Miscellany21: The Fatal Flaw of Democracy; More on the
Imminent Demise of the
© 2006 Joseph George Caldwell. All
rights reserved. Posted at Internet web
sites http://www.foundation.bw and http://www.foundationwebsite.org
. May be copied or reposted for non-commercial
use, with attribution. (
Commentary on recent news, reading and events of personal interest.
For years I have been writing against the use of democracy as a basis for running anything important, such as a ship, an airplane, a country, or a planet. It is a good scheme only for running organizations that are highly homogeneous and of little significance, where most people have the same views and the issues to be decided are basically unimportant. The fatal flaw of democracy – that the leaders will pander to the gross desires of the masses – was pointed out 2500 years ago by Plato in The Republic.
The people to whom I have expressed my views on democracy
have invariably been surprised, if not shocked, at my views. Democracy is viewed by most people, especially
A few days ago, my wife was reading an editorial by Walter Williams in the March 5 issue of the Spartanburg Herald-Journal. She turned to me and said that I would enjoy the article – Williams was saying the same things that I have been saying for years. She was right. Williams’ article, “Don’t wish democracy on anyone,” was an excellent summary of the terrible shortcomings of democracy. Here follows Williams’ editorial.
Don’t wish democracy on anyone, by Walter Williams
High up on my list of annoyances are references to the
Our nation’s Founders had disdain for democracy and majority rule. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said that in a pure democracy “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Chief Justice John Marshall said, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
The Founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered under King George III. Their vision for us was a republic.
Tyranny of the majority
But let’s cut to
Democracy, what the Bush administration calls for, is different. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws aren’t necessarily based on reason but power. In other words, democracy is just another form of tyranny – tyranny of the majority.
The ideal political model for
The Swiss cantonal system enables people of different ethnicity, language, culture and religion to live in peace with one another.
By the way, for President Bush and others who insist on calling our country a democracy, should we change our Pledge of Allegiance to say “ to the democracy, for which it stands,” and should we rename “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” to “The Battle Hymn of the Democracy?”
Walter Williams is a columnist with Creator’s Syndicate. His e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org .
Why Is President George Bush Promoting Democracy?
Plato expressed contempt for democracy in the strongest
possible terms. The Founding Fathers of
US leaders such as Bush and his Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza
Rice, are not uneducated. They have
surely been exposed to the arguments against democracy, in their college
educations. They have seen how it can
result in undesired results, such as in the case of
So what is their motive in promoting democracy? The
I have written recently on the fact that the
The end result of allowing mass immigration and massive
international free trade is the transformation of the
Because of massive international free trade, the
So what is being done about this situation, in which we are
importing massive amounts of goods from third-world countries such as
With international trade, there is always an eventual balance. If we import more than we export for a long time, the value of our currency must fall relative to that of our trading partners. Or, as is currently happening, we can let our foreign trading partners use their dollars to buy our assets, such as our land and our companies.
After the collapse of the port sale, President Bush warned
that the failure of the sale could be bad for the
President Bush would have been more honest with the American
people if he had simply said that massive international free trade would be bad
for the US – at least, for the American middle class. The motivation to exchange our ports and
other assets for the dollars that we have spent overseas is but a symptom of
the underlying cause: the massive trade deficit that massive international free
trade has caused. The situation will not
A tragically comic scene occurred a couple of weeks ago
during Bush’s visit to
Here is an interesting quotation from a recent article by James Howard Kunstler (“Inflection,” posted at the SynEarth / Community of Minds website, http://solutions.synearth.net/20060306/ ):
“The current scandal in the US about the Dubai-based company being invited to run US port facilities only underscores America's weakness, our feckless pretense that there is no fundamental conflict between Islam and the west, that we are so generous, open-minded, good-willed, and self-confident that even the boundaries of political common sense have dissolved. Of course, some Americans may be wondering why we can't find any American company to run American ports. But the American press is too stupid to even ask that question.”
President Bush has
declared repeatedly since the ports scandal broke that there will be no loss of
security if the UAE-owned company took over the
The situation is
comically absurd. The US Coast Guard is
running around in patrol boats looking for “threats” to our security. What are they looking for? Some Haitians and Cubans in boats, trying to
reach American soil (where, once they do, they are instantly granted refuge by
our idiotic government)? But the much
larger threat is all of the millions of tons of cargo hidden from view in
containers. It is just a matter of time
until a nuclear bomb is smuggled into a
The world is now divided essentially between two basic cultures – the technologically savvy industrial “haves,” who are materialistically wealthy, and the rest, who are materialistically poor. Bush saw no danger in giving control of US ports to the UAE since he viewed them as part of his own culture – the very rich. They have the same vested interest – make money, no matter that the Earth’s environment is being destroyed by large human numbers and industrial activity, and that we will pass a destroyed biosphere to our children, if they survive at all. It is not the oil-rich sheikhs who seek to destroy us, it is their impoverished countrymen.
When an illegal immigrant is captured, all that is
determined is whether he is wanted for a crime other than illegal immigration.
If illegal immigration is his only crime, he is released. The facts that this person has illegally invaded
the country, and that his presence here will increase the level of industrial
activity, destroy more natural land, increase overcrowding, and ultimately
destroy our culture, are not considerations.
