User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Democracy as Aristocracy2924 days old

  1. #1
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default Democracy as Aristocracy

    Inspired from: here

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    People with mortgages, bills to pay, and mouths to feed… should vote. These people, families, are the future of a society. Why should anybody else but them vote? No children, no future, no say in society, in my opinion.
    Democracy, as derived from Ancient Greece, is an extension of Aristocracy. Aristocracy is the selection of a group of people who represent any given 'Society'. However different societies, peoples, and nations select representatives by different means, and by different reasoning. For example, who (which group) should govern a Nation: should this person be male/female, one race/ethnicity/phenotype over another? What should his IQ be? What should his attitude be? Who should share power, many or a few?

    From recent ABF discussions, there is a comparison between Elitism (ie. Fascism) and Egalitarianism (ie. Communism), as a rule by One opposed by a rule by Many. Perhaps this is nothing more than a matter of preference, rather than necessity?

    However Aristocracy, and Democratic-Republikan ideal representation, imposes a mix between the two. I would argue further: Aristocracy and Democracy are very much the same concept, and ultimately must impose a type of Nobility class, whereas Fascism and Communism do not, per se. These are topics revolving around Class Mobility in society & politicks.


    I claim that Aristocracy is the original ideal of Democracy: Not all should vote! Not all should govern! For example, children are 'Irresponsible'. And adults are 'Responsible'. Therefore children should not govern society and adults should govern society.

    This is contrary to Libertarian ideals, such that, people ought to become afforded "Rights", whether as Liberal Rights and Entitlements, or as "Innate Human Rights". In this way, (Negative) liberal rights can contradict the ideals of Aristocracy and Democracy by presuming one is born with various entitlements to Rule over others. These entitlements are not 'earned' per se; they are innate and immobile. One can become born-into status & prestige, earned by no means except that of Superficial traits (ie. Beauty markers, Racial/Ethnic Supremacy).

    But this does not address the question/problem of: who should vote, to begin with??

    Who agrees/disagrees with this?


    (PS. Positive Rights are known as: Duties and Obligations.)

    ---------- Post added 2011-08-15 at 06:36 ----------

    In fact I want to go much further here into politickal theory…

    Let us reexamine the very notion of Rights, Entitlements, Obligations, and Duties.

    The very concept of 'Rights' implies that any & every person in this world, on Earth, is born with something owed to you, or you owe society. Without this notion of some type of "spiritual debt", how can anyone make sense of society & government, or morality & culture???

    Should people be born with some type of spiritual 'debt' or forced to sign some innate "Social Contract" (as per Social Contract Theory)???

    ---------- Post added 2011-08-15 at 06:44 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Are you kidding me ? So if someone is gay or can not produce children or does not want to produce children is therefore "worth less" than someone who has children ?.

    Do you even realize how unfair it is that someone who is gay/can not have children/does not want children is paying taxes to raise someone else's children ?

    Personally I'm not sure whether I can have children since I have never had my "liquid" examined, I'm not gay either, I just dont want to reproduce, the thought of having children terrifies me, since in my opinion children will not only drain my resources but will also limit my freedom and demand so much time and energy that I will go nuts.
    Having offspring is a personal choice.

    Does having this vision mean that I'm worse than you and that I'm worse than you and that I should not be allowed to vote ? what else should be done to me ? should I be shot when i'm 50 or so ? should I pay waaaaay more taxes to raise your children or something ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    enlighten me
    I will do my best.

    "Personal Choice" is antithetical to all Liberal and Human Rights.

    Assume this: The males & females of a society are obligated to reproduce.

    Sex can be a Duty, too. This is just a good example… you cannot have it both ways, "Personal Choice" and Social Obligation. You are forced to choose one over the other.
    Last edited by Unome; 2011-08-15 at 14:29.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Unome For This Useful Post:

    GeistFaust (2011-08-16), Silesian (2011-08-15), Soul Unlimited (2011-08-16)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #2
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Acquisitorz's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2011-04-16
    Posts
    6,361
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Politics
    Liberal
    Religion
    Lol
    Flanders lion Israel Russia

    Default

    Lol what a totally disgusting bullshit post above here, such nonsense.
    All I can say is "we are all born free"and the goal of the system/government is to provide as many rights as possible while providing as few obligations as possible too.

