Democracy

[Guest]

So like what did she say then?

Perro, give me more to go on. What didn't you get? P.

 

[cantdog]

Okay, I getcha about types of families.

But Bush is no idealist about democracy.

He just wants money and power. He lies to the people who are, democratically speaking, his constituents. He does it in order to deceive them and skew their ideas enough to remove the threat an informed vote would represent to his money-seeking and power-hunger.

He said he was bringing democracy to Afghanistan, but that was not the point and it was not what happened. Ditto and even more so in Iraq. And Haiti.

He doesn't give two shits for democracy, except to oppose it.

 

[Guest]

Cant, I agree. I was not going into the reality of things, just what is touted by so-called democracy pushers. P.

 

[cantdog]

Whew.

Wellah. My apologies, then. You elided so much I got dropped off at the first corner. I am up to speed now.

And isn't it wonderful when the true wishes of people (to make themselves miserably married like everyone else) get fulfilled? I found it so heartening to see the folks lined up out there in the rain from all over the country hoping for a marriage before the fundies call out the National Guard.

It's a year now since they let it happen in Canada, where the sky has not fallen nor yet the brimstone rained from on high.

But our govco is mourning it! Crying in their sworn-off beer to see people embrace a cherished dream.

God love us! What a place. Do we actually get the government we deserve? If so, how can I do better and deserve a little better?

 

[minsue]

In my view. I think we have more of a monetocracy right now: one dollar, one vote.

cantdog

Plutocracy

(feelin helpful this morning )

 

[rgraham666]

A plutocracy is defined as a society governed but the Other Golden Rule.

To whit: Him what has the gold, makes the rules.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Democracy is like kinky sex. Everyone talks about it all the time and believes that will be the thing to bring everyone together but no one actually wants to get to enveloped by it. Hence republics, they're like bondage with safe words.

 

[Guest]

Jeezuss (pardon me), Luc. That's the worst simile and explanation I've read in years. Makes both democracy and sex very unattractive.

Perdita

 

[Pure]

Gauche said,

"I've just been looking up reference for the fall of the Roman Empire and hopefully without derailing the thread entirely came up with Gibbons' 5 reasons for that occurrence."

First: Rapid increase of divorce, with the undermining of the sanctity of the home, which is the basis of society.

Second: Higher and higher taxes; the spending of money for bread and celebrations.

Third: The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more exciting and more brutal.

Fourth: The building of gigantic armaments, when the real enemy was within; the decadence of the people.

Fifth: The decay of religion; faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to guide it.
=====

Gauche: "Sound familiar? or just really scary?"

=============

Sounds suspicious. I've seen this alleged list of Gibbon in the sermons of hundreds of Christian preachers. Please give a page reference in Gibbon.

Is it supposed to be a quotation, or someone's paraphrase?

My guess is that it's bogus: Why would Gibbon, an atheist, be thinking that 'decay of religion' or impotence of faith are factors that can undermine a civilization??

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Um, forgive my basic Roman History. But wasn't the biggest factor that they had too much border and not enough troops so that Barbarian Tribes could get close to the main cities without much combat. That and the fact that most of the army was made of "conquered peoples".

To perdita sorry if I made sex unattractive.

 

[Pure]

Perdita said,

Christian religions in the U.S. (including our prez and many in the govt. and other nations and organizations) keep saying "the nuclear family" is the foundation for society, but a family is the least democratic unit I know, and rightly so; all children are bound to rebel and escape, it's part of the plan.

I honestly don't get democracy. It's just an idea and can only be practiced by willing participants (or victims). Single-parent families and gay marriage are proof that the nuclear family is a societal construct. Obviously it upsets those who believe in the ideal of democracy.

I'm not sure if this is saying the 'family' model might be more suitable than a 'democratic' one. Most families--'nuclear' or not--have been rather authoritarian, typically patriarchal; often with father having life/death powers. Which is why the kids have to escape.

The political system with this property is fascism.

In religious communities, one sometimes sees a 'one big family' concept, and again that usually goes with authoritarian (but consensual) structures and even 'totalitarianism' ones in the sense of total control.

I have no idea whether 'nuclear family' is a 'societal construct'. My impression is that it's not a common configuration, if one means mom, dad, two kids, a dog, in a house of their own, no parents, aunts, etc. (I suspect P will agree with this.) I gather it existed in the 1950s in the United States, but now represents only a minority of US family structures.

