The Need of the Left: Democratic reform?

[PAB]

Democracy as it is today and throughout the mid 20th century has been tailored towards the idea that the human being is irrational, driven by Freudian unconscious desires. The results of this is consumer democracy, in which people see government/politics as they see a commercial product, based on an orientation of the individual, there own unique personal happiness etc.

The problem is if this is all that government should be-giving people what they desire- then business (consumerist capitalism) does this alot better.
And if democracy is to be about the masses ruling themselves this requires a dispense with unreasoned desires.

There is a common perspective of individualism that correlates with the issues of consumerism (economically and politically). This is the most common ideology today, the lack of (or lack of importance,of ) 'global perspective' the human individual amongst a planet of human individuals. Firstly this is obviously essential to democracy, in order to function as a democratic people must recognise the democratic initiative of the 'people'.

The consumerist democracy removes the people from control, but allows their desires to function to control. This is easily catered to just as in marketing you show the people what they desire with a product (e.g lynx and sex/women) the same applies to present 'liberal' democracy e.g tax cuts -welfare cuts = more money for the individual[happiness].

The problem is that talking rationally on politics, ideas and reforms has led to lower votes compared to appealing to what people irrationally want (e,g Clinton in having to backtrack on policies after using the new democratic methods of appealing to rash desires to win votes, then realising how big the deficit was and trying to justify having to do what the opinion polls considered undesirable by pushing democratic (left wing) ideals...resulted in drop in popularity and lost control of congress)

Is rational democracy possible?
.....Or does the old Freudian notion of humans as irrational driven by the unconscious still hold relevant?

 

[Yfelsung]

Rational democracy is possible if you limit the voting base to people who understand politics.

If voting becomes a privilege, gained through extensive testing, instead of a right then your voter base will be much more rational and intelligent and able to make better choices.

If we continue to allow people to vote who can't even spell democracy... well, you live in the same world I do, see how it's turning out?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Rational democracy is possible if you limit the voting base to people who understand politics.

If voting becomes a privilege, gained through extensive testing, instead of a right then your voter base will be much more rational and intelligent and able to make better choices.

If we continue to allow people to vote who can't even spell democracy... well, you live in the same world I do, see how it's turning out?

Yeah, but who gets to decide what constitutes "understanding politics"? Some people "understand" things that are actually outright lies that benefit certain political groups, and if THEY get to decide what it means to "understand politics" their lies will become the standard for political participation.

 

[Yfelsung]

That is a very valid point Joe, and one I do not have a perfect answer for.

I do not know how we would form these tests, but I still think the idea has merit and is worth lengthy discussion and study.

 

[PAB]

i don't really like the idea of having voting as a privilege rather than a right, it automatically creates a social and political elite.
It could also be used easily to stop political democracy and enforce soft totalitarianism, by removing politics for a method of policing or re-establishing the current order.

...i was going to suggest that if we were to propose a privilege voting class that it should be based on the ability to exercise reason. But there are those on the far left who claim that Marxism is inherently rational based on Hegelian philosophy and critique capitalism that it is an irrational system, and those on the right that claim communism is self evidently irrational hence the 20th century. In this situation who ever claimed reason as there own enabling a privileged elite to vote to universal reason would be in fact ensuring that nothing changed , and would be a system of control.
the only way out of this would be political science ....but then it all depends on what people want and believe in e.g...living a happy self centred life in comfort until you die...or ....ensuring the development and freedom and survival of the human species

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That is a very valid point Joe, and one I do not have a perfect answer for.

I do not know how we would form these tests, but I still think the idea has merit and is worth lengthy discussion and study.

I don't think the idea has any merit at all, and is not worth much more in the way of discussion... you want to know why? :lol:

The reason that it is a practical dead end is that in the same was I can rewrite your posts to express a completely opposite point of view to yours, the people in charge can ALWAYS rewrite the tests in order to make sure that opposing viewpoints disqualify you from the political process. If you want to try to have a lengthy discussion, I can rewrite your posts until I get bored. In reality, there's too much power at stake to stop people from rewriting political "reality" forever, or until there's a violent revolution.

 

[Yfelsung]

Well, as an example of how the test could be written; instead of having those in power write it, why don't we get a large quantity of people who actually have doctorates in political science to help write it? They, better than anyone, would understand the meat behind every political theory, they would know how to, for example, discern the difference between the true merits of a conservative or liberal ideology while cutting out the crazy.

Democracy works fantastically when your voter base is educated, informed and involved.

