Share this comment
You missed the point, then you threw a red herring off the trail.
It's probably true that your thinking about democracy isn't much better. Consider, for example, the problem of how to establish a democracy democratically. Must one do that through voting or not through voting? If democratically through voting, the founding fanatics will ne…
You missed the point, then you threw a red herring off the trail.
It's probably true that your thinking about democracy isn't much better. Consider, for example, the problem of how to establish a democracy democratically. Must one do that through voting or not through voting? If democratically through voting, the founding fanatics will need a government to organize a plebiscite and to impose the results, but this organizing government itself isn't necessarily democratic. (Was it established by plebiscite?) This method of establishing democracy leads to the problem of infinite regress.
If, on the other hand, democracy is established democratically without voting, then we have no good arguement for picking democratic politicians by voting. And why call the affair democracy other than to avoid a word like anthropocracy? (A demos is a district.) We ought to learn, however, why the knaves of democracy pretend to care so much about voting. The dupes, of course, care about voting because it's in the nature of farm animals to believe just about anything a charming priest tells them.
Now, if you're an American, read Article VII of your Constitution carefully. Its one clause pretends to state the law about "Ratification" and "Eatablishment" before both ratification and establishment. Yet there there it is anyway, ready to do its work on the thoughts of natural born suckers, chumps, and useful idiots.
You are a part of the duopoly which you admit over 50% of America has already disengaged from... do you not see that your minority status of clinging to red/blue solutions is one of the main problems with the state of America's representative democracy?