Friday, March 04, 2011

the rule of fools

the problem with this oft over-aggrandized method of rule is that it is, by definition, the rule of the many. who the fuck thought that that's a good way to run anything? do those who want democracy not realize that the average human being is only twice removed from his more base nature of eating, fucking and literally killing the competition? so instead of entrusting rule to those smart enough to actually make decisions that will affect the lives of millions, we decide instead to entrust it to the same simpletons who make paris hilton popular. does this make sense?

democracy, for the love of god, is not the rule by that which is best for a nation, but rather the rule by what most people want. people want to engorge themselves on mcd's. people want to smoke. people need to be convinced to wear a helmet while moving at high speeds on a glorified bicycle. people obsess with reality tv. the riffraff cannot be trusted with rule, yet paradoxically we insist that listening to everyone is the best way to rule. how can someone who knows nothing of economy, history or basic science in anything be asked to vote on climate or health laws? how can they decide what the best fiscal policy for a country is?

democracy doesn't give you what you want, it only gives the chance to everyone and gives the majority what they want - right and wrong be damned. were it not for a few brave souls, we'd still have slavery and women subjugation, thanks to democracy. how about women's right to vote? saudi and kuwait are looked upon (deservedly, i may add) as backwards and oppressive due to their policies regarding women and voting, but one needs to look no further than the smug switzerland for a true showcase of democracy friendly europe: liechtenstein didn't allow women to vote until 1984.

long live democracy, the rule of fools.

update: i misread a sentence that lead me to assume that liechtenstein was part of switzerland. apologies to the the 35,000 that make the population of liechtenstein and to the swiss. switzerland is a true leader in women's rights with federal voting granted to women as early as 1971!, while appenzell ausserrhoden (a canton in switzerland) granted women the right in 1989. phew, that was close!

1 comment:

Miss Mixie said...

Hmmm. . . You have a point. However, what you haven't acknowledged is that if you don't give the rule to the majority, it's extremely, extremely easy for corrupt individuals to seize the government and the country. (Heck, it's already easy to do that.) You mentioned entrusting the country to the people who would rule well--how are those people supposed to be selected, if not by democratic election? By some committee? Who selects the committee?

Actually, despite our current voting system, I wouldn't exactly say that the majority really does do most of the ruling--politicians and corporations just manipulate us into thinking that. All we do is select officials--and we're easily convinced to select incompetent, corrupt ones. But imagine how much worse off we would be if anyone who wanted to could seize power.