Large human numbers and industrial activity are destroying the biosphere, but this does not matter to the wealthy who control the planet. They are concerned only with their own material wealth, and have no concern either for the welfare of other life (human or otherwise) on the planet today, or for the welfare of those who will inherit it from us. The current system of mass industrialization is about to collapse, as the world runs out of petroleum. As this happens, control of the planet will pass to others who, it is hoped, will have primary concern for the biosphere. When this occurs, there will be a severe backlash against those who have raped the planet and brought destruction to the biosphere for their own greedy purposes. This backlash will come both from nature, as it reacts to the industrial pollution of the planet, and from those who are angered at the planetary destruction that industrial society has wrought. Our venal leaders have destroyed our way of life and our planet. As the Bible says, those who destroy the Earth will be destroyed. Let us hope that this happens before we are all destroyed.
I recently saw an ad on television in which a young person points out that “we” have about a 200-year supply of coal. The young person refers the viewer to a website, http://www.learnaboutcoal.org . Referring to the planet’s coal deposits as a “200-year supply” implies without question that the intention or desire or suggestion is to use all of it within the next 200 years.
The key issue here is that if coal can only last for 200 years, and will then all be gone, what is the point of using it, and becoming dependent on it, and then having to do without it? It would be far better if we recognized that the supply was limited, and that we will have to do something else after it is gone. So why not do that now?
The ad neglected to mention that burning of fossil fuels is responsible for introducing large amounts of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. At the rate at which the carbon dioxide levels are rising and the planet’s atmosphere is warming, life as we know it is unlikely to exist if we use the 200-year supply of coal.
It is absolutely amazing to behold the intense stupidity of our leaders, in proposing actions that are (1) unsustainable; and (2) will destroy the planet as we know it.
I heard on television a few weeks ago that the
When the War in
The same thing happened recently with respect to Hurricane
Katrina. It was initially reported that
blacks had lost their property to a much greater extent than whites. Once again, the media made a big issue of
this, and railed against the unfairness of it.
But then, it was determined that in fact whites had suffered losses out
of proportion to their representation in the
Not too long ago, Mayor Ray Nagin of
I receive e-mails from time to time informing me that the
Why is it that the
It is understandable why any group might seek to weaken any other group that was more powerful than they, to promote their self interest. Lots of groups, Jewish or otherwise, do that. We have done it ourselves. So there is nothing very remarkable about that. What is the more interesting question is why white society accommodates the relentless attack on its culture and political power by mass immigration and news and entertainment that are strongly biased against it. After several decades of mass immigration, multiculturalism, tolerance, inclusiveness, and news and entertainment that depict white culture in a negative way, white culture has been seriously weakened. It is in the process of committing cultural suicide, and it has almost succeeded. That is the really interesting question. What is it about white society, and in particular about white Anglo-Saxon culture, that makes it predisposed to committing cultural suicide (what is happening to white “British” society in the US is also happening in Canada, Australia and other former white British colonies, as well as in Britain itself)?
The news and entertainment media never criticize nonwhite US
subcultures or races who attempt to promote their well being, such as the Jews,
the Latinos, the blacks, the Asians – any group but white society. These groups may be as racist as they please,
but never a murmur of criticism is heard from the news and entertainment
media. How long will white society
continue to tolerate the relentless assault on its culture? It is appropriate to ask the
You hear a lot today about identity theft. The most useful piece of information for an identity thief is your Social Security Number (SSN). It is so useful because it is used by an overwhelming majority of organizations as a unique numerical identifier. We are cautioned not to give our Social Security Number as an identifier, yet doing so will assuredly result in the loss of access to many modern services.
A few weeks ago, Ameriprise, the American Express financial management company, notified me that a computer had been stolen containing a large number of Social Security Numbers of its clients, including mine. They cautioned me to watch my investment reports from them very closely, because my private data had been compromised.
I recently purchased some medical insurance from a firm, AARP Health Care Options / United HealthCare Insurance Company. I was pleased that, with this company, I was not required to release my SSN when I filed a claim. My comfort in this was short-lived, however, for the first time that I used it, the service provider – a local medical group – insisted that I release my SSN to them. I explained that this was not required by my insurance company – that the SSN was not my identifier. When they still insisted on it, I explained that releasing one’s SSN was one of the worst things he could do, from the point of view of reducing vulnerability to identity theft. The doctor’s office representative assured me that no unauthorized person would have access to my records. I explained that they certainly would, as soon as their computer system was stolen or otherwise compromised, as had just happened with my financial services company. The doctor’s rep told me that they just wanted to know my SSN for identification purposes. I explained that I would be very pleased to show it to her, as long as it was not entered in the database. She then informed me that they would not submit my claim to my insurance company, without the SSN.
At that point, I was very puzzled, and I telephoned my insurance company. The lady on the line assured me that they did not need my SSN at all – that all that was needed was my name, address, and date of birth. This lady agreed to explain this to the doctor’s rep, and she did. The doctor’s rep then informed me that it did not matter that the insurance company did not want the SSN, and that they would not file my claim without it.
She did not explain why this was the doctor’s position, but I surmise that the doctor’s office is submitting all claims electronically to a “claims broker,” or “intermediary,” who receives claims from many doctor’s offices and then files them with the insurance companies. As long as everyone uses the SSN as a universal identifier, their work is simplified.
The argument that it is damaging to me to release my SSN was of no interest to or concern of the physician’s office. The fact that I am much more vulnerable to identity theft if my SSN is widely known is, in fact, not of interest to anyone who asks me for it. When the SSN was introduced as part of the Social Security Act of 1935, there was a public outcry against it, on the grounds that it would become a universal identifier. The government promised that this would not be allowed to happen – that it would be required to be given to employers (for tax withholding), banks and the Social Security System (for claims). What a lie!