Debate 10: Whether the masses should rule themselves: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate 10: Whether the masses should rule themselves » Debate 10: Whether the masses should rule themselves

Debate 10: Whether the masses should rule themselves

Debate 10: Whether the masses should rule themselves

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 02/10/07 - 12:21 PM: Subject: Debate 10: Whether the masses should rule themselves	#1
In this debate wander will argue that the masses should rule themselves, while Mr.Anonymous will argue that they should be ruled over by an elite. Anyone wishing to discuss the debate can do so in the discussion subforum.

wander
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Location: Diogenes' tub

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 96

Posted 02/10/07 - 12:23 PM:	#2
The topic at hand is the question of whether or not the general mass of humanity should be ruled by itself or by an elite. First I thank Mr. Anonymous for providing this subject and also the forum for this interesting area I've wandered into. At that, I begin in this. On the surface of this issue is already a contradiction avoided in the qualifications, "general mass" and "elite". Without great exposition the question of whether or not "humanity should be ruled by itself" is managable before specifying which oligarchy by what attribute will rule whom. Humanity has always ruled itself, currently rules itself, and will always rule itself. An arbitrary subgroup thereof from this book or that has no bearing on the fact that human rulers are members of humanity - even if humanity itself deems them otherwise. If divine inspiration, benevolent aliens, sentient machines, Morlocks, or wayward celestial constructs are hereby proposed as the elite, humanity would do well to yet oppose their rule in favor of living as free humans - or at the prospect of being subtly engineered into lesser creatures by some impossibly complicated devices of Gods or the superintelligent, die finally in that, the most honest war possible a man - against beings that are truly not other man. To discover whether a multitude of general humans should be ruled by an exclusive group of elite humans, it might be informative to consider the historical variances on this relationship. The institution of slavery, long practiced by man, counted this philosophy sound enough. So too did feudalism with its serfdom, in history the Dark Ages. And in what respect were slaves or serfs inferior to their often inbred dynasties of elite rulers? Generally what is to be the arete, the excellence, of any proposed aristocracy? That they were evidently chosen by supernatural divinities? Question here the ends of a religious sentiment that some supernatural elite ruler has appointed the Earth to natural corrupt management. That they possessed strength of arms? The general mass of humanity has by number a favor in that contest. The elite have long stopped even showing up for the battles. Then the arete of the aristocracy is to be some intelligence; since raw, scientific, wild intelligence will here surely not fail where religion and force have - and yet observe every era of man where some hope on today's intelligence found every man ruled in tomorrow's primitive injustice. There exists no arete in history or future, nor any excellence present in any division of mankind that turns one human into a viable ruler of another beyond the deception or brute force of parties involved. The excellence exhibited by all elites has been to date mere manipulation of the masses to brute force alone. Further, assume such an arete existed - that a man could justly count himself another's master a priori due to some characteristic he exhibited. What relationship would the specialized rulers bear to their slave masses? The more elite, the more specialized, the more egregiously disconnected from mankind its own direction becomes, the more the rulers impend the death of the whole. From a quote, "You can't hold a man down without staying down with him." extrapolate this meaning: The more elite a rulership, the less populist, the more destructive to the populous it becomes. The energy of all in society, being elitely governed, is poured not into some myriad pursuits of varied lives in the society but the maintenance and perpetuation of the artifices of the arete. If your rulers are economic, you make money. If your rulers are religious, you spread their word. If your rulers are barbarian kings, you pick up their club and goto war. If they are scientists you study their laws. If they are singers, you sing their songs. Whatever the attributes of the chains shared between the general masses and the elite, all of humanity is conscripted to no more than polishing them. Whatever the excellence single or manifold, elite rulership through its arete binds all of humanity to a stagnant governance through that characteristic to all charachteristics. No matter the rare benevolence or rampant hubris, elite rulership of humanity is the freezing death of humanity. On the front of more excellence, having justified servitude, consented it for a lifetime, defied it to a life's end, loved it and hated in the face of its horrors throughout the whole of history - why then not expand