Citizen-Democracy - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Jesse
As a key element of my philosophy and doctrine, I believe that democracy is the sole viable method a people can govern themselves, as it is unlikely verging on impossible that a perfect, or even more realistically, capable leader, can be chosen by anything less than those who he/she governs. You wonder, therefore, why I choose to frequent a forum that states emphatically "For Non-Democratic forms of government"?

I believe in Responsible Democracy. Limited, Disciplined, Logical democracy. Seen the move Starship Troopers? Thats what I envision, save perhaps not for just Soldiers. A person signs on to become a Citizen, and they're monitored for a set period of time, and after that, granted Citizenship, and the magical right to vote.

What're your thought - or improvements? I appreciate both a great deal!
User avatar
By enLight
A Responsible-Democracy is an excellent idea and a solid core for any doctrine. Why? Because it significantly eliminates the "ignorant majority" factor in simple democracy.

In the case of Starship Troopers, all Citizens have gone through the military, thus are endowed with the instinct to serve the group before the individual. This is a virtue that is ideal for any kind of ruling class.

Responsible Democracy is sort of like an aristocracy that anyone can sign up to enter - that is, if they're interested in earning the voting franchise.
By Jesse
You, sir, have your head on straight!

I have never, ever met a single other person who views Heinlein as a brilliant philosopher of politics, and, in the same vein, agrees with the ideas he set forth in Starship Troopers. If you know of anyone who shares our faith in that politic, encourage them to come and post here!
By Al Khabir
I would agree with both of you on the idea of a responsible democracy, but I would disagree that everyone who wishes to vote must be a part of the army. I agree with Jesse that it should be on social merit because:
1. Compulsory service to vote would cause increased militarisation
2. What about people who are just as intelligent but are unable to join? for example, Stephen Hwkings?
and 3. Because military men are generally conservative, the government may not quickly respond to new and youthful ideas.

What do you think?
By Sapper
I believe in a *form* of that... with the addition of intellectual meritocracy.

I believe that councils of intellectually elite, politically astute people should be the rulers of society, not democracy because, like most of the people posting here, they are ignorant.

I have read the book, far better than the movie, IMO. More philosophical. I base much of my thoughts on crime on his theories described in his book. I'm not sure how they can be practically implemented quite yet in this age of a parent's authority declining where 1 in every 2 marriages split. What a pity!
By Jesse
I would not allow them to rule as the leadership caste, but be subordinate, and given great priority, by the actual leadership caste.

I strongly believe that only picked, disciplined individuals should be given the right to vote, and, as an extension, be allowed to run for public office.

Enlight - Heinlein was actually asked if, in his writings, he meant that solely military individuals were granted 'citzenship', and by extrapolation, the right to vote. He responded vehemently in the negative. In the book, he references to a statistic that 95% of all Citizens were former civil servants. It is for this reason that I still maintain that my democratic philosophy is Heinleinist. Militarism in a society that has no foes, while on the surface may seem wasteful and counter-productive, the military can be used as a tool of social stability, discipline for the youth (male and female, unlike Heinlein) as well as a tool to provide role-models for younger members of the Community.
User avatar
By Truth-a-naut
I too share your views, or at least a version of them.

I believe in a strong state, but not through the sudden placement of one promising man/woman. I think total state unity is possible; not my alienating over 50% of the population because they are considered either physically or intellectually inferior... Which may be true.

I think a strong state should be an evolution of the mind, but not of the superior ones you have mentioned, but of the 'inferior' proletarian minds (the Orwellian proletariat, not the Marxist). As all 'proles' have basic sets of wants and needs (I emphasize the importance of needs over wants though) The needs include simple things like housing, food, pleasure (I group Sex, Alchohol and Love into this catagory; I will explain why later) The conceptual realization of these wants and needs can come at the hands of the 'Ignorant majority' much more *naturally.

I need to go to work, but will summerize this into a sentence.
I will of course explain it in more detail if you wish.

"Everyone is Everyones own dictator."

*By natural I don't mean social darwinsim, although SD is deeply integrated into my plan. By 'Natural' I meant natural progression as concerning the proles.
By Al Khabir
So perhaps piliticians whould have a minimum limit on their intelligence quota, and should have a limited amount of money to spend on election campiagns. Possibly that would mean that even the ignorant majority could do no harm by voting?

I think a strong state should be an evolution of the mind, but not of the superior ones you have mentioned, but of the 'inferior' proletarian minds

I would say it is more difficult than that... after all, by concentrating on raising the level of the majority (who will never be outstanding) are you not neglecting the more important individuals who are more likely to do good for society?
By Jesse
I wouldn't say they'd have a minimum intelligence quota, Al Khabir, instead - the process that they'd endure to become a Citizen... be able to vote... and thus, be running for office, would ensure they'd embody, in the minimum, the Platonistic leadership principles.

I would hope that campagning would be a thing of the past, just like the Partisan system would be. Divisiness is NOT the goal of my ideology.

While a society cannot allow more than a large minority to be Citizens (or Party Members to Goldstein), we must aspire to assure that the calibre of living, and therefore, the productivity, of the Civilian mass (or proletarian) is given great priority. All people deserve the best society can offer them, however, not all of them are entitled to pariticipate in the governing of the society
By Al Khabir
But when you say that campiagning would be un-nessasary, I assume you mean the modern campiagning- perhaps we should return to the original meaing? how could any politician be voted for even by a council if they did not know his policies and stances of issues?

I think that these are common sense policies, and I have finally found some others who share many of my veiws! I would say that the only difficulty in this system is actually creating it- after all, when your citizens are brainwashed into believing in "the virtues of almighty democracy" then how could they be persuaded to support politically (or in time of revolution) an ideology that would take away the vote unless they passed certain tests? I suppose those who did not wish to vote would not have to, and they are too lazy to care I expect.
By Jesse
Since the community of Citizens would be smaller, select, and closed, they'd have knowledge of one-another. My theory entails the subdivision of the State into smaller districts, and each district would vote for a representative (who needless to say would be a Citizen). Each district would possess a forum of the Roman variety, ideally, and here, the Citizens could stand and be counted in their views and opinions.

I'm sorry if I was hasty, this question/issue should've been answered by me in the first place.

To answer your second, and quite legitimate, query, I'd say this - in times of revolution there is fear, and those who defend you from your enemies, i.e the source of fear, would be respected and given authority. By defending us, they show responsibility. Responsibility equals authority, in my books. They'd be Citizens in the truest sense of the word.
By Al Khabir
I can certainly agree with this, except that I would like a clarification on your definition of subdivision. Do you mean that the State would literally be divided up, or, as I suspect, that it would remain as one entity but governed from a central point?
By Jesse
A totally legitimate point, and again, the failure is mine for being insufficiently clear.

By subdivision I mean political subdivision: economically, militarially, etc, the State is one homogeneous entity. However, for political reasons (to govern it easily and efficiently) it would be sub-divided into districts, that would each elect a representative to comprise the Political Council. I hope this clears it up.
User avatar
By Odiseizam
User avatar
By starman2003
Jesse wrote:….it is unlikely verging on impossible that a perfect, or even more realistically, capable leader, can be chosen by anything less than those who he/she governs.

This flies in the face of history.

I believe in Responsible Democracy. Limited, Disciplined, Logical democracy.

How oxymoronic can you get?

Seen the move Starship Troopers?

Yep, based on fiction not reality.
Biden breaks his foot

You are the one trying to deny reality, so it mus[…] We ev[…]

If God exists, who created God?

There is more evidence for a definite beginning o[…]

We need a less Democratic system as far as indivi[…]