Getting into this box is what's best for both of us. During your time in the box, you will learn so much, and yet experience so little. It's a wild ride, my friend, one well worth the time spent...and let's face it, you don't have much to do these days anyway.

Saturday, 7 September 2013


Lol. Seems like my countrymen are delusional. I don't blame them, though. Democracy = Good has been forced down the throats of people all over the world.
The benefits of democracy are numerous. Democracy allows citizens to participate directly in government. Practiced the way it is meant to be practiced, democracy allows for personal freedom.

The ‘majority rule’ applies in either direct or representative democracy where the winning vote is that of the majority.

Democracy advantages include:

* Democracy provides for frequent elections after a specified period of time. This ensures that unpopular governments are voted out of office and replaced by a new administration that will be forced to implement favorable policies so as to stay in power.

* Democracy affords citizens their right to elect the representatives of their own choice.

* Democracy affords the most popular candidates the opportunity to be elected.

* Democracy ensures that wealth is evenly distributed. This is possible as the peoples representatives fight to have their fair share of development funds.

* Through democracy, a people have the opportunity to have their voices heard and their wishes fulfilled.

* Democracy allows for many political parties to compete for power. This gives candidates and the electorate a broad field of parties for candidates and different candidates to chose from for voters.
*Unpopular governments need not be bad governments. Similarly, popular policies need not be good policies, where "good" as defined as a) being in line with reality and b) ensure the continued well-being of a society. In fact, since the lumpenproletariat are cognitive misers, the converse is actually true: what is popular is bound to be bad.

The tying in with political parties and by extent legitimacy of rule to policies means that a policy, even if provably bad for the nation or society, cannot be halted or reversed without the state losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the voters. Stupid idea.

*Points two and three are exactly the same. Popular leaders need not be good leaders and in fact, are more likely to be bad leaders. This is, of course, discounting modern marketing techniques and knowledge in which the opinion of "the people" is manipulated like so much jelly.

*Even distribution of wealth is not per se a good thing. Also, non-sequitur in that how does democracy ensure that representatives "fight to have their fair share" of "development funds", which never happens in any real world democracy, and it is not explained how this will lead to a more even distribution of wealth. If someone thinks that Singaporean Ministries and other government offices are budgeted according to the number of seats a party has won in parliament, they clearly have no idea as to simple information that is available to the public on Google.

In short, useless feel-good leftist redistributionist twaddle.

*Identical to points two and three. Being cognitive misers, "the people" should not have their voices heard and wishes fulfilled. A child should not be able to choose to have sweets for dinner.

*Time, energy and resources which should have been allocated to solving problems are wasted on politicking and power struggles which are amplified in a democracy. The reactionary consensus is that politics should be kept to a minimum. Furthermore, actual implementation of such merely provides a smokescreen for a united political class, hence the red team/blue team phenomenon in which voters are presented with a false choice.

The main failure of this so-called list is its assumption that popular = good. This is clearly not the case. I may be a midwit, but even I can junk this pile of trash easily. Dear God.

No comments:

Post a comment