Ruled by Violence

1. 61

   American Viewposted 14 years ago

   Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid.
   
   Bob Dylan
   
   Seems to me there is a lot of truth in that statement. What are your thoughts

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Coonsidering Democracy is mob rule... it may just be.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      American View:
      
      Give me a time in the evolution of this planet that violence hasn't been the rule.
      
      Violence is part and parcel of every earthly firmament!
      
      WE humans are the most violent and efficient predators evolution has produced on this planet.
      
      Violence is the way of life on Mother Earth.
      
      Violence is necessary and responsible for "balance."
      
      If violence did not occur, everywhere in our universe, we might not be here...or life on this planet, if it had occurred, would be entirely different than that which we enjoy.
      
      To think that life on this planet could survive as it is without 'violence," would be the zenith of naivety.
      
      Of course the USA is ruled by violence! If we weren't, we would not exist because other of our violent species would overrun us.
      
      Qwark

      replyreport
   3. 61

      dutchman1951posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      He is right about Democracy, as it means majority vote rules, so the stronger rule the weaker. Yes, he was right on it. But
      
      if you are insinuating America, then no. Because what we have is a republic that has been corrupted and not allowed to function. There is a difference, but for us,  we can not see it in action, because our representitives are for sale.
      
      so here, money rules.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly, Dutch. The founders understood as exactly what a true democracy was, and rejected it out of hand.
         
         We are a Constitutional Republic, but tell that to someone under 30, or someone educated in the American university system.

         replyreport
2. 78

   Shadesbreathposted 14 years ago

   The reason anarchy fails (thus making some form of government necessary) is that the survival of the fittest doesn't work with humans.
   
   If I am a big brute cave man and start taking all the food and all the hawt chicks, a whole bunch of you weaker cave guys are going to gang up and beat the crap out of me.
   
   So, if I want to continue having access to the resources and hawt chicks, I'm going to have to share at least some of them with as few of you as I can, but enough to keep the rest of you at bay. What we in my little group have formed is a government, essentially based on detente.
   
   Others will join or not as they please, based on how many scraps me and my homeboys throw outside the fire. The rest of you may try to form a government on your own, but if you get anything my group wants, we'll come take it from you, so you need us, or you need to go somewhere else because we have all the stuff controlled by threat of violence.
   
   My government is formed because I was so violent that the mob had to either take me out or make me share. Had they taken me out, then the second strongest would have been in my place, meaning that nothing would have changed at all. So, it makes more sense to control my violence by threats of overwhelming  group violence. That way you get the benefit of my strength, and I get the benefit of doing what I want as long as I don't piss my main guys off. We now have, in essence, a democracy. We can turn that into a monarchy if we want down the road (and typically that happens--or a dictatorship).
   
   That is how human civilizations work. Always have. Probably always will.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Then you go on to explain that it is all about survival of the fittest to completely negate your argument.
      
      The single advantage that our species has is the ability to reason - and it is reason that informs us that brute force and rule by the strongest does not work either, as has been demonstrated over and over again throughout history.  The relatively temporary advantages of continuing with rule by force become more clear with every consecutive fall of each dominant culture or country or race or tribe.
      
      The only way to become more 'civilised' in our ways and in government is by rising above the base animal that we still are (and that you describe) to become a better kind of reasoning animal that is able to negotiate a better way of living that abandons the violence, that is just suppression of others, for our own short term gain at the expense of our own children.
      
      It is better to work toward any other option than violence while still in the top position, when this changes you lose all the best cards in the game.  Soon the Asian countries will be number one and and they will have the opportunity of changing the ways of world in their turn, maybe with a culture based on the more intelligent ways of Buddhist styles of thinking rather than the divisiveness and violence of christianity we might get some small progress toward a better civilisation.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Shadesbreathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well, I think we risk a semantic argument here, so let me clarify where I'm coming from. My example proves that survival of the fittest fails because the "fittest" the big brute cannot actually survive on his own. He needs allies. So, while he is fit and can destroy everyone individiually, he can't destroy them all if they gang up on him.
         