    If I dont want to produce children = I wont, and that does not make me worth less than a father of 10 kids.
    If I dont want to have sex = I wont, its my body and my choice, period.
    If I want to have sex with a willing man = its my choice and its nobody's right to criticize it.
    If I want to have sex with a dog = then its not my choice, since the dog is not "willing".


    Whatever you wrote above, smells like dark ages under influence of Christianity. What next ? forcing people to copulate in positions which have the best odds of conception ?

  5. #3
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Lol what a totally disgusting bullshit post above here, such nonsense.

    All I can say is "we are all born free"
    I disbelieve "we are all born free". Everybody is born into societies, tribes, groups. From this, people are born into obligations, beginning with Parenting.

    Are not parents obligated to feed, clothe, and shelter their children? If yes, then by your same reasoning, children are by extension "entitled" to food, clothing, and shelter…


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    and the goal of the system/government is to provide as many rights as possible while providing as few obligations as possible too.
    That is your opinion.

    You essentially expect your government to provide you with almost everything (as much as possible), without demanding much from you? That is a one-way relationship of demand, without return.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    If I dont want to produce children = I wont, and that does not make me worth less than a father of 10 kids.
    You mean social worth?

    Are children worth more than adults, or adults worth more than children?


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    If I dont want to have sex = I wont, its my body and my choice, period.
    Then why should you have a say in society if you have no future in it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    If I want to have sex with a willing man = its my choice and its nobody's right to criticize it.
    If I want to have sex with a dog = then its not my choice, since the dog is not "willing".


    Interesting connection to voting & rights there…


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Whatever you wrote above, smells like dark ages under influence of Christianity. What next ? forcing people to copulate in positions which have the best odds of conception ?
    I want to know why you believe those who have no future in society, and perhaps are anti-social, or worse… criminals of society, should have a stake in its future and prosperity?

    I don't have children; yet I advocate what I'm saying. So you really have no grounds to attack me about sexuality. I admit: my voice really means nothing unless I am represented by a society. That too is the difference between males & females, children & adults.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

  6. #4
    Established Member
    Turboslavic Caveman Pioterus's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-30 @ 07:14
    Join Date
    2010-12-21
    Posts
    2,511
    Location
    Lasy Pomorza
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1a1 (A2423+)
    mtDNA
    U3a1a(1)
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    laissez faire
    Religion
    Metalhead
    Poland Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    I claim that Aristocracy is the original ideal of Democracy: Not all should vote! Not all should govern! For example, children are 'Irresponsible'. And adults are 'Responsible'. Therefore children should not govern society and adults should govern society.

    (...)

    But this does not address the question/problem of: who should vote, to begin with??

    Who agrees/disagrees with this?
    My first thoughts, maybe quite chaotic but that's mine biggest flaw - I tend to have problems with explaining my thoughts in well organized way (in non-native language)

    In ancient Greece, in Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, in XVII/XIX century Anglo countries there was a kind of democracy of owning classes, only people of specific status were able to vote (citizens of Athens, Szlachta of PLC, burgois / aristocracy of anglo countries). Slowly those system decayed -> in case of Commonwealth it was caused by some families gathering too much power (Magnates) and starting to fund some of poorer nobility to abuse Liberum Veto and thus destroy the Parliament sessions.
    Now something similiar happened imo in USA - with middle class thinned out and huge wealth discrepancy the "all can vote" is a complete fail. The powerful are keeping the rest in the pseudo-democracy wherein all important things are already decided and the smaller bullshits as who will be president (to constitue what Powerful want from their puppets) or such are left for "demos" to decide.

    The point now:

    The right to vote should not be hereditary it should be composed of:

    1. Being productive member of society (=businessmen, craftsman, employed etc... = paying taxes, bringing surplus to society thus becoming a shareholder of the society);
    2. Passing some basic exams in history of ideals, economy and logic thinking (not to make everyone think the same way, rather to make sure people who vote can think for themselves);
    3. Having will to reproduce (not all people can...), don't ask me how to make it tick, it's just my opinion that we cannot exclude people who simply cannot reproduce;

    ...yeah that's it for now I suppose, let others say their mind.
    Last edited by Pioterus; 2011-08-15 at 15:23. Reason: stakeholder =/= shareholder
    and the IEEE Milestone for breaking the Enigma Code goes to... Polish Cipher Bureau 1932-39

