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

Eric Boyd (
Fri, 21 Jun 1996 02:02:17 -0500

John ''Black UN Helicopters'' Williams wrote:

> That's the foundation of a "true democracy," not government in general.
> Indeed (and I can only speak of the US government here, thanks to
> Norteamericanocentric education) that's explicitly *not* the basis of the
> US government. Our government was set up with the notion that we would vote
> for people who would be expected to represent us -- not represent us in the
> sense of "doing what we told them," but in the sense of ruling for us. They
> were expected to know the issues better than we did, generally speaking.

Interesting. Why, exactly, then, would it be wrong to have a "rule by
the elite"... a Memetocracy, for instance? They of all people should
know what's best.

> If hard pressed, I can't think of a current example of "true democracy"
> anywhere. It's been pretty muched judged in quite a few countries that the
> desires of the majority should not impinge on the rights of the minority.

I'd say this is a good thing. But then, I'm in the majority so what I
say doesn't really matter, right?


> >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.
> Hmmm. Yes. We'd have to have the courts decide that, wouldn't we. And
> perhaps some guidelines as to how it should be interpreted in each case?
> What about the person who kills in self-defense? Did that person first

Justice has already been done. A killing was attempted, and the
perpuratrator was killed. (If a killing was _not_ attempted -- which
would be a hard thing to figure out -- then I agree that something still
needs to be done. hmmm)

> "kill," and that's something that shouldn't be done, or how important are
> the mitagating circumstances? What about civil cases, where both people
> appear to have legitimate claims that what they were doing they were

These I'm not very familiar with, but I'll try any way. An I correct in
thinking that civil cases are about people, and the (petty) disputes
that they have? No crime has been committed, but one party feels the
other has _done_wrong_ anyway? This seems then to be a facett of the
/ultimate/ critism of the golden rule. Here is another example:

> Hey. Kill me now. No; wait, I'll go on a killing spree first, because
> that's how *I* want to be treated.

Since the rule states "do unto others as you would have them do unto
you" it's biggest failing occurs when one decides that "heck, what I'm
doing is not that bad. Let 'em do it to me!" or "Since I want <x>, I
should do <x>" A good example is rape. Some guy (hmmm) says "I like
rough sex, I'd like some woman to rape me"... then, according to the
golden rule, he goes out and rapes a woman... What can we do? It is the
biggest hole in the golden rule.

Any ideas for a patch?

> enitled to do? And how does this not leave people open to "frivolous"
> revenge? And what if countries behaved this way? Should the United States
> send some people into Turkey and blow up one of *their* barracks, since
> it's "eye for an eye?"

Why not? I'm definatly considering "joining" the Church of Euthanasia.
Not "for" senseless killing, but not against it either.

> >And I know people who don't want to be free.
> YEAH! ME!!!!
> Do *you* think I'd survive three days in an anarchy? I'm a
> pasty-white-boy-academic-intellectual, with unpopular ideas and no ability
> to tote a barge or lift a bale.

That is the big reason why I decided to become an engineer, rather than,
say, a philosopher. Philosophy will always be a hobby, and probably a
big one, but I want to be out in the world, making a difference. That
and I want to live in the country and farm.

If you are looking for a really good book on this subject, try
_Lucifer's_ _Hammer_ by Larry Nivin. It's about the end of
civilization, and who survives and why. The book ranks at the top of my
list. All time favorite.
Let me dig up some quotations:

"We survive. We live through it. And we build a new civilization.
Somebody’s got to do it." His voice rose. "We can do it. How soon
depends on how far we get kicked down. All the way to savagery? Bows
and arrows and stone clubs? I’ll be damned if we can’t do better than
that!" …
"Here we’ve got a chance, and by God, we’re going to take it!" (pg. 374)

… "What your father is building here in this valley is the most
important thing in the world. It’s priceless, and it’s worth anything
to keep it, to know… to know that somebody, somewhere has hope. Can
feel safe."
"No! that’s the real horror. It’s all false hope! The end of the world,
Harvey! The whole goddam world’s come apart, and we’re promising
something that doesn’t exist, won’t happen!" (pg. 422)

I love that book...

> Should we follow democracy if 50.01% believe that black people aren't
> really people? 50.01% believe that women shouldn't have any rights? 50.01%
> believe that gay people ought to be killed/ostracized/hospitalized? 50.01%
> believe all jews should be slaughtered? 50.01$ believe that this group,
> that group, the other group is not really a member of the human race, ergo
> the "golden rule" does not apply to them? 50.01% believe chucking the whole
> process and having an Emporer is a really keen idea? 50.01% believe we
> desperately need CFCs more than we need ozone?

No. That's what the fallicy of popularity is all about. Of course, the
fact that democracy's work as well as they do points out the fact that
most times, the majority is not in the "wrong". We clunk along, and get
most things right.