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

In my opinion, the problem with Democracy is that you actually have to believe in it (much like in a deity), rather than being able to actually experience it. Today, Democracy is a theoretical concept, an ideal, perhaps, but I've yet to see it in action. I live in a country that is considered "democratic" - the form of state we have in Switzerland is a "direct democracy". It's "direct" in that the population (actually, only a part of the population - foreign passport-holders aren't allowed to vote, even if they've lived here for 50 years) gets to vote on all kinds of stuff. We have about 4 national votes per year here and a plethora of additional ones on a regional level and on community level. It still doesn't work. self-interest, as Alexandre has mentioned, is what dominates each and every vote. Greed, inequality leads to the result that votes usually don't come out in the best interest of the country, but tend to lean in favour of those who yell the loudest. It's an exercise in frustration.

So is it necessary to believe in democracy in order to be a Jedi? I'm not sure. I don't believe in it because I have a hard time believing in things that I know don't work. I don't believe in any kind of government system - none of them really work. "Democratic" countries tend to still offer the best outcome for the population, despite their shortcomings - that is something I believe in.

I believe in democracy about as much as I believe in authoritarian dictatorship and monarchy. They all exist in some degree or another. Of course that's kind of facetious of me, because I know what is meant by "belief" in this context, however the whole concept is related to how governments govern their domain. Their domain being defined by arbitrarily chosen lines on a map and given a name. If, simply for the sake of discussion, we regard these as separate entities (which they are not) there is still the unavoidable fact that change is constant, and that enantiodromia happens. "Nation-States" and "Governments" and even entire populations of people will by their very nature vacillate from any given extreme end of a spectrum to another.

I personally am partial to the concept of a democratic process where people have a say in how their lives is governed, but this bias of mine means little to nothing to the universe, as events will shape themselves as they will. In which case the best we can do in such a situation as say a fascist dictatorship, is to simply act in a way which does not cause us to surrender our humanity.

Whether or not a Jedi agrees with individual expressions of democracy, if a Jedi is to believe that all people are equal and endowed with the right to pursue non-harmful goals, one must at least believe in the ideal of democracy.

steamboat28 wrote: Whether or not a Jedi agrees with individual expressions of democracy, if a Jedi is to believe that all people are equal and endowed with the right to pursue non-harmful goals, one must at least believe in the ideal of democracy.

How does the democracy ideal have any sort of relationship to equality and non-harm that would justify a Jedi to need to believe?

Democracy is a majority rule, that capitalises status quo bias based on number disregarding whether the status quo bias is just or unjust. Majority rule erases the human rights of a minority by the inequality of rights, whereby the prejudice suffered by the minority is the harm. And often, the community suffers for the status quo of the governing body. As a result, the ideal of democracy is undermined by the inequality of human rights when a bigger number claims the rights to equality of the smaller number are beneath theirs.

To assume democracy is a requisite of a Jedi is to encourage the inequality and oppression of a minority's human rights.

Entropist wrote: How does the democracy ideal have any sort of relationship to equality and non-harm that would justify a Jedi to need to believe?...To assume democracy is a requisite of a Jedi is to encourage the inequality and oppression of a minority's human rights.

The ideal of democracy is that every person's voice is equally heard and valid in the process of making decisions. This is an ideal of equality and freedom of expression, both of which are very Jedi traits.

However, just because democracy is the rule of the majority does not mean that it is inherently oppressive of minorities. This is partly because in democratic terms, "majority" simply refers to the largest group that would promote a particular course of action during a decision-making process. This majority changes with every decision, and thus is not statically oppressive save the fact that the majority of individuals being heard get their way in the end. This concept--the rule of the majority over the minority in individual decisions--sees to the needs of the many in favor of the needs of the few, which accomplishes the most beneficial outcome for the group overall. This is also a very Jedi concept.

The fact that you insist that the ideal of democracy is in any way an oppressive power structure can only mean one of two things. Either:

1. You didn't understand my statement, in which case I have just clarified for you.
2. You have absolutely no concept of what you are talking about, in which case I cannot help you.

The idea that democracy "encourage(s) the inequality and oppression of a minority's human rights" is to both misunderstand the democratic ideal and to be in contrast with the orthopraxic doctrine of Jediism by focusing solely on the selfishness of not getting one's way. I hope you will thoughtfully reconsider your far-too-vehement argument against something it is clear you have misunderstood.

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

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

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

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Apart from the fact that i think that undermining a misunderstanding is not a bad thing i also dont see how it is a bad thing to over value the minorities in sensitive matters, as a democracy you dont only count the votes of certain issues but you also hold them against logic and values of said democracy.

Just spend less time on equivocation, and more time on addressing the crux of the matter. When you aren't counting votes, you aren't engaging in democracy. Holding logic and justice is the solution to democracy rather than embrace a fallible policy.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Entropist wrote: Just spend less time on equivocation, and more time on addressing the crux of the matter. When you aren't counting votes, you aren't engaging in democracy. Holding logic and justice is the solution to democracy rather than embrace a fallible policy.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

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 ...

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?