Democracy is Stockholm syndrome.
1 2018-09-25 by RMFN
We are led to believe though state indoctrination that we have a say in how the state functions. This is false. We are led by the Fabian Wolf. We are given a dialectic, two choices chosen by the same hand. Left and right, same body. Representative Democracy such as the one in the United States are instated to appease people into thinking they have a decision making power through discourse and democratic process. This is a facade used by all authoritarian beurocracies thoroughout history. We are the courtiers called to Versallies by Lois. Not so that we may govern more effectively. So that we can be controlled.
Voting for a leader is weak. It only shows that the person with the slimiest tongue can rise to the top. It ensures no true merit. A leader must not be chosen by the people. A leader must be chosen by their deeds. The only divine force that can be seen and easily explained in the material realm is that of victory. The concept of victory houses within it a Calvinist predetermination that echoes of primitivism and superstition. But is that truly the case? I would argue that victory in all forms is in fact divine. (Not to be mistaken with divinely influenced.) A person who is a victor in a competition, for instance arm wrestling, is the winner. In such a situation there is either a winner or a loser. The winner wins. This bestows them with the grace of the goddess Nike. From earliest times contest has determined kingship. We must return to what has always worked. "Modern" methods of selecting sovereigns have allowed money to seep into politics. This is the great fault of our time. What system elevates money from how a leader is chosen?
Victory.
In Frazier's mandatory reading, The Golden Bough, he describes the legend of the, Rex Nemorensis, or King of the Wood. This person was the high priest of Diana; from Wikipedia, which actually has a phenomenal small segment on this
"The priesthood of Diana at Nemi was held by a person who obtained that honour by slaying the prior incumbent in a trial by combat, and who could remain at the post only so long as he successfully defended his position against all challengers. However, a successful candidate had first to test his mettle by plucking a golden bough from one of the trees in the sacred grove.
The human sacrifice conducted at Nemi was thought to be highly unusual by the ancients. Suetonius mentions it as an example of the moral failings of Caligula. Strabo calls it Scythian, implying that he found it barbaric. The violent character of this singular institution could barely be justified by reference to its great antiquity and mythological sanctity. The ancient sources also appear to concur that an escaped slave who seeks refuge in this uneasy office is likely to be a desperate man."
"Those trees in whose dim shadow
The ghastly priest doth reign
The priest who slew the slayer,
And shall himself be slain"
In this legend any person may rise to the top of that particular priesthood through deed alone, plucking the bough, and slaying the sitting King.
We must transcend our slavery. Anarcho monarchist principals can produce a state in which any individual is equal, even to the king. Every individual has the opportunity to become king. Through the yearly round robin of arm wrestling and competitive slam poetry. We must free ourselves from the Stockholm syndrome of democracy. It is up to us to take control of the future.
26 comments
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25
Cool so we go from the person with the "Slimiest" tongue to the guy who is the best warrior.
Surely the guy who is the best warrior is also the best leader, right?
No way this could go terribly wrong... Nope... No further exposition.
Everyone meet the new ruler Connor Mcgregor.
1 RMFN 2018-09-25
I was giving an example. Not saying we need to emulate ancient Rome. But a show of true leadership is much more valuable than a popularity contest.
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25
What if we had a representative democracy and people would vote for the candidate who best represented their values to govern people regardless of party affiliation?
1 RMFN 2018-09-25
That would be backwards. I want a society that evolves and progresses.
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25
If more people voted and voted based on record instead of feels we could accomplish this.
1 Enigmatism415 2018-09-25
How about we ban political parties and campaign contributions?
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25
I think that is a much better solution than some sort of American gladiator based election system.
1 Enigmatism415 2018-09-25
And to make sure that wealthy candidates don't wield an advantage over poor ones, they shouldn't be allowed to pay for ads and tv spots. The government will provide a public forum wherein each candidate has equal exposure to the masses. They can make speeches and debate each other, and a website can list all their beliefs and promises.
1 RMFN 2018-09-25
Nice fantasy. I like mine better.
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25
I completely and totally agree with you. Money in politics is a huge problem.
To play the devils advocate though how does the government ensure equal exposure if hundreds or thousands of people decide to run?
1 Enigmatism415 2018-09-25
They just have to provide all the recordings online, I guess. As for debates, both sides can volunteer for them and have them recorded. They can also be grouped by belief to make it easier for voters. For example, voters could take a quiz which would lead them to smaller pools of candidates who are more like-minded. It's like making an order on Amazon and filtering the properties you want and don't want.
1 Enigmatism415 2018-09-25
inb4 'it's not perfect but it's the best we have', which could have also justified using leeches to treat disease at one time.
I'm a supporter of meritocratic technocratic democracy void of financial incentive and political parties. Votes must be earned.
1 RMFN 2018-09-25
Should all be permitted to vote?
