Is belief in democracy required of a Jedi? (RELEVENT TO MY ESSAY).

steamboat28 wrote:

Entropist wrote: The hypocrisy of saying every voice is heard, but saying the majority over-value the minority, undermines your misunderstanding of democracy.

If there are ten people in a burning building, and 6 of them want to leave, how valid is that minority voice?

Excellent question, now for another one, what if 6 of them want to stay and want to force you to stay aswell ?

steamboat28 wrote:

Entropist wrote: The hypocrisy of saying every voice is heard, but saying the majority over-value the minority, undermines your misunderstanding of democracy.

If there are ten people in a burning building, and 6 of them want to leave, how valid is that minority voice?

That's not the problem with democracy. The problem with democracy is that there are interests involved which often rely on influencing the discernment of the 'majority'. Let's use your example, Mitchell : there are 10 people in a burning building. Only 6 of them quite like it there and really think that everyone else should too. Well, they are the majority, they 'vote' and everyone has to stay ... everyone gets cooked.

Democracy is about counting votes, but it would best also be about the reasoning ability of the ones getting to express that counted vote. Reason doesn't have to be the enemy of Justice, but she often gets distracted by the buffet. When elements of a system that depend on people not knowing enough to make rational choices, then there really isn't a choice. It is pretty easy to mislead people by tiring them out grasping for the golden ring, terrifying them by omni-media telling them that everyone is being killed, and then make discourse unintelligible and/or uninteresting whilst then providing them reality telly and game shows as an alternative. That way, 'one' (though that one is 'many') can count on counting votes cast by a hypnotised mass and not have to worry about too much opposition by a cultivated minority.

If a town needs protection against earthquakes for example, and there are 100 people in the town..
100 x 2.200.000 = 220.000.000
When the prevention against earthquakes costs way more than 220.000.000 euro, our government will conciser to not spend money to protect the town, together with some other important things.. .. Even though the town needs protection. These rules are made under the flag of democracy.

What I try to say, that if there are no rules of democracy in the system, it will rely on rules that do not require democracy. Society will always require rules, rules require something to be usable.. If people do not want to have rules of the system, they must give up their requirements to be part of the system they are in. Choice will always give or take something, no matter what we do.

It is not the democracy people do not like, people cannot handle the effects of choice. And all they see is a system.. :dry:

In simple terms...No. It is not the type of governance that is critical, but the application Liberties, Justice, Laws, and the Compassion of the rulers that matter most.

A Jedi lives where they live. They must work with the system they are bound to and apply their understanding and knowledge to that governing system. In my belief, any system can work if it is applied in its purest form. Because we are human, it is never pure and is twisted by negative ego and greed. This is why most people want a democratic system in which they get a voice in their future.

In my opinion, I would always want to be in a democratic system because it is the voice of the whole that usually brings the best results.

Interesting thread, as a Mod I must say please remember to remain respectful of other people. The more diverse the views and methods of communication the more interesting it should be - not more emotional, IMO.

Makes me think it wouldn't be too difficult to go from a meritocracy to a geniocracy - like to test the candidates more, and more appropriately for the job. Though we don't want then too predictable. I guess we each have our little bubbles of speciality and we each assess the candidate in that area to make a judgement. It assumes they don't share either a strength or weakness in that particular area - but nothing is perfect. If everyone did that, then the paper thin spin merchants would never get up!!!

So yea, I'd imagine all systems will have weaknesses, but its important to consider how entrenched those weaknesses are. I guess minorities in democracy have to use other mechanism's to inform the populace, as does any change because not only does in actually effect the change but it gets it recognized, so that seems like a logical process of growth and improvement. Transparency needs to be appropriately thorough, to understand the scope of vested interests, and to be regulated if required. The media needs some measures to assess impartiality, just at least to inform people of it perhaps, rather then enforce it.

If people know they are getting biased information then they can adjust their reception of it to compensate, but not knowing makes it easy for people to get caught up in one side or the other and not notice the slipping of their objectivity. That tends IMO to breed the popularity politics which seem to make the merit of our meritocracy more like being popular then effective - whomever can make the most so bias they do not realize they are being bias. It is natural after all to defer to others about complex things, and sometimes follow the pack - but it's not always a good idea of course.... lots of example in history, and the older I've gotten the more I've realized how recent most history really is
:blink:

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


With respect to the OP:
I don't think that "belief" is a desirable trait in evaluating the efficacy of a democracy. "Belief" requires no analysis or critical thought (doesn't mean that some believers don't analyze their beliefs, just that it's not required). Therefore I would prefer that those who espouse democratic principles not "believe" in democracy, but rather understand its benefits and its limitations...

As to what I presume is the "spirit" of the question, I would much prefer to live in a society which values the democratic ideal, however, that requires effort and engagement, and is always at risk of failure due to apathy and neglect by the citizenry.

Arkayik wrote: I don't think that "belief" is a desirable trait in evaluating the efficacy of a democracy. "Belief" requires no analysis or critical thought (doesn't mean that some believers don't analyze their beliefs, just that it's not required). Therefore I would prefer that those who espouse democratic principles not "believe" in democracy, but rather understand its benefits and its limitations...

That's what I do with religion. I understand the benefits and limitations of choosing to believe in Jesus and follow the Jedi Path. It really is a great combination and it works for me.



and I believe in democracy

MartaLina wrote: I did not say that democracy is not counting votes, its not ONLY counting votes , logic , reason and justice are parts of a democracy and not a solution. A solution implies that there is a problem, democracy as such is not a problem. That said democracy is not working everywhere can be seen as a problem , by us ...

No one said you said democracy is not counting votes because democracy is just a statistic. Logic, reason, and justice are not parts of democracy; or do you need to check the dictionary? Logic, reason, justice are solutions because democracy is a problem because it's only a statistic, and abused to assert status quo of a majority rule over a minority. Good luck explaining your claim

steamboat28 wrote: If there are ten people in a burning building, and 6 of them want to leave, how valid is that minority voice?

Equally valid because human life is not worth more than another, only contribution earns merit. Now demonstrate the relationship to the topic of the thread because the example really proves democracy is fallible.

Adder wrote: Makes me think it wouldn't be too difficult to go from a meritocracy to a geniocracy - like to test the candidates more, and more appropriately for the job. Though we don't want then too predictable. I guess we each have our little bubbles of speciality and we each assess the candidate in that area to make a judgement. It assumes they don't share either a strength or weakness in that particular area - but nothing is perfect. If everyone did that, then the paper thin spin merchants would never get up!!!

Nice observation. Keeping a high standard prevents corruption from opportunists attracted to power.