Friday, August 12, 2005

Ultimate Governance

Seems like the government of the United States is asking the whole world to bow to Democracy. Our politicians used to speak about "freedom," but that has actually been replaced, word-for-word, with democracy. Iraq "needs democracy."


I haven't finished Plato's response in one of his dialogues about "justice," but this is what he has laid out so far (in the words of a friend who is questioning Socrates). Justice is a virtue only in word. If someone is actually just, they're screwed. This got me thinking.

Democracy forces those involved to live at the lowest, common level. For example, if we all agree to share equally the money we make working a particular project, it only takes ONE person to tip the scale, ONE person to use the situation to his advantage. Then comes the "laws." Rules that force us all to live in and only in the least common, most restrictive culture. Soon, all money will be handled by an "objective 3rd party" who takes a fee, of course.

Don't think so? Iraq was a democracy that exactly allowed Sadam to come to power! One guy, lots of power and guns (and other guys, I know). Now they are trying to re-do democracy. Doesn't look like it's working! Or how about the nuke issue in the Western Pacific?

And seriously, do we even have any idea how many fully stupid, restrictive laws we even have?!!? Can't spit on the sidewalk in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Lowest common denominator rules all in democracy. Great. Sign me up. How the HECK did "democracy" and "freedom" get tied together? Democracy & restriction, democracy and containment, democracy and corruption. But not democracy and freedom.

So what's better? Someone in charge. Someone who can offer the people access to a future that evolves wider than the past. I'm not saying growth is necessary, that progress = good. But compression? Ugh.


tug said...

It is important to note that Saddam never won an actual election during his 24 year tenure as president of Iraq - the Baath party took over in a bloodless coup, evidently with some kind of CIA support, and Saddam was installed as predident by his predicessor. Of course we know that there were fake elections held from time to time at his discretion, but that's hardly democracy at work.

David M said...

My point was not to indicate that Saddam was elected. But I can see how it implied that. Sorry. It is more to the effect that the Baath party was elected, if you will, into existence. Further, the "great democracy" was incapable of preventing coup nor dictatorship for the reasons stated above.

Thank you for your forcing my clarification, though. And welcome to the blogsphere. If you need help setting up a Diamond or Streisand filter, let me know!

tug said...

Well, you've got a appreciate Neil Diamond a little bit - I mean c'mon - He's the Jazz Singer. Even I have to yell out "today" when he sings "Coming to America". So I'll give my mom a break there, but Babs is a shame, completely.