No one has yet bothered to say what 'democracy' is or might be.
Historically (classical Greece; US at its founding) it seems to be some arrangement whereby an executive committee of well-to-do white males, through some mode of consultation, makes decisions in the interests of ("representing") the whole class of well-to-do white males. The proviso being that this committee has some procedure--beyond heredity-- for turnover; replacement of members from among the pool, in a manner satisfactory to the members of the pool. Hence Bush, Skull and Bones, Yale, may be replaced by Kerry, Skull and Bones, Yale.

If democracy refers to government by a 'people' (more than the well to do white males + adjuncts), i.e., everyone, or every adult; all having 'equal' input/influence, I'm not sure it's ever existed.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

There has never been a true democracy. The closest was, as you pointed out, Ancient Greece. Everything that everyone points out as the shining star of democracy is a republic and that's textbook definition. It's where the populace elects the guy with the best hair and smoothest lies to screw them and handle the thinking for the country.

(And now before I get the "Luc is an anti-American commie pinko rat" crap, let me just say. Republics may not be utopic, but we've seen a shitload worse and they seems to dilute greed better than most systems. Furthermore, in case anyone is laboring under any misgivings, utopia means nowhere.)

 

[Guest]

I'm not sure if this is saying the 'family' model might be more suitable than a 'democratic' one. Most families--'nuclear' or not--have been rather authoritarian, typically patriarchal; often with father having life/death powers. Which is why the kids have to escape.
. . .
I have no idea whether 'nuclear family' is a 'societal construct'. My impression is that it's not a common configuration, if one means mom, dad, two kids, a dog, in a house of their own, no parents, aunts, etc. (I suspect P will agree with this.) I gather it existed in the 1950s in the United States, but now represents only a minority of US family structures.

I was merely going on a tangent off Gauche’s introductory sentences: “Isn't the intent of democracy that it will always try to destroy itself? Somebody famous said something along the lines of "It is the duty of every citizen to question (challenge?) the state."

I did not mean the family model is more suitable than a democratic one, but merely wanted to point out that it is held in high esteem by Christians and our government and yet the nature of ‘the family’ is to “destroy itself”, e.g., the children must break away. Destroy is too harsh a word, but when children grow up (and/or parents die off) the family naturally comes undone (no matter the holiday dinners and other social functions that regather everyone and more often than not are not enjoyed).

As for the patriarchal, it really doesn’t matter whether the family is run by a father or mother, children must grow up and break away.

How can you not think it a societal construct? The nuclear family comes out of religion and law. I don’t know that it’s the minority even now; nonetheless it’s still touted as the ideal foundation for a democratic society, and in many other non-democratic societies.

This isn’t an argument from me, just clarifying my statements.

Perdita

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Nothing to add. Just wanted to say,

"Nice post, P."

~lucky

 

[Belegon]

I have no idea whether 'nuclear family' is a 'societal construct'. My impression is that it's not a common configuration, if one means mom, dad, two kids, a dog, in a house of their own, no parents, aunts, etc. (I suspect P will agree with this.) I gather it existed in the 1950s in the United States, but now represents only a minority of US family structures.

If my efforts to find a house with a "gramacita" or "granny shack" are any indication, it is becoming even more rare to have extended family living with you.

I'm trying to find a house with a guest house style set up for my 80+ year old grandmother and having no luck. We may have to buy a place with enough land and build one.

 

[Pure]

P, thanks for the clarification. We do agree that it's odd to appeal to the 'nuclear family' as a model of 'right organization' or of a good political process. I suppose extended families or clans have been a basis of some societies. Iraq, I'm told.
====

Gibbon, as to Decline and Fall.

There's a lot about Gibbon on the 'net, once one gets aways from the Christian homilists' alleged "Five reasons" list. They appear to be all parroting one another, as do the propagators of 'urban myths'.

Note, here is what appears to be an actual quotation from Gibbon, regarding reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.

(no page ref, but from 'midway' in his six volumes, so it is said)

'New Criterion' appears to be a conservative magazine and website, somewhat Christian, but of a scholarly bent.


http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/15/jun97/gibbon.htm

Excerpts from a review and analysis of Gibbon's book
The New Criterion, online

Edward Gibbon & the Enlightenment


by Keith Windschuttle


In the summary of the fall of Rome that he gives midway through his opus, Gibbon includes “the abuse of Christianity” as one of the causes.

{Gibbon being quoted}
The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the
active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloyster: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. . . . the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from the camps to the synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.