this servitude to all excellence? Let man herefore be bound(ruled) in science, politics, economics, and media - guided wholly in his philosophy by an elite rulership. "A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming." -Ralph Waldo Emerson And thus, the sequence of all of mankind's actions converges to its elite upper bound. Man becomes a master or a slave of no aspect of living on Earth but his monist spiritual cannibalistic rituals, controlling man to abject dissociation of reality. His economy(technology), bound by rulers, is for ruling. His art is an image of a chain. His politics, a ball. His philosophy speaks of rulers. Being a social creature, this artifice echoed in all of the structures of society is an affront to mankind, an unnecessary and destructive rot. On the contrary, the general masses having little concern for ruling but living, tend to present only a lower bound in self governance - leaving the top of the sequence of human history open. Inevitably he who says organize, says oligarchy - and therein the iron law finds for a mass its elite rulers and the mechanism, left unchecked, of their expounding hubris. So in rudimentary phrasing for introduction, no man is in history or principle possibly qualified the aristocracy of an individual more or less the general masses of humanity. When mere representation of the masses becomes elite rulership, there precisely is the end of any qualification - with the only justifiable or even acceptable public servitude being there inverted. There precisely has the elite ruler become the sheep and the masses the wolves. There has the business shifted from representing the masses to representing the elite - from representing what will benefit man on the loftiest principles he can espouse to representing what will benifit man's enslavement in practice; and protect the elite at a steep cost to general masses.
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 02/10/07 - 12:24 PM:	#3
I would like to thank the Forum for giving me an opportunity to make a stand in the name of the elite, the upper class. First point: Throught mankind's history, society has always believed that in order to be more modern, more civilized, we must inherently be more tolerant, more understanding. The elite have more and more, with each new generation, been looked at as the enemy of this, the source of all oppression and intolerance, the enemy of all that is good. Our literature depicts the upper class as glutonous pigs, or wicked hawk faced villians. While this occurs, the common man is move up in society's standing. Many of today's movies will have the common farm boy, a good-looking blonde male, embark on a quest to defeat the evil count or duke, or some form of nobility, and rescue the princess. Sometimes, the princess will even be portrayed as heroine who could easily live amoung the common folk, and will often know some martial art. I grant that the elite have often fitted into this Hollywood-fabricated role. But are the masses any better? The answer must be no. Both the elite philosopher and the common peasant are human, thereby capable (and even predisposed) to error. Left to there own devices, the common shop keeper in ancient Rome, if not married, will most likely go to a bar or brothel, rather than a temple or library. Second point: So far, humanity has had absolutely no luck creating a society without the High. The earliest human societies, though having very little in the way of an elite class still had clan leaders, who were the high at the time. And although they may have often changed if someone could sieze power from the current leader, but the clan leaders would often have the most access to wealth, food, and women. In the Soviet Union, one of the first communist nations, we had the Communist Party. The Party advocated equality and improved life-style for the proletariat, but in reality it was always amassing wealth and luxury that would be fit for an industrial middle class capitalist for its highest members. In the French Republic of Virtue, we had Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his wife. While Napoleon advocated republican virtues and overthrew monarchs, he himself was a monarch who amassed great wealth for himself and established various dukes in France's dependent states. In Rome, even before the ascention of Julii-Claudian family to leadership over the Empire, the Republic's Senate was made up of patrician land owners who came from upperclass families. Point being, human societies will always have some form of elite, even the states proclaiming equality. It is the natural way, as even in animals you will have the alpha male and alpha female in power or the beehive queen. Some form of elite, leaders of the many. The trick is not to attempt to expell the elite altogether, but have the right individuals as the elite. My ideal state would have philosophers like us in power, just as Plato imagined. This is, of course, one of the most difficult tasks imaginable. But it can be done, for when we as a species are determined to do something, we will generally be successful in our endeavor. Edited by Mr.Anonymous on 02/10/07 - 01:23 PM. Reason: spelling errors
Hi.

wander
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Location: Diogenes' tub

