THE LAST WHY

Democracy means mob rule, not widely known or taught

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I prefer the phrase "group rule". "Group" has a greater connotation of apparent purpose. There is however, no difference in the outcome. Doug.E.Barr

Abraham Lincoln did not say what you posted. He declared the opposite. Look up the Gettisburg Address on any search engine. He said that "that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Granted democracy has its problems, but with good checks and balances and a good bill of rights, it can provide something truly great.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your comment. I did look up the "the Gettysburg Address" in order to confirm it was delivered by Abraham Lincoln. I modified it to make my point that a word equivalent to "good checks and balances" is "restrictions". I indicated the changes by bracketing words. Ideally, there is only one human right. If we have to have more than one right we've got it wrong. Doug.E.Barr

I think that if any young adult was asked to read this article and write ten sentances about the word "democracy" which I was he/she would never be able to put together enough imformatin about the subject and i was not able to write my paper and that is a shame because I am an A+ student and I enjoy this site but i was very disapointed if you have the chance can you please add more to this article and i think you need more imfo. on Athens because they were the worlds first democracy THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME http://www.thelastwhy.com I will find the imfo. somewere else <3 (: JORDAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...ten sentances...disapointed... A+ student..." Surely you jest. Nevertheless, I will say again that if democracy is the acme of governing systems then I have misjudged our potential to see a common purpose and to act in the interests of humanity; and as a consequence of democracy we will eventually self-destruct due to either the paralysis or the conflict caused by competing self-interests. Doug.E.Barr

Precisely. This is why I've created...

www.officialusforum.com

join/participate/spread the word

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I visited your site. Even if I were a US citizen and thus able to "join", I would not "participate" nor "spread the word". I have no desire to compete for time and space on another web site. If I can't make my answer known from my site, I won't try to make it known at all. Thanks for visiting my site though, and good luck with yours. Doug.E.Barr

Very compelling writing and indeed a very factual. Thanks

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for giving me the time necessary to comment. Doug.E.Barr

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? Doug.E.Barr

Hi , we can have global warming party's to raise awareness,

I am the founding member of saveNaturefree here,

and it's sister site http://cleverthinking.ning.com/

you can earn income just by joining and helping two more join, it's not a scam. google if you are worried.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great! Another reason for more "party's". Doug.E.Barr

It has helped me to see how differently we can think about this same topic. However it has also left me with the understanding that even democracy may not be the best in the end. In a way I see the point. I think therefore we need another greater word than democracy- or is it a predecessor of democracy if we have to achieve a good life for all. I then agree totally that call it democracy or whatever, but the real meaningful free life is where all respect each other and also value and respect our creator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughtful. I think a suitable word already exists. It is "self-rule", the rule being "to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God". It is the law of natural activity. It is precisely the same for everyone but the result is individual self-realization and simultaneous collective-realization in a medium of unconditional cooperation. Democracy is really only a resting place on the way to the self-destructive anarchy that will result as each of us tries in our own way to fill the void. Doug.E.Barr

I do agree that most implementations of democracy are flawed and even the most basic form has its downfalls. However, I believe there is a correct way to do it, where every citizen has equal power over every decision, instead of electing officials who then have all the power.

After reading the poem, I strongly disagree with the proposed 'ideal'. Not because it couldn't work or wouldn't achieve its goal, but because it would reduce humanity to a herd of animals. This herd would all move together in the same direction but their leader would need to be a human, which means the direction would be flawed.
Human rights and individuality are important and provide diversity of character and thought. Do you want to give these up so that we can awaken to a 'self-realization' of whatever the leader dictates we be?
Conflict of interest can be a good thing. It can motivate us to improve ourselves, our products or our surroundings. The conflict itself is not bad, only our methods of resolution. We should not seek to eliminate conflict, but to improve our methods of resolving them and learn to accept when we are in the wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You failed to connect the thoughts in your two paragraphs. The "correct way to do it, where every citizen has equal power over every decision" you propose in your first paragraph is "the Ideal" you "strongly disagree with" in your second paragraph.