Democracy begins to break down where your voter base is uneducated, gets their information 2nd or 3rd hand and let the politicians do the involved part.

Democracy breaks down completely when people trust the politicians to do what is right for them and that's unfortunately where we are in many countries right now.

People vote with their gut and not with their brain. The vote on the basis of party lines, or religious lines, or class lines. This combined with the media and the politicians blurring the important lines with hyperbole, rhetoric and, sometimes, outright bigotry and hatred, leads us to the worst example of this, the current American political system.

The unfortunate reality is that our species is kind of dumb, as a whole, and can't be trusted to make the right decisions for itself.

We can do better than democracy, I'm sure of it.

 

[noen]

Rational democracy is possible if you limit the voting base to people who understand politics.

If voting becomes a privilege, gained through extensive testing, instead of a right then your voter base will be much more rational and intelligent and able to make better choices.

If we continue to allow people to vote who can't even spell democracy... well, you live in the same world I do, see how it's turning out?

That is not a democracy. That's a dictatorship.

Also, your argument is invalid. You have not shown that making voting a privilege will make voters more rational. Nor have you shown that rationality should be privileged above other values.

 

[PAB]

The unfortunate reality is that our species is kind of dumb, as a whole, and can't be trusted to make the right decisions for itself.

check out a guy called Edward Berneys, nephew of Freud...he thought pretty much the same-thing...helped multiple corporations and politicians in using psychoanalytic ideas from Freud in manipulating and controlling people. E.g removing the taboo of women smoking in order to boost the cigarette companies market.

but more importantly if you truly believe that the species is 'dumb' then democracy isn't an option . you have to have an elite , those who know best. This is what consumer democracy is and Berneys had a massive hand in forming it. You keep the masses satisfied and subdued by appealing to there 'unconscious' desires and then go about doing what you think is best and create a package which sounds good. (Reagan )

 

[Yfelsung]

The problem with that is that we're deluding the populace by giving them stuff they don't need, which is wasting resources.

What we need to do is educate the population, by force if necessary. We must not allow mediocrity or "average" to be acceptable. I do not want a society ruled by a select elite anymore than most people, I want a society that strives to turn every single member of that society into the best possible human they can be. We will, and probably would already if not for sanctions, have the ability to eliminate many genetic diseases before birth. We will be able to cure birth defects before they happen, weed out hemophilia, colour blindness and a whole host of other genetic issues. We will be able to shape the genes of future generations and guide evolution where we want it to go.

What better way to disprove the existence of God than to become him?

 

[noen]

The problem with that is that we're deluding the populace by giving them stuff they don't need, which is wasting resources.

What we need to do is educate the population, by force if necessary. We must not allow mediocrity or "average" to be acceptable. I do not want a society ruled by a select elite anymore than most people, I want a society that strives to turn every single member of that society into the best possible human they can be. We will, and probably would already if not for sanctions, have the ability to eliminate many genetic diseases before birth. We will be able to cure birth defects before they happen, weed out hemophilia, colour blindness and a whole host of other genetic issues. We will be able to shape the genes of future generations and guide evolution where we want it to go.

What better way to disprove the existence of God than to become him?

"What we need to do is educate the population, by force if necessary. "

Spoken like a true fascist.

"We must not allow mediocrity or "average" to be acceptable."

Well, I guess we will have to start with you won't we? "Comrade, Dear leader Yfelsung has eliminated the department of statistics and averages. I expect to see an immediate 50% increase in production! All hail the glorious leader!

"I want a society that strives to turn every single member of that society into the best possible human they can be."

Atheism Ãœber Alles!! Seig heil!

"We will be able to shape the genes of future generations and guide evolution where we want it to go."

I AM NOT A NAZI!!

 

[Anachronous Rex]

The problem with that is that we're deluding the populace by giving them stuff they don't need, which is wasting resources.

What we need to do is educate the population, by force if necessary. We must not allow mediocrity or "average" to be acceptable. I do not want a society ruled by a select elite anymore than most people, I want a society that strives to turn every single member of that society into the best possible human they can be. We will, and probably would already if not for sanctions, have the ability to eliminate many genetic diseases before birth. We will be able to cure birth defects before they happen, weed out hemophilia, colour blindness and a whole host of other genetic issues. We will be able to shape the genes of future generations and guide evolution where we want it to go.

What better way to disprove the existence of God than to become him?

"What we need to do is educate the population, by force if necessary. "

Spoken like a true fascist.