    “We know each other,” he agreed. “They say that you follow in my steps.”
    “I go my own way. But you, you had never, until just now, looked behind you. You turned back today for the first time.”
    Geralt remained silent. Tired, he had nothing to say. “How... How will it happen?” he asked her at last, coldly and without emotion. “I will take you by the hand,” she replied, looking him straight in the eye. “I will take you by the hand and lead you across the meadow, through a cold and wet fog.” “And after? What is there beyond the fog?” “Nothing,” she replied, smiling. “After that, there is nothing.”
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski
    Świat się zmienia, słońce zachodzi, a wódka się kończy [The world is changing, sun is setting and we're running out of Vodka.]
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski

  7. #5
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-12-20
    Posts
    4,540
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    Inspired from: here

    Democracy, as derived from Ancient Greece, is an extension of Aristocracy. Aristocracy is the selection of a group of people who represent any given 'Society'. However different societies, peoples, and nations select representatives by different means, and by different reasoning. For example, who (which group) should govern a Nation: should this person be male/female, one race/ethnicity/phenotype over another? What should his IQ be? What should his attitude be? Who should share power, many or a few?

    From recent ABF discussions, there is a comparison between Elitism (ie. Fascism) and Egalitarianism (ie. Communism), as a rule by One opposed by a rule by Many. Perhaps this is nothing more than a matter of preference, rather than necessity?

    However Aristocracy, and Democratic-Republikan ideal representation, imposes a mix between the two. I would argue further: Aristocracy and Democracy are very much the same concept, and ultimately must impose a type of Nobility class, whereas Fascism and Communism do not, per se. These are topics revolving around Class Mobility in society & politicks.

    I claim that Aristocracy is the original ideal of Democracy: Not all should vote! Not all should govern! For example, children are 'Irresponsible'. And adults are 'Responsible'. Therefore children should not govern society and adults should govern society.
    nope aristocracy and democracy aren't the same, you can have aristocracy in a democracy but when you have aristocracy without democracy you have an oligarchy.
    also communism isn't the only form of egalitarianism and facism has a equality among the national group, democracy is also about equality but political one not material one,
    infact communism is just an inflexible material focused form of democracy, and the funniest of all is that anarchists who are supposed to be against authority tend to use democracy when it comes to making decisions as the fairest of all systems lol.

    i dissagree there should be an specific entity, be it a social class or an individual governing others, i believe that the strongest eventualy will be the one making the decisions and affecting others, be it democracy, communism, facism or monarchy.

    the difference is that systems like oligarchy or pseudomonarchy are herreditary and they fail in exactly the same way many rich kids tend to be failures despite the wealth of their parrents, democracy on the other hand has no herreditary concept of power, its actualy like having a real monarchy (or oligarchy) with practical rules and moral restrictions.
    and while as i have said a democracy is bound to be the "average situation" while monarchy tends to the extremes, these goverment systems differ not on what they can achieve, but on how people percieve them.

    as a free man i can only accept to be governed by people i have chosen, and while i could easily imagine myself as a monarch, as everybody could, i feel that its better to have more free men than people who suffer from a "subjects mentality".

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    This is contrary to Libertarian ideals, such that, people ought to become afforded "Rights", whether as Liberal Rights and Entitlements, or as "Innate Human Rights". In this way, (Negative) liberal rights can contradict the ideals of Aristocracy and Democracy by presuming one is born with various entitlements to Rule over others. These entitlements are not 'earned' per se; they are innate and immobile. One can become born-into status & prestige, earned by no means except that of Superficial traits (ie. Beauty markers, Racial/Ethnic Supremacy).

    But this does not address the question/problem of: who should vote, to begin with??

    Who agrees/disagrees with this?

    (PS. Positive Rights are known as: Duties and Obligations.)
    i dissagree, i think where we begin has no connection to where we end up.
    think of jesus parabole about the "bad son" or the "vineyard workers" and you'll get what i mean :P

  8. #6
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2011-06-29
    Posts
    6,555
    Gender

    Default

    I see both sides of this. Producing and raising future generations is a critical contribution to your nation, no doubt. However, there are many others. What of the childless man who fights in a war, or his childless surviving widow when he is killed? What of the childless scientist who advances technology to give his nation a competitive advantage against others? What of the childless teachers who educate, and police who enforce order in society? Any of them could be infertile, or gay, or whatever.