The last time I looked humanity is "a herd of animals" but with the apparently unique ability for the individuals to decide if the "herd" will self-destruct and while doing so quite likely turn earth into a second Mars; or if our species will continue to survive and allow the species we haven't yet extinguished to survive as well. These two are our only possible destinations and the "herd" moves together toward the one or the other. "Every decision" we make helps determine which one humanity chooses.

The twin ideas of "human rights" and "individuality" and by extension group rights and 'groupuality' are quite likely the most self-destructive that have come to our collective mind. There is only one human right and that is for each individual to contribute the realization of their unique capacities to the self-realization of humanity. All other "rights" are wrong.

Conflict is not a "good thing". Conflict is the engine of self-destruction. If we wish to continue to survive we need to eliminate the source of conflict, our efforts to fill "the void", so it can't even begin to diminish life. It is ludicrous to think we should allow it to continue but resolve conflict, when we can stop it before it starts. When there is conflict "we are (all) in the wrong." Doug.E.Barr

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. I am, however, curious who the dictator would be in the article's proposed dictatorship. Does it matter who it is, or will anybody do?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the follow-up. I thought it was clear but evidently not. "Self-imposed dictatorship" was meant to convey the idea each of us is our own dictator. We tell ourselves we are responsible for "reaching out to the limits of our capacities..." and as we do we contribute to the expanding realized capacities of humanity. I trust the revisions I made clarify my view. Agreeing to disagree is not an option. It is merely a convoluted way of saying we disagree which in the end will be the end. Doug.E.Barr

Once you mention god, you lost me. No religious person would be able to “self rule”, or have “self-realization” because religion dictates ignorance. Plus, no one ever will be on the same page. Just like you about democracy. No one ever will, especially men and their weak egos (ah, the creation of a god). The world will destruct and we will be extinct. That dear, Doug Barr is a wonderful and glorious end to our destructive, selfish, ignorant and greedy natures. We are unconscious animals (largely), and the worst animals that have ever existed. I look forward to the destruction, starvation, and death. I am simply grateful I am lackey enough to be in America. We are pricks and will likely last the longest because of it. Cheers to our extinction!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is encouraging that you followed me as long as you did. Had you not thoughtlessly associated God with religion you might have followed me to the end. Your assessment of religion is correct. Religions do restrict us with doctrine, dogma, ritual and belief and thus prevent us from "reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God." It is not correct to say "no one will ever be on the same page". All of us are more or less "on the same page" because that is a condition of life. However, not enough of us are on "the same page" more than less, to prevent our self-destruction. If a majority of us were "on the same page" more than less, self-destruction would not be inevitable. Not all of us are identically destructive, selfish, ignorant or greedy. We do have a a common nature but these characteristics are not common. We have the potential to be the worst or the best. At the moment it seems we are the worst but we can be the best if we wanted to be. You do not need to look forward to "the destruction, starvation and death". Just look around you. I don't know if it matters but I know we can change and if we did we might discover it matters. Cheers to change. Doug.E.Barr

Very interesting writing but not even a minor benevolent dictator, what about the distribution of property and resources?

Now, it would be a beautiful site to see people rise up above the need for government. Maybe everyone can have silicon chips implanted in theit brains allowing them to better account for ourselves. (aNts) Seriously, from where do you derive such confidence in man and do you really believe or are you advocating or just hoping that they can become citizens of the world?

