democracy and political theory...

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

democracy and political theory...

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Here I shall argue for democracy but full democracy..
in other words, full opportunity for anyone over 18 to vote..

conservatives today, at least in America, are attempting to strip
away voting rights from anyone not deemed to be politically pure..
(conservative) these anti-democratic attempts are based on the
"big lie" of IQ45.. that the 2020 election was "stolen"
but in thinking about it, I hold that they are going in the "wrong'' direction...

think about groups... the less number in a group, the more likely that
that group will be anti-democratic, but it will be less likely to be stable...
think about a monarchy.... one person making rules for everyone...
Part of the problem with monarchies is that what is a rule today, may
not be a rule tomorrow... in other words, a monarch might believe this today,
and tomorrow might believe in something else altogether...
and thus the decrees in two different, separate days might be different,
and radically different.. Today, the monarch might love the Jews, and tomorrow,
may not and decree that all Jews must leave the land... to leave to one
person, rules and laws, is to invite chaos because there is no stability
to a one person rule... and the same holds true for a small number of
people who make the rules/laws... they are just as fickle as a one person ruler..

What is the system that invites the least amount of instability?
That of a democracy that include everyone that can vote..
think of the nature of groups... the larger the group, the less likely
that that group will stay far from the middle... and why?

the very nature of people is to do less, to be conservative in actions...
in other words, you can get 10 people to act on some basis, whereas
try to get 1000 or ten thousand to act on the exact same reasoning...
the more people involved, the less likely you will get any action due
to the nature of people not wanting to do anything.. laziness or conservatism,
(and they are the same thing) means you will get less and less things done
given more and more people...there is an old rule of the thumb...
20% are for something, 20% are against something and 80% just watch...
thus the more people involved in something, the less likely you can
get them to do something...

if you want to preserve and protect people, the best way to do that is
by including more and more people into the decision making process,
because the more people involved, the less actions you can get people
to do..

democracy is best preserved by including voting for anyone over 18..
because there will be less and less action as more people get
involved.. the founding fathers were wrong to fear the mob, because
the more people in that mob, will result in less and less action...

if you think about it, conservatives would be smart to involve
everyone because the more people involved will mean the
less possibility for action... and liberals should be, should be
engaged in less people being involved in a democracy because
you can move people better the smaller number of people involved..

the three political revolutions, American, French, Russian all succeeded
because there were just a small number of people involved which allowed
action to be taken...the more people involved in something, the less
likely you can get anyone to act...

you want a stable, conservative society/state, get everyone in
that society/state involved.. because of the natural state of people
is inaction, given a choice... the less people involved, the more likely you
can get consensus and get shit done...

Kropotkin
Post Reply