Perhaps the "Five Reasons" is a cleaned up and re shaped version of the above, by some Christian evangelist, intent on NOT mentioning Christianity as a contributor to the fall, in Gibbon's view.

 

[gauchecritic]

As ever Pure you strive manfully for correction, correlation and and clarification of the set up and then gleefully ignore the whole point of the post: The Punchline.

The only reason I did any of the research was for the fact of mild aphasia on my part. I was searching for the word 'decadence' and "knowing" this to be one of the apriori reasons for the "decline and fall of the Roman Empire" I simply googled that phrase and lo and behold the word struck me in the first or second paragraph.

Then I noticed, further down the page, the list of reasons. This struck me as most amusing and so took it at face value because it stated that this is what Gibbons wrote. So I copied and pasted in the vain hope that readers would find it amusing. Am I losing my touch? Naa, you just didn't geddit.

Gauche

 

[Pure]

Gauche said

..."decline and fall of the Roman Empire" I simply googled that phrase and lo and behold the word struck me in the first or second paragraph.

Then I noticed, further down the page, the list of reasons. This struck me as most amusing and so took it at face value because it stated that this is what Gibbons wrote. So I copied and pasted in the vain hope that readers would find it amusing. Am I losing my touch? Naa, you just didn't geddit.

OK, so you agree it's likely bogus (as are many cut and pastes from the 'net), and posted it as 'amusing', either not knowing it was fake (or not caring to let anyone know).

I believe I geddit now. I trust many found it amusing, if concocted. The 'punchline', I gather, was :

Sound familiar? or just really scary?

I find Christians' moralizing tedious, esp. when they try to show superiority to Rome.

 

[cantdog]

This whole thread has been characterized by people talking at cross purposes.

I read it again. Very amusing.

The thread started with a dictionary entry on Democracy and we kept hearing that no one would define it! I couldn't see the tongue in Perdita's cheek at all and made an ass of myself, and now we have another light amusing offering torn to scholarly ribbons! This has been fun.

Republic, dammit!

Woo hoo!

cantdog

 

[Pure]

Cant said: "The thread started with a dictionary entry on Democracy "

It did?


and we kept hearing that no one would define it! "


I said it, twice.


another light amusing offering torn to scholarly ribbons!


Another ten years of serious threads till an amusing one turns up.

How awful! If ONLY there were something light around here, like "what is your mood today?"

Woo Hoo!

 

[cantdog]

I apologize, Pure, if I have offended.

 

[Pure]

I'm not offended, cant. NO apology is necessary. I'm just impatient with a view, not necessarily yours, that everything at authors should be light and fun.

 

[cantdog]

I'm here instead of the other places I could hang on the great 'net.

These people write, some better, some getting better, but they write. They think once in a while. I can find that elsewhere, but we create porn here. It leavens the earnest and deadly sincerity or the earnest mindfuck that you can find on some of the newsgroups, or other places where Olympian pronouncements and rigorous footnotes are the rule.

We already know, here, that we have feet of clay. It sets a limit to how balls-to-the-walls a discussion can get. I was once a college student and passionate about these things. I still believe they are important-- even vital, some of them-- but I no longer am willing to be racked for them. I value the community in which we discuss these things more than I did then.

Light and fun would bore me, and I don't participate in a lot of the threads here which are just that. Maybe I am a social failure at that sort of thing.

But we ought to have patience and be gentle with each other no matter what sort of urgent matter is on the table.

Plus, I am completely capable of being an ass sometimes. When this happens, I want to be able to receive forgiveness, because there is a community.



I fear the smell of burning bridges.

cantdog

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I find Christians' moralizing tedious, esp. when they try to show superiority to Rome.

They're starting low and working their way up. It's sort of like the Pentagon stating that we are at least better than Saddam when Abu Ghraib hit the fan. Besides, almost anyone could outmoralize the Romans and ditto with the damned "Holy Roman Empire". (Interesting point, Roman tactics against Christians and other fringe insurgents were duplicated by the HRE to eliminate the "new" pagans. aint morality a funny thing?)

Originally posted by cantdog
I fear the smell of burning bridges.

Let em burn, baby!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think, most thoroughly, that Democracy is as simple as the agreement of a people to subscribe to a minimalist form of governmental rule, based on the majority decision concerning those who would actually do it.

As such, I think its a great thing.

For all its faults and cracks and warts, I rather do love my country. It is a miraculous thing. Of course, I also believe that religion and morality and law are miraculous things. I'm a softie like that.