         So, I believe the point you are making is that, because he has to compromise to survive (or be gang beaten to death), he has earned his position as a leader because of him being "fittest."
         
         That is a fair argument, but I believe that the rule of fittest is compromised when he has to compromise, thus disproving the fittest as a measure of strength and turning it into a measure of strength PLUS the ability to be weak when confronted with a mob. You might argue, that is intellectual strength coupled with physical strength, which is fine, but this is a thread about violence, which is ultimately what we all fear--having our lives violently taken--and I would argue that the only reason the big brute compromises and has allies is because his "fitness" failed. He can't be "THE" fittest. Survival of THE fittest, fails on an individual basis in my example. It also fails on larger scale when cultures (born of the example I made) become too dominant and try to take all the resources and hawt chicks in a larger metaphorical way. Alliances are made, and the cycle expands, etc.
         
         I think you and I actually agree in the larger scheme of things.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            We clearly have many points of agreement generally  - but in this case (or experiment) I think you are taking the actions of a single person in a small group and making an unreasonable jump to apply that reasoning to society as a whole.
            
            The bigger the group gets the more complex the issues become and it is not possible to simplify conclusions in the way you suggest.
            
            Just one issue arises when a group becomes more successful because it includes a person or persons who are better at reasoning than other groups around them. To use the analogy of your single group, the chief might protect a weak but smart individual - who might then be seen as a shaman figure and I could go on to suggest this would be the start point of religion and science, then these shamans dividing into the atypical 'wise man' who gives sage advice and the charlatan who predicts future events by casting runes and getting high on drugs to induce random visions.  This might be seen as the prelude to todays rulers, with science and religion still up there with them.
            
            All the various governing bodies through history in every place have kept power by some combination of all three elements, first the pairing of boss and science with new weapons, then the boss with religion and so the dark ages etc, now the combination of all three in different degrees in different places.
            
            If this is the case generally - then reason is still behind the 'other' powers of all rulers, and is able to contribute to a different manner of government that is currently a weak hegemony at the whim of media and the division that the 'ruling body' constantly applies to it.  How to control the truth of information to make hegemony work has excercised minds since Heidegger (I think it was) proposed devising a meta language along the lines of philosphical reason, making that part of how we view information as true or false has only worked in academia so far, and even that is under attack from the flat-earthers who would like to impose a biblical alternative to the history of reason through filling the media with deceit and the insidious introduction of the quasi-thinking of pragmatism.

            replyreport
   2. 61

      dutchman1951posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Shades: your words:
      The reason anarchy fails (thus making some form of government necessary) is that the survival of the fittest doesn't work with humans.
      
      you are right on it, I agree. Just look at African nations for a modern example. Strongest Tribe gets to keep the income, kill the rest!

      replyreport
3. 60

   uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years ago

   Democracy was not the system adopted by the Founders for a reason.   It has come to mean political freedom but that is a mistake.  Democracy becomes the tyranny of the majority - perhaps we are a democracy after all.  The law gets stripped of its objectivity and the plebiscite determines what is right and wrong.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Shadesbreathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's why they created a republic. It will just come apart more slowly.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         There is a chance at repairing a republic, if the rule of law is maintained.  We have been undermining the Constitution since the 1930s and awarding authority to the courts to write law without restraint.  That will be our undoing.  The one branch of government that is the least republican or "democratic" is the Judiciary and it has been running wild for decades.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Actually we have lived under tyranny by the minority for some time now here in America. And, Uncorrected, I agree with all you said above.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         For the first time I can agree with you !!!!  note that date !
         
         America has always been ruled by a tiny minority of ultra rich people from the 'founding' fathers to the rich families of today, from the original pirates and adventurers, to the arms dealers and warmongering profiteers of today.
         
         Most of the western world is much the same in truth, it has just been at it longer.

         replyreport