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 96

Posted 02/13/07 - 05:47 AM:	#4
First adressing the two points raised it is here posited that one of three scenarios must exist regarding a comparison between an elite rulership of man and a self-governed mass of man. They are either morally equivalent, or one is more moral than the other. The Roman shopkeep might visit a brothel, while the Emperor might burn the town and play violin in the smoke. What stands more as the moral question to me is whether ruling man is even within a positive framework - that is whether it is possible to rule morally. I submit that it is not now, nor has it ever been - and that man's governance proper should take into account precisely this fact. That throughout history, regardless of dramatizations, elite heirarchies of rulers have without fail brought devastation to their microcosm or macrocosm in precisely such proportion as they are guaged "elite". Point in case the more elite the ruler, the more detached from that which he rules this person must be - and the more egregious the inevitable errors and hubris will become - whether it afflict tankard shopkeep stock or bonny king of England stock. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea. --James Madison Therein is a view of this chimera Madison refers to, that an elite is capable of some virtue in governance where a general populace is not and vice versa. All are men, and the idea of entitlement to rule, elitism, aristocracy, is an old beast and a myth promoting injustice alone. On the second point, no quarter is given to the biology of sparrows in this politic. Where the proposition is put forth that a heirarchy of man among man exists in nature, have in its place the notion that society is presently in no position to offer great instruction on matters of nature. Nature does not abide wanton destruction so amorously as man and his redundant societial constructs. For every dissertation regarding the natural order, strong enough on its own stands the positive; thus far missing from the discourse. A sinlge word, ever general enough to launch men on campaigns of injustice by their elite rulers. This word, is of course, *freedom. Waxing esoteric, take whatsoever is imagined as an "elite" ilk, and apply this in bold measure to all. Freedom is the harmonic, the correct natural state* of man - evidenced honestly. Rule is a deciept and sword; man's own cannibal politic not nature's. If any elite were capable by nature of bestowing upon man through rule a state superior to that which he himself would of his own endeavors consent to establish, they would have long since done so in one of the myriad incarnates of elitism present in measure in every form of governance of man. Have the elite just not had enough resources to feed man? Not enough weapons and wars to ensure peace? Etc. Etc. The elite have not only "done a bad job" so far, they invent and drag man through cataclysm upon cataclysm. For what? To prove something? Surely not the wisdom of elitism. The cycle wanes beyonds the threshold of what the planet Earth can bear - subsequently what mankind elite or otherwise can survive. Also I'm glad that the arete is mentioned. The elite, who rule from an ivory tower, will do so from wisdom. I submit that should this widsom live up to its namesake, and not stand as more mere philosophy, the wisdom of it will eliminate instantly its elitism. Wisdom requires no "authority" or "rule" and does not show preference to "class". If it is honest wisdom, it will see itself manifest. If it is of a dishonest variety, it will manifest as a chimera where the former should have. Suffice it to say, that whatsoever can be said of wisdom, it does not require a ruling party on its behalf - it needs no persuasive impetus outside itself. So while in disagreement on the fundamentals of who should be rulers of whom, we are in agreement of a sort on an arete of worth: wisdom - although even this travels in varying spectra of honest translation among men. There is no wisdom in establishing arbitrary heirarchies of rights and privelege among men. Either a man is a man, or he is not. A man can forfiet what is his by nature, in doing some wrong to it in principle through another. A man cannot, however, gain "more" than what nature grants - save by some force or fraud on another. Elitism is the practice of attempting to generate in real or percieved terms some Nietzschean ubermensch. Perhaps I mentioned already the nature of the disconnect - to be removed, supposing this was in itself a new moral ground; when in fact the hubris is quite to opposite. Yea, wisdom. The elites have ever been wise enough. Unfortunately, this wisdom has a shrill unpleasant hue. The issue is of moral judgement - a wisdom, for all other imbalances, heretofore unseen in an elite and abundant enough in a general mass. The arete, this wisdom, is neither present nor possible in the select. Do wise men seek to rule ships of fools to wisdom's shores? No wise person would attempt this. Fools are such that wisdom does not quite move them so well as foolishness. Wise men are such that wisdom need not be dictated them. What place among either is there for a ruling "upper class" of wise philosophers or foolish frauds? An arete of "wisdom" in reality is not so divergent from an arete of "divinity" or "racial purity" or whatsoever generality is to import the aristocracy's self-appropriated privelege of deceptive systematic lechery from the general mass. Again every possible arete stated, stands as nothing more than a facade for the rule - the inescapable bind between some proper sounding rationalization and good old fashioned