Emerging Complexity?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me your "benevolent dictator" is missing something. Where is it written in the 'book of life' that we have to distribute "property and resources". I do not have confidence that humanity can reverse our present direction toward self-destruction nor am I advocating anything. I am merely pointing out that according to our nature, there is no biological reason for the conflict that is destroying us. It is equally possible for us to move toward unconditional cooperation and emerging simplicity. Doug.E.Barr

men must learn what ego is, a desire to dominate, and then work to control it. so long as there is that basic competition and need to be/have morethan someone else, this world is in dire straits indeed, and the likelyhood of survival very small indeed.
the premise that competition is good is flawed, since, as others have pointed out, there must be winners and losers. the idea of winners and losers will propegate democracy in one form or another, or worse, dictatorships. historical rome found that out in all its negativity. it is not good for survival of the species.
to survive, I would suggest, excuse the 'I' because even that is flawed and competitive, that to survive, we must somehow achieve a change in mental outlook to life, allowing all the ability to rise to their fullest but in a way that complements all. if we are all on the same page, the need for possessions as we now think of them will be minimal and of necessity, not just to have.
if we go one step beyond that, it must be suggested that we would, for survival of species, have to make a concerted effort by all inclined minds to find a way to the stars and beyond.
one major factor to our demise is already being talked about in roundabout ways so as not to impact our own lives, is population growth, hence hardship and starvation. we will not need to 'explore' space as such, but need to in order for everyone to have a place to stand, live, and grow. one work that I work refers to humanity as a virus, and as a virus, we will outstrip our abilities to 'anything'. unlimited growth, even right now, could populate the moon, not heavily perhaps, but populate it.
over the past 80 years or so, proof stares out at us in that we have eliminated some 50 million people during ww2, millions more from ww1, add to that some 2-3 million people in vietnam from war, and possibly3 million more by the polpot regimes of killingfields infamy. add to that??? how many have to date, died of starvation and hardship, then factor accidental death and whatever else may be missing, and how much did it slow down population growth? not at all.
looking at china we see more proof of population explosion. the more base population there is the larger the growth factor involved.
anything decided on in any one area will come to haunt us in another area. the only answer would be unconditional expansion of the human race to the stars. there we might find enough room and capability for all to have that unconditional freedom that many of us seek. things included, although as said, things are a factor of destruction too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ego" is what we have become, the consequence of our reactions to the void. We all react with a measure of the ideal but generally our reactions to it are more or less dominated by our efforts to fill the void. We try by combining one or more of eight ways. We can combine our materialistic reaction with our preeminence reaction which appears to be a drive to acquire more than anyone else. The resulting conflict is self-destructive. We can also combine our familial reaction and our anesthetic reaction which includes taking sex. The resulting population growth is self-destructive. We can destroy our selves with other combinations. Consequently, if it matters that we survive we will have to accept what the ego is and react accordingly. Doug.E.Barr

Are you proporting that the nation is a republic(i.e.~not a democracy), or are you saying that democracy by its general definition is self destructive?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can find "proporting" in any dictionary let me know. According to my dictionary a "democracy" is a form of government in which the power resides in the people and is exercised by them either directly or by means of elected representatives. A "republic" is a state in which supreme power is held by the people or their elected representatives or by an elected or nominated president. There is obviously a huge overlap in the two definitions. They are not at all mutually exclusive as you imply.

I use "democracy" advisedly because I know it will be associated with all forms of governments we call democratic even though none of them are by the strict definition. Anyone who believes "the power resides in (all) the people" in any so called democracy also believes in Santa Claus. Our democracies should more appropriately be called oligarchies. In a few weeks Canada will probably be run by the Conservative oligarchy and in a few months the USA will be run by either the Republican or Democratic oligarchy. The voting is a charade. Whatever, any system that divides us will eventually conquer us and what we call democracies are without question divisive. Doug.E.Barr

P.S. The word is probably supposed to be "purport": claim or appear to be or do something, esp falsely. DEB