"We must not allow mediocrity or "average" to be acceptable."

Well, I guess we will have to start with you won't we? "Comrade, Dear leader Yfelsung has eliminated the department of statistics and averages. I expect to see an immediate 50% increase in production! All hail the glorious leader!

"I want a society that strives to turn every single member of that society into the best possible human they can be."

Atheism Ãœber Alles!! Seig heil!

"We will be able to shape the genes of future generations and guide evolution where we want it to go."

I AM NOT A NAZI!!

It's as if he's taking you seriously or something Yfel.

 

[Yfelsung]

It's as if he's taking you seriously or something Yfel.

What he's doing is taking ideas that are sound and then twisting them to fit previous ideas that were deeply flawed.

Genetic engineering is not the same as Eugenics. No race is superior to another, people are superior when compared to their peers by the value of several different genetic advantages. These advantages could exist in any race, anywhere, but to pretend that "all men are created equal" is to do great injustice to the reality of genetics.

To pretend that I am genetically equal to some guy with so many genetic defects that his left eye is in his right eye socket is ludicrous. Better yet, we don't need to kill anyone, we can manipulate the genes before birth. No euthanasia, no genocide, no sterilization.

It appears that Noen wants the freedom to remain uneducated and ignorant. This is unacceptable.

Freedom must be tempered with responsibility.

A fascist seeks to hold power over lesser people, or to have a ruling elite.

I seek to turn this entire species into the ruling elite. I seek to drag the average so high that the dumbest human on earth is capable of advanced science and mathematics.

You think anyone with a horrible genetic disorder wouldn't be on board for having that disorder repaired in future generations?

You think there's a single person out there with mental disabilities who wishes they didn't have them?

There's no reason to cull the herd with an axe when we can fix the herd with a surgeon's blade.

I am far more compassionate than someone who would allow these people to be born as they are when we could have fixed it.

 

[DEXMachina]

Rational democracy is possible if you limit the voting base to people who understand politics.

If voting becomes a privilege, gained through extensive testing, instead of a right then your voter base will be much more rational and intelligent and able to make better choices.

If we continue to allow people to vote who can't even spell democracy... well, you live in the same world I do, see how it's turning out?

Technically speaking, this system is already in place, it is called the minimun voting age. I do agree with what you mean though, that intelligent, informed voters makes for better democracy. However, beyond the simple age barrier, I can't think of a good means to define voting privilege.

The problem with that is that we're deluding the populace by giving them stuff they don't need, which is wasting resources.

What we need to do is educate the population, by force if necessary. We must not allow mediocrity or "average" to be acceptable. I do not want a society ruled by a select elite anymore than most people, I want a society that strives to turn every single member of that society into the best possible human they can be.

What better way to disprove the existence of God than to become him?

I definitely approve of good education, in the purest factual sense, which would probably create more free-thinking rationalists like ourselves . However, we do need to be careful with how education is administered. Even schools are political weapons, possibly the most powerful. I personally believe that at the younger years, any human being is little more than a newly manufactured voting bot, just waiting to be programmed. The status quo is as powerful as it is partly because it has great control over what gets taught to the youngest of us (I remember several US states attempting to remove evolution from their school syllbus). After a certain viewpoint has been deeply indoctrinatined into a child, it remains there permamantly, though some individuals have been able to reverse their political/moral/ethical position. (In my case, I used to think I was smarter than everyone else, since I kept doing my multiplication tables better than the rest of the class; Sometimes, I still can't shake off my sense of superiority)

I like to think of schools as political artillery; the shots being fired now won't effect polling booths for years onward.

 

[TheJilvin]

I cannot tell if Yfelsung is actually serious or not. I hope not.

Yfelsung is a moralizing fascist who is dangerously authoritarian. HIs prospects of genetic engineering are absolutely absurd and guided by his insane preferences for an "archetypal" perfect human. Forcing people to learn topics they aren't interested in is the equivalent of fascism (and he claims distance from fascists just because he doesn't kill them. No Yfelsung is an angel who will only force you to spend a large amount of your waking hours learning topics you have no aesthetic interest in).

He uses the dead buzzword of "freedom", equating "freedom" with "democracy" without qualifying the validity of democracy (mob absolutism).

"Hey, you guys are free to do whatever you want except for being stupid! If you are stupid I, the Great Compassionate Yfelsung will FORCE you to be well versed in quantum cryptology, multivariable calculus, quantum field theory, and economic analysis! Don't worry, this is all for your FREEDOM (i.e. 51% of eligible voters (usually around 17% of the population) voting on a measure that causes 100% of the populace to pay for it by force). Aren't I soooooo nice!?"