    Conversely, what of the irresponsible parent who spawns a pack of delinquents on the government dole, who burden society's welfare systems and prisons?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to amerinese For This Useful Post:

    larali (2011-08-15)

  10. #7
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-12-20
    Posts
    4,540
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    the goal of the system/government is to provide as many rights as possible while providing as few obligations as possible too.
    isn't this an economical definition or smt?
    "reaching the best possible outcome with the fewest possible effort"

    (i felt tempted to throw a racist based joke but i wont! :P)

  11. #8
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2011-05-09
    Posts
    3,945
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ageladakos View Post
    i feel that its better to have more free men than people who suffer from a "subjects mentality".
    That's a good point. On a micro level, a nation of citizens harboring an inferiority complex will never be as productive as a nation of free people.

    Producing and raising children is hard work but it's by no means the only thing that makes a person valuable to society. All of us perform different functions.

    I would hope the doctor that keeps my family healthy has his rightful say too, even (especially) if he chooses his work over breeding.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to larali For This Useful Post:

    ageladakos (2011-08-15), amerinese (2011-08-15)

  13. #9
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2011-06-29
    Posts
    6,555
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by larali View Post
    That's a good point. On a micro level, a nation of citizens harboring an inferiority complex will never be as productive as a nation of free people.

    Producing and raising children is hard work but it's by no means the only thing that makes a person valuable to society. All of us perform different functions.

    I would hope the doctor that keeps my family healthy has his rightful say too, even (especially) if he chooses his work over breeding.
    I agree on this point, although I would say that I trust pediatricians who are also parents, over those who aren't.

    I know you're a parent and also have a special thing for pediatricians, so I'm interested to get your feedback on this.

  14. #10
    Established Member
    Turboslavic Caveman Pioterus's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-30 @ 07:14
    Join Date
    2010-12-21
    Posts
    2,511
    Location
    Lasy Pomorza
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1a1 (A2423+)
    mtDNA
    U3a1a(1)
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    laissez faire
    Religion
    Metalhead
    Poland Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    Just 5 cents on the reproduction thing.

    There are many job positions (managerial mainly) that you are not going to be hired to unless you have children, it's reality. Some companies don't want to have highly positioned people who cannot even give as much of themselves as a dedication to another (tiny) human being.

    Also I would never call a mother of child / children an "unproductive member of society" so in my opinion being full time mother (or ofc being mother and making career) is definitely a voting right point 1. and 3. gained at once.

    My tiny one is just waking up, so give me a sec

    OK, he still sleeps...

    Also refusing people like Turing from society was not the brightest idea, my opinion here is - I do not have any idea as to how to make it tick... and still make such people living their own lives to the fullest.

    Hyperboloids of wondrous Light
    Rolling for aye through Space and Time
    Harbour those Waves which somehow Might
    Play out God's holy pantomime
    Last edited by Pioterus; 2011-08-15 at 15:47.
    and the IEEE Milestone for breaking the Enigma Code goes to... Polish Cipher Bureau 1932-39

    “We know each other,” he agreed. “They say that you follow in my steps.”
    “I go my own way. But you, you had never, until just now, looked behind you. You turned back today for the first time.”
    Geralt remained silent. Tired, he had nothing to say. “How... How will it happen?” he asked her at last, coldly and without emotion. “I will take you by the hand,” she replied, looking him straight in the eye. “I will take you by the hand and lead you across the meadow, through a cold and wet fog.” “And after? What is there beyond the fog?” “Nothing,” she replied, smiling. “After that, there is nothing.”
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski
    Świat się zmienia, słońce zachodzi, a wódka się kończy [The world is changing, sun is setting and we're running out of Vodka.]
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Pioterus For This Useful Post:

    larali (2011-08-15)

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Weakness of Democracy
    By Papa Anodyne in forum Current Affairs & Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2011-04-06, 14:14
  2. Politickal Dispute: Democracy!?!
    By Unome in forum Politics & Law
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2011-03-19, 20:09
  3. Democracy, the best way?
    By Fedex in forum Politics & Law
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 2011-02-26, 22:12
  4. The origins of European nobility/aristocracy
    By Wojewoda in forum History
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 2010-08-05, 14:07
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-02-22, 13:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<