The difficulty of rulership

Democracy is the great ideal of the Western world. Is it time to assess if the great experiment is a failure?

In order to rule, a government needs to be empowered to do so by the masses. The masses of the average man elect those whom have the intelligence to run a country for the good of all. Here is the paradox- the mass has the power and empowers the minority elite to rulership. When, as always occurs, the mass disagree with a decision made by the elected elite then they remove them from power. The masses assume they know better and that a better government exists yet they offer no theories on how such should act. It is impossible for the minority to govern the masses where the masses are holding the power. Democracy effectively creates shepherds who have a thousand head of cattle as their masters. How can one shepherd ones own masters without power over them?

I have said before, when enquiring how best to run a farm then one does not ask the sheep. The recent Scottish independence vote produced a fine example of the thoughts that are present in a democratic vote. A fine clip exists of a Scottish man explaining that he wanted to vote for independence, but didn’t as he wished to retain the ability to watch Match of the Day on the BBC. If such important decisions with wide reaching consequences are swayed by the ability to view football highlights on a Saturday night, then why should we have faith that any other election is given anything near rational thought?

The major economic powers in the world right now have mere shadows of democracy to appease the masses. Perhaps we should acknowledge that the average man does not know what is best and that we can see this in Russia and China where the say of the masses is limited. By assuming the average man is wise enough to hold say over the government of country then we enter into a decadent state of declining nationality as everyone is taken to an average level.

Whom wishes to be average?

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The difficulty of rulership

  1. Of course, the ultimate question we have to ask when determining if democracy is a failure, is what was the goal of democracy?

    If someone asked you, “Do you have the right to determine your self, to determine what you will do with your life, what religion you will follow, what laws you will abide to be held over you, and are you the best person to decide this or do you believe that someone else has the better ability to dictate how you live your life, where, and by what means and with what beliefs?” The answer to that determines if democracy is a success.

    If you say “yes, I have that right and ability, I can determine my own goals in life, I chose what morals and gods I believe in, whom I shall love, and how I shall live.” Then democracy is the answer in governance. The masses have the power, and while the few run the day to day ruling, by being able to remove them at the mass’s pleasure, we allow for a government that (for better or worse) allows people the most right for self-determination.

    If however, you say “No, I do not have the right or ability to determine my goals, or what is best for me. I believe that someone else is better qualified to tell me who i love, or what morals and gods I shall have. that others should choose without my regard, what laws and means I shall live under.” Then democracy is a failure.

    So ultimately, do you believe that the few, to whom you may not belong or agree with, should be able to dictate your life regardless of your voice in the name of efficiency, or do you believe that you can chose your own path in life, and give everyone that right to safeguard yours, so that you may live freely regardless of whatever powerful minority manages to gain control?

    1. I must disagree. To credit the masses with having the intellect and honesty to select governments that are best placed is reliant upon the majority- whom are, by default, average- thus places the control in the hands of those least likely to be someone you would turn to in order to run a business.

      To not need to be told how to live is the mandate of strength. If you have that strength then why would you wish to be treated as all others? If you trust in your own sovereign intellect and ability then why allow anyone to tell you what to do? Rise to power as the strong must do.

      There is no strength in the individual of the herd. You must be both a lion and a fox- both will feed upon the sheep.

      Also, we must not confuse civil liberties that allow us freedoms under law to live how we please and the means by which we select those that run a country. The masses will always act and vote in their own selfish interest- immediate gain for little pain. It is possible to have liberty under an aristocracy.

      1. Except that history has been little more than a series of examples proving that an aristocracy and liberty rarely, if ever, work together. Of all the societies I am currently aware of where there was an aristocracy and civil liberties, the only ones I can think of are the Norse and the Celts, and that is only because of the Thing and the fact that all freemen were armed and could make war with any aristocrat who overstepped his bounds. Every other aristocracy in history has had to have a series of long, violent wars in order to establish those liberties, defend those liberties, or often, to suppress those liberties for the sake of the aristocracy.

        now you can assume that the “strong, powerful, and wise” would rise to create an aristocracy. And perhaps that would be true, in the first generation. But the second, third, fourth, etc? It would be their children, and one cannot assure that merit would pass on. Indeed, it rarely does. Assuming that those in power know any better than the masses, because they are fewer or better educated, presumes the superiority of certain humans. A superiority I have yet to encounter in anyone, much less those in power.

  2. That is your opinion and one you are more than entitled to hold. Maybe the fact that you have not encountered anyone you would deem superior is possibly an indication that you are in fact superior yourself?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s