Friday, 27 March 2009

Democracy - or Gangs of New York?

Brand Killer Robots reveal::
Do you think that that balance always existed, since the birth of democracy, or it is something that governments learnt along the way until these days? I mean, was it always meant to balance exploitation and rebellion?

Yes, they learnt how to balance exploitation and rebellion along the way. But whatever system humanity has applied before, whatever social system, there has always been this balance and always will be.

How do they convince the masses that they have a chance, can't the people see that there are always the same ones who rule over them? Or is it that they are fine aspiring to intermediate positions, and with it perpetuate the lie.

As a new generation is born and the old generation dies off, this knowledge is swept away.

"For it to be a scam, there would have to be a scammer and that scammer would have to gain significantly from their plan. And in turn those who were scammed would have to lose significantly." I don't understand this comment. I can clearly see the scammer, the "elite", and the scammed, the "people".

There is nothing to gain personally from any of this interplay. The predator and victim are one of the same. Whether rich or poor, the ants will eventually get to eat your eyes. So, just who are the scammers. The scammer or the scammed?


The meta architecture of democracy is far from perfect and life is far from perfect. But we must also ask ourselves.........How much worse could it be? We could have lawless gangs roaming the streets. Warlords murdering and raping. Mass starvation and disease. I'd say, be careful not to wish for too much change. Not more than 100+ years ago America was infested with gun slingers and gangs who caused civil strife. The truth is - whether it be the elite or the ordinary man - we are all capable of bringing this world into disrepute. There is a tyrannt on every corner.


What were those intentions meant to be? Wasn't democracy well thought and planned since the beginning, to make the population think they have any real power?

I believe that democrocy was founded on honourable intentions to create a world free from slavery, poverty and barbarism and was a sincere attempt at delivering prosperity to those nations who would were party to it. unfortunately this did not extend to the nations in the so called "third world".

I agree with you completely on this one, though I'm not sure of the relation between honour and justice with democracy in practice. If we agreed that democracy is meant to deceive the public by the elite to maintain power, how can it be mixed with honour and justice?

There has always got to be "an elite". People have always been lead by someone. Where no man leads there is no order and unfortunately such is the nature of human kind that this leads to gangs and warlords. If you extract honourable behaviour and strong justice from democracy, you end up with only the theory of democracy. Democracy must be backed up by honourable men who respect juctice.

But that's the whole point, democracy sounds well in theory, but the practice is a whole different game. So I'm still wondering if democracy was created to deceive the public on purpose, or if it really was a fair system that turned a nightmare. In my humble opinion, I think that the main function of democracy was pacifying the masses, giving them a false sense of power (and everyone bought it).

Think of democracy and communism and all those kinds of system as ways to appease the people. Once you appease the people, you then have some basis for creating positive order. This is matrix management at work. I would say to those against democracy and communism and all those other regimes that maintain a high degree of stability, to come up with a better system, rather than calling for the downfall of the current ones. Otherwise the whole thing could descend into anarchy.

No comments: