The last refuge of a scoundrel

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Celine's Third Law ITT

[P3nT4gR4m]

If you're going to get hung for stealing a sheep you may as well take the herd

-cybin's 2^nd law ITT

[Golden Applesauce]

Sorry Cain, it seems that I made some unjustified assumptions.

But still, if you were trying to speak to the masses, you couldn't outright say that patriotism is bad.  You have to 'build a counter-image' for what Britishness is.  The end effect is that both the pro- and con- sides admit patriotism.  Both are infected by the meme, just different strains.

[Cain]

I recall seeing or reading somewhere that Labour have introduced over 3000 new offences since May '97.

This is true, and while not all are offences, very many are.

[Cain]

Sorry Cain, it seems that I made some unjustified assumptions.

But still, if you were trying to speak to the masses, you couldn't outright say that patriotism is bad.  You have to 'build a counter-image' for what Britishness is.  The end effect is that both the pro- and con- sides admit patriotism.  Both are infected by the meme, just different strains.

True, but one is often less destructive and more open to criticism than the other, and if the government is going to try and force the overall meme anyway, it would be better to subvert than to oppose directly.  The collapse or failure of its propagation therefore is on their heads, not anyone elses, and believe me, Labour and their media scum friends love nothing more than looking for scapegoats.  Subversion's got a trickier playbook, especially when dealing with more empheral aspects of control.

[Jack of Turnips]

Very nice posts, Cain.

I'm not sure but what all governments tend toward authoritarianism over time. Honest governance and relatively honest democracy may be unstable -- not in the sense of an unstable society, but in the sense that a pencil balanced on its point is unstable.

They may tend to collapse toward authoritarianism, by way of manipulative politics and dishonesty.

My thought run thus:

1. A party or clique thinks that it has the best grasp of how to run the country correctly.

2. But it cannot put its ideas into practice unless it can get and maintain power.

3. Therefore the first aim is to get its people into power. And once there, the primary aim is to keep them in power so that the party's "good ideas" can be put into practice.

Once a clique is in power they have more tools for maintaining power than the minority party...barring grievous mistakes and the attendant voter disenchantment, that is. So the main thing become to use the majority position to consolidate power, to hide mistakes, and to spin missteps.

It seems to me -- and I may be misunderstanding your gist, or just plain being foolish -- it seems to me that once you have political parties competing on such terms you get a Darwinian situation which will, in the long run, favor the most efficient power-grabbers and truth-twisters.

It will not favor open and honest democracy. Hence open and honest democracy is likely to be the exception in society, and not likely to persist over the long run.

Is that possibly part of what you are seeing in GB? (And is it happening in Oz?)

Or have I gone off on a nonsensical tangent?

~~ Jack of Turnips

[Cain]

That seems a pretty fair assessment, and I would have to agree.

Of course, to a point, it is indeed accurate (if we define power as ability to affect the world around us), but even so, it has become an end in and of itself, above and beyond the reason the power is wanted.

I've often considered our political system as one which encourages such people, the power-hungry psychopath who can lie, cheat and do whatever it takes to achieve power.  By necessity, such people succeed where those less power-hungry fail.

[Jack of Turnips]

If I think this is true -- and I give it good odds of being so -- then my personal reaction would be, never trust any government or nation.

Never make an  established government stronger. Seek to weaken it. Undermine, subvert, and sap its power in any (morally acceptable) way possible. Mockery is good and proper. Ridicule is a moral imperative. If politics is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then subversion is the best response to politics.

(I hope that, on this forum, I am preaching to the choir.)

For instance, I think everyone should send live insects to their political representatives. The scrabbling, scurrying little creatures would benefit from a change; their miniscule brains -- little more than a knot of ganglions, really -- would be stimulated; and their pathetically limited worldview enlarged. Not only that, but the insects might find some benefit as well.

~~ Jack of Turnips

[P3nT4gR4m]

I've often considered our political system as one which encourages such people, the power-hungry psychopath who can lie, cheat and do whatever it takes to achieve power.  By necessity, such people succeed where those less power-hungry fail.

That shit is true, on so many levels, over and above the petty machinations of politics.

It's the essence of survival of the fittest. Fittest is nothing to do with nicest. Quite the contrary - the meanest bastard will always win.

Strikes me this is why they invented all that karma and judgement in heaven bullshit - it's a consolation prize for the weak. 

[Golden Applesauce]

So in terms of selecting leaders who are competent, qualified, and who act in the interest of the people, would you say that democracy is better or worse than choosing at random from the population?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

choosing people at random would be worse, because random schmucks would have no idea how to run a country or cooperate with other people. it's true that existing democracies are full of blowhards and powermongers, but to have a system that relied on choosing people selected randomly it would have to be so pre-defined as to eliminate the need for officials at all. the system would have to be designed so fine-tuned that the people selected amount to nothing but monkeys pushing a button. i guess you could govern a nation with a computer system, but not allowing for a human element would result in a whole host of terrible things, i'm sure, while maybe fixing a few corruption issues.

if you have to have an enormous, modern government, the best thing is to do what they already do but add a Ministry of Sabotage whose sole purpose is to go around messing up the government's ability to enforce the law.

[Requia ☣]

I've been thinking for a long time about a multiple branch system with one group elected and the other chosen by lottery.  The merits of both and all (or maybe the demerits of both, and I'm a fucktard, not sure).

[Reginald Ret]

@ vexati0n: how do you propose to keep the ministry of sabotage from being subject to the aforementioned darwinian effect?

@ Requiem: and multiple branches of goverment to balance things out have been tried by lots of govts, you'll have to be a bit more specific, just selecting for one of the branches at random doesn't do much if the other branches gang up on that one, or if that branch was continuously ignored.(as will happen when a group spouts nonsense 9/10 times)

@Cain: as if obeying the law wasn't able to cover pretty much everything, damn i'm pretty sure that in most countries just knowing the law is impossible.

[Requia ☣]

Um, what I mean is basically one legislative body chosen at random, and one chosen by vote.

[Reginald Ret]

only two? then wich gets the deciding vote?

as in: what happens when its a draw?