This actually is nicer (believe it or not) than his previous suggestion of letting an exam-passing elite vote for measures that would be applied to all people. What an authoritarian cunt!

 

[kenandkids]

What an authoritarian cunt!

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel... lol.

The only form of testing that I could see working is if people could describe the basic job functions of the office in question. Far too many people vote on an irrational statement written by an opponents ad team. Claims like "He is going to take away your babies" or "this candidate will cause every person to undergo a taxation program to keep his Kenyan brother rolling in Snickers bars" get people to vote, yet the voter in question rarely knows what the candidates job capacity is. I've heard smear campaigns on judges proclaim that the judge will pass legislation on all sorts of bills and on legislators that they will enforce draconian measures on the unsuspecting populace. I don't find it unreasonable to require voters to give a few multiple choice answers to basic office functions, they could even bring notes. The repetition might just cause them to learn the content.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

I find myself more aligned with Yfelsung on this one from the perspective of what's best for human civilisation, but not from the perspective of what makes everyone happy.

 

[Aught3]

I like this rule: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1105/breaking23.html

 

[TheJilvin]

I find myself more aligned with Yfelsung on this one from the perspective of what's best for human civilisation, but not from the perspective of what makes everyone happy.

I'm sorry I got so angry during my last post (although I still agree with all of it's content), and I understand (as well as hold) the "thunderf00t-esque" attitude toward the blinding light of scientific discovery and it's positive effect towards the world. However, FORCED knowledge is not worthwhile at all. Attending public schools, one can see the cruelty of herding kids from one bland, claustrophobic classroom to the next, being forced to study topics that they are not interested in at all. This schooling effect hits students who are polarized with interests in math and science (a kid like me) when they are forced to take, say, a ceramics class merely for the curriculum requirement of having 7 classes in a day; however, one must understand that it is also felt for the art-loving student who is forced to take another dreadful (in their eyes) mathematics class simply for the requirement of having a math class every year.

The "sense of awe" reaction to the incredibly far-reaching effects of human inquiry is, I think, shared by (almost) all of the League of Reason. However, one must face the fact that science is not loved by everybody. Nor should they be forced to learn it under any circumstances. It would be cruel, would likely receive a bad public rap, and would tragically associate very interesting and rich fields of inquiry with brutal authoritarianism.

 

[Unwardil]

I think I can speak for the kind of person who is awed by science and the possibilities it presents, but at the same time, knows for absolute certain that I would make a terrible scientist. Science, in practice, is a lot of painfully dull repetition with the ever so slim chance that MAYBE this time something will be different. I know I can't function like that. I understand why that's the way it has to be, but it's not for me. I understand why if it is for you, you have to know a lot of formulas and be comfortable with using them and analyzing them and blah blah blah, but I would rather rip out my own spleen with a serrated carving knife than have to sit through another class talking about it. My god is it ever dry shit at the entry level. I assume it gets interesting later when you start dealing with Large Hadron Coliders and the like, but electron orbits and ionizing bonds and how to properly write out the formula for ammonium... Gah, kill me.

As a result, I remember my science classes as something of a bleak torture that I had to habitually subject myself to, knowing full well I was never going to have to remember any of the math stuff and also knowing that the theories they were teach were more like a science history lesson than anything at all representative of current theories. So it was a double whammy of useless AND boring.

Further more, I don't think I ever had a science teacher properly explain what the scientific method actually did, that when you made an experiment you were actually trying to see if the current theory was wrong in some way. So we got the big fancy explanation of 'This is how you formulate a hypothesis' without ever getting the critical point of 'why the hell should I go to all this tedious trouble, come on, I KNOW sugar dissolves in water already!'.

Course I was equally bored in music class and, that being my current vocation, it's entirely possible I just fucking loathed school.

As for the forced genetic modifications, let the parents decide. I think all legal precedent would be behind that decision. If at some point in the future it leads to some kind of massive war between the normals and the suspiciously Ricardo Montalban looking supermen, pft, whatever, deal with that eventuality when it comes. I've never liked the argument to not do something good just because it's unfair and honestly, if poor people can't afford to have their children's genetic defaults fixed, that'll just serve to encourage them to get richer. You don't tell rich people they can't have a sports car because it's unfair to the poor people who can't afford them. That's a load of bull, same thing with genetic engineering.