I couldn't find proporting in the dictionary either, or even suggested via thesaurus. it must have been meant to be 'suggesting'. nearest I can find.
democracy is flawed and doomed in so much as we, as a people, are lazy and content for others to lead. they would not and have not hesitated in raising voices of objection in extreme situations, but as a rule, if it ain't got a dollar attached, you can't get their attention [of the majority]. the rule of law is based on these rules, and with all the addendums, etc. attached to these laws, and passed without consultation, there is no clear definition for what is seen as right and wrong. it is all shades of gray instead. if we keep shading that gray, it will soon be black. one day all those rights and privileges that we 'thought' were ours, won't be. not many of those rights and privileges are there except in the original declaration and these have been constantly battered by this group and that since people [groups] found that they could take the original words and change the meaning of them.
a bit bigger than that might be the point that the christian bible meanings are regularly contested and changed about every 75 years. nothing is sacred. nothing is sure. if we wish to live we must change at the core of our beings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment is sophomoric at best. Exactly what is it that "we must change at the core of our beings."? Doug.E Barr

Openly shared intelligence and public education is critical to the survival of democracy.

The market economy with deregulations and privatisation of public infrastuctures, removes equality of opportunities within communities, states and within nations. This leaves human and natural resources to be wide open to privately contrived exploitation, as achieved within public private partnerships, an ideal environment for political, social and economic corruption.

As confidentially contrived between lawyers and financiers, big businesses use political parties to align their private objectives within government policy commitments. This is a conversion from governing for the people to governing for private businesses, a global trend in the nations claiming to be democracies, a trend to destroy effciencies within capital markets .

The privatisation of Telstra in Australia is just one example to the world. This once a publicly owned national telecommunications infrastucture, after the public build of a national GBt per second broadband in 1995, a publicly shared digital highway for Australians entry into the digital era,was instead confidentially modified with a proprietary scheme, to be converted to a marketing tool, a media marketing cable monopoly using the nation's broadband, as publicly built and financed, now an exclusive and proprietary broadband for one media cartel. This $64 Billion public infrastructure was then privatised to offset fiscal debt. The public has since been denied the education to understand and to reason why.

This is a culture shift from a democratic objective for equality of opportunities to a market economy objective to enrich the global rich. This culture shift was possible because of governments' consessions to private commercial media domination over the deployment of television broadcasting spectrum.

We are lazy and content, to be entertained by commercial media, leaving ouselves wide open to social and financial exploitation and abuse. Members of parliament do not mind delegating their public responsibilities to Independent Commissions and private market forces. The public cannot care because it has no means to understand the confidential behaviour that allow deregulations to become the means to remove law enforcement over social and economic abuses.

With privatised broadcasting without publicly shared participation and without equality of opportunity for public shared intellectual values, publicly shared visions, missions, inputs and outcomes, private markets forces have a new freedom to exploit public domains. The public is steadily losing its freedom of opportunies and equality with its welfare and well being by this process.

Telstra in Australia is just one experience to prove this rapid decline in public ethos within and between nations claiming to be democracies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Openly shared intelligence and public education (about the divisive and thus self-destructive nature of democracy) is critical to the survival of (humanity)". Given your first sentence, what you have written does not contribute to the necessary "shared intelligence and public education". Notwithstanding, thanks for commenting. Doug.E.Barr

This is for all of you:

This institution will be based upon the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson

Peter Hopkins

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With all due respect to T.J., third president of the United States of America, primary author of the Declaration of Independence and whose view on religion was visionary, these beautiful words are typical, utterly meaningless philosophical rhetoric as are the words in the second part of his preamble to the Declaration of Independence. There is no way we have "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in Western democratic capitalism where right is equivalent to financial might. However, he was correct in saying we are all created equal if he meant we have a common human nature. Doug.E.Barr

Are you the Prince. You seem to share much of his view of Democracy. I find it interesting that the word Democracy is often bandied about by scoundrels. Bush frequently talks about Democracy but is own country is not nor never was a one it is weird to have the leader of the Republicians pushing Democracy while at the same time hiding behind Nationalism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of who "the Prince" is, my view of "democracy" is derived from my empirical view of life. In my view what we call democracy is divisive and thus self-destructive. If we continue to 'organize' ourselves in this way it will be the death of us.

Your views are somehow complicated. Considering refining them a little?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democracy is divisive. Doug.E.Barr