NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, people.

This is an age-old debate and idea that I thought I would bring to the attention of those who might be interested, partially because it's an interesting idea but mostly because I'm new here and want to make a little noise. :) (Hey, at least I'm trying to be honest).

Any goverment can make any desicion at any time... The people can argue against their goverment, other countries can criticize, or even attack for that desicion. But what motivates that desicion? I'm going to simplify that into three basic catagories:

What is best for the people
What the people want
What is best for the goverment

To what extent should a goverment trust it's people with all the information? and with the power of desicion making? Some people may answer that the people should have total and absaloute control, and should always know everything that the goverment does. This way the people know what's best for the people, and presumably that's what they would choose to do.

However this view, I think, is naieve. Not everyone has the abillity to comprehend, let alone remember all the factors and all the information, and certainly not everybody has the selfless spirit requred to make the desicion that's right for everybody, or the greater good.

The alternative is to trust our goverments with everything, knowledge and desicions. But is that any better? "Power curropts" the old wise men say, and they're not often wrong. If we place that much power with a single individual or goup of people how can we be sure they wont betray the people they are supposed to represent and protect? That's saying nothing of putting a huge strain and pressure on a comparativly small group of people.

A balance, then? a middle path? We let the people know the facts but then the goverment makes the desicion? The more information you give people the more they're going to ram their opinions down your throats. The more they do that the less time the goverment has to actually govern... Not only that, who decides where the right balance GOES? the people? or the goverment? Can either be trusted to make the right desicion? or even a selfless desicion?

In a world that seems to have lost all black and white, leaving only a tarnished and uncared for gray behind. What are the right desicions? and who do we, who CAN we trust... to make the desicions... The right desicions?

Respectfully,
Ven

Interesting ...

I've not the time now to get into it I'm afraid, but looking it over again, I'm feeling you should go to the Moderation forum and request this thread be moved to General Forum, as it seems more suitable there then here in the U.N. Forum.

Hope that helps some, and you'll probably get more comments there any-way, ;)

Hmm... interesting...

In your post, you outlined
1) Pure Democracy - the people decide everything
2) Absolute Dictatorship - the government decides everything
3) Every other political system known to man.

Some might regard 1) as being pure anarchy, but anarchy doesn't have a state, unlike pure democracy, in which every person is part of the state.

Some might regard 1) as being pure anarchy, but anarchy doesn't have a state, unlike pure democracy, in which every person is part of the state.

I wouldn't think so. In this case, presumably every time an issue comes up there's a referendum and the elected officials are just there to implement the results. There still is some order and some law-making present...it's not like an anarchy where the laws are only unwritten rules.

The ignorant masses can't make decisions, only the wisest should be allowed to rule.

The ignorant masses can't make decisions, only the wisest should be allowed to rule.And just how are you proposing that "the wisest" be weeded out from among the rest?

And yes, this should be in General.

The ignorant masses can't make decisions, only the wisest should be allowed to rule.
Ah! A meritocrat!

Or possibly a variant fascist.

Please do not consider these imflammatory remarks - I try to understand as many political systems as possible, and given what you said, I believe these to be the most likely political forms you support.

RomeW: Note I was referring to pure democracy, rather than a republic. Pure democracy, which is how I read the original post, does have referenda, but does not have an elected leadership.

People do not know what they want. Had the Will of the People been invoked in Paleolithic times, humankind would not have discovered that other things beyond sexual mates and food are actually of interest to him.

The Will of the People and the Will of the Government are polar opposites and equal. Both are capable of achieving the same end in terms of functionality. The only difference is the prioritization of that functionality. By functionality, I mean the convergence of human energies to accomplish a task deemed important enough to converge for and possibility lay down sacrifices for, typically bypassing the natural ego borders we place upon ourselves and others.

I am left to conclude that in our search for fairness, equality, and doing our best to reduce the chances of agitating certain chemicals in the human emotional spectrum, we may have missed the elephant in the room.

Man is separate from animals because of his ability of prescience, that is, the ability to observe potential futures. The only thing that can test man’s prescience is Chaos; that which man cannot observe for many reasons usually ranging from lack of knowledge or an overbearing ego that convinces a person that such futures can never be possible.

Is the desire for fairness an animal impulse? When one is offended, does he not wish to strike his offender? When one observes treatment on one and not the other, does that not register in human consciousness? We do not have to be taught how to react to what we perceive as unjust treatment, as stated in previous scripts throughout history, it is self-evident. This, indeed, makes the desire for fairness an animal impulse.

Since the world governments have made it a point to focus on trying to cater to this desire for justice, fairness, and equality, how is one to do it? There are two polar opposite and equal approaches: Enforce fair treatment, no matter how unfair it becomes or to teach the idea of forgiving our aggressors.

To enforce fair treatment, resources must come from some group of people deems by another group of people to be taking their ‘unfair’ share. It is here conflict immerges from start to finish, ensuring that an absolute fairness is never achieved and, at best, fairness comes on a relative level in compressions and rarefactions, defeating the entire purpose of enforcing fair treatment altogether.

To forgive our aggressors is a nearly unconceivable act to the animal mind. To genuinely see to it that those who have offended and destroyed that which you have built for and centered your life around are forgiven… it is simply impossible.

But both leave massive openings those who seek to exploit for their own gain. Those who seek to enforce fair treatment will use it as a means to justify anything (The exploiter is the Will of the People) and those who seek those who a docile, forgiving people will use that as a means to justify anything. (The exploiter is the Will of the Government)

So what is one to do?

Fortunate for the human race, we have a capacity for guilt. Guilt is the attempt to self-destroy your ego. THE SHEER PRESCENE OF MECHANISM THAT DESTROYS EGO IS PROOF THAT MAN IS CAPABLE OF EXISTING WITHOUT HAVING TO BE A SLAVE TO HIS EGO. This means one thing and one thing only:

It is the fate of man to be ruled by the will of the people and by the will of government, if not simultaneously, then with each taking turns, and that this cycle is the compression and rarefaction of ego between both groups.

As we adopt one, so shall we be blinded by what the other can do in terms of prioritization.

The will of God is not the will of the people nor is it the will of the government. The will of God, until further notice, is for us to remain separate from animals and to ensure this separation, God is Chaos.

And just how are you proposing that "the wisest" be weeded out from among the rest?

We should take over!

Ho-ly crap, Ghetalion! Erm, yeah, that works.

Of course, if people were naturally nice we could just have a nice pot of anarchy. Unfortunately I'm learning that we are not.

My thought after reading the subject line only: if the voice of the people is the voice of God, then a riot must be God having a hankering for some violence and stolen TVs.