1 Enigmatism415 2018-09-25
All should be permitted to have the chance to qualify to vote. Their aptitude must first be evaluated. If approved, they join a giant 'senate' of sorts and vote from home on various issues and in accordance with their area of expertise if that particular issue demands it. There is no financial remuneration; it is voluntary public service. Bribes are severely punishable and conflict with one's career will be evaluated; you can't vote on things that will affect your revenue stream.
1 RMFN 2018-09-25
I kinda like that.
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25
How would we decide what kind of aptitude tests would be applied?
1 Enigmatism415 2018-09-25
Making sure the prospective voter has a broad understanding of history and how politics, economics, etc function. Nothing above an expected secondary school education.
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25
Its not that I dont agree with you but just to play the devils advocate you are basically saying college educated liberals will deciding policy.
Red state highschool educated voters will be shit out of luck and the votes will become overwhelmingly liberal as only college educated get the vote.
1 Enigmatism415 2018-09-25
This level of education (high school) should be a legal requirement for everyone to begin with, leftists, rightists, and centrists alike.
By the way, I went to a very liberal university and I'm not very liberal. Mature adults can tune out bullshit without falling for it.
1 HibikiSS 2018-09-25
It can take quite some time for people to get used to the idea of the whole system being corrupt.
1 tiberius_regulus 2018-09-25
I like your idea but I would add another step to finding who truly deserves to rule. A trial by combat but also a trial by heroic deed. Taking a life and saving a life. It is imperative that a true leader needs to have the ability and heroism to do both. One with out the other just leads to a tyrant or weak bribable leader eventually.
1 beaver_shots 2018-09-25
I don't think the problem is the concept of a representative democracy. The problem is in its implementation and how its gotten so far out of hand.
People have become lazy in ever aspect of life and ignorant of how their own government works (or doesn't). Most people I've met that are interested in politics enough to even cast a vote are single issue voters or identity voters who like the us vs them emotion politics for the drama alone.
I would suggest we try using technology to make the entire political world more transparent. Estonia is experimenting with using blockchain tech to shift all things political online.
https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/i-voting/
We can't expect the average person who has engagements of their own like work and family to be engaged enough to directly vote on every issue under the sun. More transparency in what exactly their elected representatives are doing and an ability to hold them accountable for for not taking their constitutes best interests into account would be a really good start.
1 RMFN 2018-09-25
Damn. Estonia is badass...
1 beaver_shots 2018-09-25
Yeah its really interesting what they are doing over there.
Imagine everything your reps were supposed to cast a vote on was up for your consideration and easy to see online in real time? Hell they could even have direct polling of the people they are meant to represent as well. Their vote and the polls visible to all. Why didn't they vote what their supporters wanted? They better explain that or face getting the boot come election time.
Get big money out of politics. The way it all works now is that if you want a snowballs chance in hell to get into an elected seat you need a large amount of money to run a campaign. You need to have your own money or get donation from people who support you. This is what is really meant when you hear "grassroots" its the idea that regular slobs gave this person a few bucks. What normally happens is some people with lots of money and special interests give lots of money then have some level of say in what the elected person does after they get into office. Pretty shitty particularly when it comes to big corps.
Make it all online with a series of vote offs. Everyone could run for office this way and just keep voting off till clearly popular people rise to the top. If it was fast and secure to vote there is no issue with this.
1 jiohdi1960 2018-09-25
I have always heard/read that the problem with direct democracy is the inevitable tendance for the masses to vote themselves money from future generations or to just plain steal it from anyone they decide they can steal it from... ie taxation which of course is legalized theft.
1 neverwinterblight 2018-09-25
We live in a republic where we can vote for who represents us.
We are given a few options during primaries where ultimately the candidate with the most money receives the most exposure and thus the most votes.
The money is received from PACs and lobbyists who care nothing for us.
The representative is selected and if they want to reign they have to play ball.
Money out of politics is the key to all of this. But what about those who would skirt those laws and set up private charities and foundations instead? Or maybe they have an LLC where money could easily be laundered.
Capitalism and lawyers got us into this mess. It will be difficult to trust any politician again.
You can say it’s up to the citizens to research, but we’re kept busy with jobs and a life that we don’t have the time to vet everyone, and these days we’re taught not to trust anyone who isn’t a mainstream source to “vet” these candidates; sources who also happen to be corporately owned.
Bottom line: we lose
1 RMFN 2018-09-25
I was giving an example. Not saying we need to emulate ancient Rome. But a show of true leadership is much more valuable than a popularity contest.
1 Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25
What if we had a representative democracy and people would vote for the candidate who best represented their values to govern people regardless of party affiliation?
1 RMFN 2018-09-25
That would be backwards. I want a society that evolves and progresses.
1 Enigmatism415 2018-09-25
How about we ban political parties and campaign contributions?