Re: virus: A new government, for the people, by the people.

Eric Boyd (
Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:09:29 -0500

John ''I Take Large Steps'' Williams wrote:

> With the number of people I heard running around saying we ought to have
> nuked Saddam Hussain, I wouldn't be surprised if we would have used nuclear
> weapons. I think this threatens a mob-mentality democracy, rather than a
> "good-old-boy" network Republic.
> Basically, I don't want to turn over the day-to-day operation of the
> government to a bunch of selfish, greedy, un-politically-educated people
> running things. But I'm not willing to chuck *that* system for mob rule.

Prof Tim wrote:
> The problem is with the second part, "research the issues". I don't see
> it happening. Sheep will be sheep.
> No, as long as Joe Public thinks "Coke or Pepsi" is a pressing moral
> concern, I'd rather have corrupt politicians making the nitty-gritty
> decisions rather than whomever can sway the public mind most effectively
> (or "cost effectively", I should say). Call me an egalitarian, but it
> just seems more honest that way, a bribed politician will at least get
> PAID for his vote!

Alright. I think I see the basic issue at stake here, and I've known it
for a long time. One of the logical fallacies is "Appeal to
Popularity". What it states is essentially that what is popular is not
necessairly _right_ or _good_. (lots of nice key words in there, eh?)
In a logical argument, it is a fallicy to claim that just because x
people beleive in something that it is true (or whatever). Like Tim
said, Sheep will be Sheep. Just because a few million people beleive in
a religion and a God don't mean it's so.

Anyway, as I see it the entire idea of a government is _founded_ on the
idea that what is popular is right. If you are going to argue against
this, by all means. Just don't expect me to be able to come up with any
good defence of it becuase the Appeal to Popularity is what "rule by the
people" is all about. If x people, making up 50.1% (+) of the
population want this, we do it. It's that simple.

I agree that this can sometimes not be very nice, but I see no
/rational/ alternative. If we refuse to accept that what is popular is
right and good, then how do we govern? Rule by thugs?

> >I'm all for this. Simplify the system. I think we really need only one
> >/real/ "justice" law: the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have
> >them do unto you. So simple, potentially so effective.
> So potentially dangerous.
> First of all, I still live in an area where a lot of people don't believe
> that black folks should have rights. Local rule would have wiped them out
> years ago here, and even now would do serious damage.
> Also: how does one justifiably *enforce* such a law?

If you read what I said again, it's very clear. Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you. If you want to kill/exile black people, be
prepared to be killed/exiled yourself. A eye for an eye. I think the
system would work very well. The biggest problem (isn't it always?) is
actually determining /guilt/. Did s/he do it? We would still need the
courts to determine this.

> >Yes. Freedom is the ultimate law. Freedom is the concept that almost
> >all laws are designed to uphold. Just remove the laws already, becuase
> >they are putting bars on our freedom!
> Freedom only exists as long as there is no one with a bigger club than you.
> Once someone has a bigger club, it's a bonk on the head and "hello,
> despotism!"

Yah, that the trouble with freedom alright. Sometimes ya gotta /die/ to
keep it.

> >Live not like a machine; rather live like a God. Do not wallow in pity;
> >rejoyce in freedom!
> Again. I know people I don't *want* to be free.

And I know people who don't want to be free.