Philosophical democracy

inverted_world

No realist is a fan of democracy; we realize that not only do the Bell Curve, r/K strategy differences, the Dunning-Kruger effect and Stockholm Syndrome/PTSD ensure that voting produces bad results, but we also know that people are innately either good or bad, with only a rare few — probably about 20% — doing all of the good while the rest tag along and opportunistically sabotage them when they can.

However, democracy is a fun idea. We set up this system, people interact with it, and we get magical results. Somehow this herd of monkeys grandstanding for self-importance is able to, through the mystical properties of mathematics, produce the right result. Or something like it. Well, as it turns out, the results are as horrible as you might expect, but the idea sure is neat.

Watching the endless battles scroll across the TV screen to the disinterested gazes of a world made apathetic by fatalism, one wonders if democracy is not merely applied at the wrong level. Currently we vote for “issues,” which means positions on rules or actions taken by government. But this is not high-level enough; issues have already translated impetus into action and we can only decide based on that action. This conveniently allows the same issues to come up again and again without resolution.

Instead, as thought experiment, I propose philosophical democracy: that we vote on the positions behind the issues. Let us have a national vote on whether feminism is true or not, or whether the social classes are equal, or even on socialism versus capitalism. Instead of fighting these proxy wars through issues, let us cut to the chase and decide what we believe, and then stick to it.

The results would probably create instant civil war as people realize that they and half of their neighbors do not live on the same planet. They see the same things with different eyes, and as a result, have zero compatibility. How do you resolve a fundamental difference such as egalitarianism versus the idea that some individuals can make themselves more than equal? Or that women and men might be different? These choices divide us because we are fundamentally different and need different nations. Or maybe that is what democracy is hiding….

Tags: ,

3 Responses to “Philosophical democracy”

  1. Dualist says:

    And that’s the one problem, isn’t it? We no longer agree on our fundamental beliefs. Nations only work when everybody agrees on the fundamentals. They then build their specific aims up from there.

    America was perhaps the best nation of all time in the days when everybody was still a Christian ie. till the mid-1800’s or even, arguably, till the 1950’s (many remained nominally so after then, but fewer and fewer retained it interiorly). Pretty much every person in the land shared the same fundamental ideas that we ourselves would now like to conserve. It was, therefore, sane. Conversely, a pluralistic nation is like a Schizophrenic.

    Once we have decided on our fundamental beliefs ie. what constitute Goodness, then the rest is easy. From that point on, each policy or course of action is very simply decided by asking one basic question: does this option produce the most overall Goodness for us, out of all the possible alternative plans.

    This is the point at which being grounded in reality comes in: only people who are realistic – can determine causes and predict effects – are capable of actually answering this last question correctly! So any sane society makes sure such people are the only ones who are in charge of answering it.

    But we need only look at Liberals to see the importance of those beliefs being also, in some sense, Good: liberals DO all share beliefs – but, sadly, their main belief is that ‘everybody having shared values is a BAD thing’ ie. they support multiculturalism and pluralism.

    The problem we now have is that the genie is out of the bottle. There is no way to really impose good fundamental beliefs on a population, at least not rapidly. In Europe, our only hope is if Traditionalists first get in power, by any means, end democracy, and then make sure the best are in charge. We can then hope to foster good fundamental beliefs and a realistic outlook in the younger generation, with this process growing stronger over time with successive generations and becoming self-perpetuating (as long is history is not allowed to be forgotten, this time…)

    In America, I think things maybe look a little more promising: you have only 5-times the population of the UK but you are a CONTINENT, practically. You have the option of ending federal government completely and simply having 50 independent nations. You could have, say, a Christian East coast belt, a secular-libertarian Montana, an anarchist Texas and reserve California for the faggots (or maybe Utah – get ’em used to the heat).

    This would never happen unless Traditionalists first get in power federally, however.

  2. Jpw says:

    No agreed upon proposition means no Proposition Nation. It becomes like the dyslexic mafia. They make you an offer you can’t understand.

  3. […] fission. Occult government. The chaos option. Escalate to ideas. A tale from the Hood. Comment policy. The dissident right mapped (not hugely persuasively). New […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>