealth out of thin air to meet their desires then democracy has a problem. This has now been demonstrated sufficiently in the historical narrative. We don't need further examples to be certain of that conclusion."
JJ:
I basically agree with you on the point that the voters need to be informed and educated in a true (not pure) democracy. BUT even in our society of [talk-show host] "Jay Leno voters" they will still do better than Congress who votes according to the whims of political pressure that often has nothing to do with the will of the people.
Because an informed majority will make democracy much better I have stated that one of the main jobs of a Molecular candidate is to educate his co-legislators. Our representatives' prime job needs to shift from power broker to manager and teacher.
LWK:
"It may indeed be man's destiny to evolve into a form of government with nearly pure democracy. However for that dream to come true there must be great efforts made to educate humanity so that it can in fact practice that form of government."
JJ:
Agreed.
LWK:
"Otherwise democracy may be like giving a loaded gun to a child who does not have sufficient knowledge of the danger involved, or the knowledge of how to use it safely."
JJ:
The problem is we already have a loaded gun at our heads. A democracy through Molecular politics, even with some ignorant included, would be an improvement.
Keep in mind that the uninformed are also uninterested and many do not have the initiative to become co-legislators. I am adamantly against enforced universal suffrage of any kind. People should only be encouraged to vote when they know what they are voting for.
LWK:
"It is precisely for this reason that the Founders of the United States would not approve the Constitution without an explicit Bill of Rights enumerating those things which were supposed to off limits to a vote of the majority. The Founders were men who understood principles."
JJ:
No problem there. A true democracy would only be as good as the people who vote, which, in my opinion would be better than the votes we get out of Congress.
As I have written, I do not see a democracy as the most enlightened government, but the spiritual Molecular Order as I outlined it. The spiritual Molecular Order is more like a Republic which gives the people increased power to make corrections than we have now. This cannot be implemented into our present government without making major changes so a direct democracy is our best bet for present reform, in my opinion.
Copyright © 2008 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved