Nostr Web Client

Switzerland, perhaps 🤔

But yes, the U.K. is the birth of democracy, we invented it (at least in its modern form), so the UK.

Our original definition is a democracy by election, i.e. we are free to choose from a limited pool a representative, but once elected, they have at least 4 years of freedom to make their own choices. If we disagree with them, we are free to un-elect them after 4 years.

The problems come from consolidation and consensus of power, if all candidates broadly share the same views and you are not offered genuine free choice, this entropy's this type of democracy.

This is where Switzerland has the edge with its true democracy, enabling the electorate not only to vote their representatives, but also vote on the laws that are made.

The limit of the Swiss system is the potential lack of representatives to propose the laws the electorate would want to vote.

Perhaps the question you wanted to ask was "Have you ever seen an perfect democratic government?"

Des Imoto マキシ 2mo ago

And then, even in Switzerland, how can you be sure your vote gets counted. Votes get entered into computers, aggregated, passed between computers. And, as in the Digital ID vote, come out so close, that one really doesn’t know. Is it plausible? „They“ have decided to move Switzerland into the realm of EU. No more freedom, no more anonymous money, no more independence (had to take sides with NATO against Ukraine). Sad.

But even if the votes weren’t rigged. Democracy doesn’t really work. (Mencken)

1. People don't want freedom but safety: "The average man wants the peace of a hog in a comfortable sty."

2. Democracy INTENSIFIES groupthink: "Democratic man is quite unable to think of himself as a free individual; he must belong to a group, or shake with fear and loneliness."

3. Democracies are plutocracies; they're run by the aristocracy of money. But the plutocracy "lacks all the essential characters of a true aristocracy: a clean tradition, culture, public spirit, honesty, honor, courage—above all, courage. It is transient and lacks a goal."

4. The plutocrats lack "an aristocratic disinterestedness born of aristocratic security." He submits. He can be bullied and broken.

5. Democracies birth their intellectual apologists - Mencken calls them "pedagogues." These are not genuine thinkers; they’re "men chiefly marked by their haunting fear of losing their jobs." This describes most journalists.

6. Democracy is anti-excellence. Freud said we repress our sex drive as it’s frowned upon...but there’s nothing that democracy frowns upon more than a CLEAR proof of superiority. Democracy says "the most worthy & laudable citizen is that one who is most like all the rest."

7. Mencken explains how this era demands we repress our greatness: "A man who has throttled a bad impulse has at least some consolation in his agonies. But a man who has throttled a good one is in a bad way indeed. Yet this great Republic swarms with such men, & their sufferings are under every eye."

8. Mencken on the two worst crimes in a democracy: "There is only one sound argument for democracy, and that is the argument that it is a crime for any man to hold himself out as better than other men, and, above all, a most heinous offense for him to prove it."

9. Mencken: "The democratic politician, confronted by the dishonesty and stupidity of his master, the mob, tries to convince himself and all the rest of us that it is really full of rectitude and wisdom." To gain power in a democracy, men sacrifice their self-respect...

10. Mencken believed democracy will cancel itself out: "Democracy may be a self-limiting disease, as civilization itself seems to be. There are thumping paradoxes in its philosophy, and some of them have a suicidal smack."

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mike 2mo ago

You started off by implying operational difficulties which has not been raised by anybody else, nor is seen as an issue by it's own populace. That's not to say that your point is invalid, just moot.

I think you're going too far down the dystopian rabbit hole.

Come back, not everything in the world is doomed.

I didn't read the rest, I prefer not to be that sceptical.

I respect your right to hold that level of doubt, however.

We can still be friends 😂

Des Imoto マキシ 2mo ago

Would have been more fun if you had argued on the merits of what I said. Nevertheless, Bitcoin fixes this, eventually.

mike 2mo ago

I'll maybe try to read again, but the start of your post gave me the intellectual ick 😂

mike 2mo ago

So I had another scan, I'm struggling to read it still, but a style I note you use is to quote other people, rather than expressing your views.

I know a lot of people like to debate arguments between third parties, many others like to quote celebrities or influencers. It is very common, but IMHO, there is a better way.

I have a bias, I prefer to discuss the opinions of the people I'm talking to, not the views of the people they have read about.

This isn't a criticism per say, but an observation. I prefer to be self sovereign in the realm of knowledge as well as money. I don't trust any third party, I always do my own thinking.

james 2mo ago

Have not heard of Mencken, but will look him up. Would mostly agree, but as someone ? said it’s our least worst option.

Also point 10, I worry it does cancel itself out until the political fools have convinced the mob to fight, thus reducing the energy in the system.

Des Imoto マキシ 2mo ago

I think we need to back to a bottom up society. Family->council—>tribe->etc? Not top down. Interestingly the US was originally set up that way. With sovereignty going bottom up Family-City Council—County-State. Or Switzerland. Before getting inverted.

I often wonder what society will look like after hyperbitcoinazation?

Which led me to look at how American Indians organized. They seemed to, within their tribes, live so harmoniously amongst themselves and with nature.

American Indians organized many decisions around family units and tribal councils. One way to illustrate how it works is to look how American Indians disincentivized bad behavior.

Now probably the first thing to know about Native American history is that there was very little crime. Perhaps crime and punishment go with Western Industrial-type nations. Historically, travelers to the outermost regions of Native America commented on how honest and how little crime existed.

So what did they do if one of their own committed a “crime”?

Firstly, there were no jails. Secondly, while all tribes were different, in matters of severe offenses, the family or the clan usually dealt with the offender. Often the person guilty of the crime was “sentenced” to go away from the tribe and try to make it on his own — which in the long ago past, was almost a testiment to a death sentence. In the Lakota tribe there is a reference in the book, WATER LILY, about the offender having to make restitution with the family by taking a role in the family. Usually such people were so happy to not be put out of the tribe, that they became the best family members of all. Imagine if this were so in our society today? That the offender had to make restitution with the family for his acts? What do you think might be the result? Less crime, perhaps?

In the Creek society, as well as the Blackfeet, the crime of adultery (for women only) was a cut off nose — the tip of the nose. This was usually performed at the request of the offending husband and was done by the society that he belonged to.

As far as stealing is concerned, it was almost unheard of. George Catlin remarked that in all his travels in Native America he had never had one single thing taken from him, or even a hand lifted against him. In truth, one young man made quite a journey to join Catlin in order to return to him some of his property. However, if stealing had been done, the offending party again made restitution with the “victim” by supplying them with whatever they needed in return. Seems a much simplier process, doesn’t it? Make up the damage one has done to the person who has been harmed, himself.

Besides almost non-existent crime, there was also no poverty. Some people were more prosperous than others — such has always been the case amongst a people. But noone went hungry when there was food to be had within the tribe, nor did anyone go without.

And if a culture is known by its humanity towards others and the material condition of its people, then I would have to say that American Indians were, indeed, a culture to be proud.

#Bitcoin. Fix the money, fix the world.

#Bitcoin. It’s the only chance we have.

Parts extracted verbatim from CRIME & PUNISHMENT — Native American Style

October 14, 2008 by Karen Kay