honest enslavement by force. An arete of wisdom, a land of philosopher kings, will stand as nothing more than a kingdom in which slavery is much philosophised in the affirmative. If the sheer folly of it all has not convinced, the audacity of the affront to the natural and wise, as it were, ponder this: generation upon generation of man has subsisted on nothing but man alone. That is the aristocracy - a thing once removed from reality dealing in naught but entitlement. The principle behind having a governance from the general masses, not some select or dynastic ninnery, is to import both morality and a sense of reality to government itself. The positive, then, is freedom and a self-governing general mass. This is a reactive government, of little confidence in itself to prescribe man's path to him; as opposed to the "elite" proactive government of indoctrination and deterrence and proper conditioning to the aretes of the day. Here I also beg to differ on rating the difficulty of tasks in the heirarchy of all things. Freedom, not rule by an elite(for no such rule is acceptable in itself), is one of the most difficult tasks imaginable - especially to sustain. Being enslaved can be as simple as a matter of failing to identify a slaver. Being ruled by an elite, well that too, is easy - and ever have the elite declared themselves the right individuals for the task; while the general masses in one breath or another have agreed on some level. Yet I grow windy. Hopefully some matter has been provided here in this tardy second address. I will visit the discussion for some insights. Until next post...
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 02/15/07 - 04:26 PM:	#5
What one should understand is that while a world where humanity can be governed by the masses is a possiblity, it is one of the most difficult things to obtain, and is currently impossible. Why? In order to have such a society, the level technology and power must be in proportion to the morality level of the masses. This was automatically going to happen on its own, as we were evolving to the point where the common man had a more equal sense of right and wrong to the benevolent monarch, but unfortunately, something happened that disrupted this balance: The printing press. Because of this invention, information was more easily communiticated, and thereby technological development began to progress faster than ethical development could keep up with. And when technology advances, our ability to manufacture power in greater dimensions advances as well. But we did not develop the necessary ethical laws to guide the use of such power towards good. The purpose of the elite is for the most ethical and intelligent of humanity to guide those on a lower level, and over a period of time, bring the Low to an equal par with the High. Unfortunately, this has not been successful, as any system, no matter how perfect can easily be screwed up by human error, or should I say human illusion. Cultural influence led to the idea of inheritance, which transformed the elite from a group of intelligent thinkers and decision makers into a class of patrician families, often corrupt. However, this has not always been the case, as we have had some examples of good rulers, such as Cyrus and Darius of Persia, Augustus, Constantine, Queen Elizabeth, Winston Churchill (who was, incidently, an imperialist), and FDR. Not all rulers are Caligula or the harp-playing Nero that wander mentioned. Understand that being a member of the elite does not automatically make one more corrupt than the common man. The only difference is power, which increases the amount of people affected by the actions of the individual concerned. In order to obtain such a world where the masses govern themselves, we must have guides (the elite) who are capable of equalizing humanity's power and ethics. At the same time, we must have an effective way of keeping the right people among the elite class. Democracy has been very helpful in this regard, but even democracy has its flaws, such as party politics, lobbists, etc. that need to be removed. Once this is done, it will be easier for a class of philosopher-kings to ascend to power and restore the balance. And until that balance is in place, I am putting my vote with the great and mighty.
Hi.

wander
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Location: Diogenes' tub

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 96

Posted 02/17/07 - 03:18 AM:	#6
Strange, that here the defense of elitism finds some cause in a printing press to further the practice of illiterate slavery, on the grounds that slaves themselves do not advance law ethically enough to safely utilize elitely governed technologies. Thus government by the masses is impossible, it is proclaimed, because of its difficulty and great danger, to someone. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well and often better than the latter because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. --Jefferson Another quote, as I have of my own admission well placed the bit from Emerson. It is not "the Low" who are in need of being "brought up" to "the High", "mighty", and "great" and "powerful". It is these elite parasites and their incessant institutions which are in need of being revolved judiciously, to remind all men, cannibals alike, that reality ever awaits in the land of the "Low". Moral education at the behest of an elite is the impossibility, as a slave's only moral outlook is to attain freedom while a slaver subsists on the niceties of the institution. Government by the masses is the necessity, freedom the difficulty, if mankind is to attain a moral education at all. Otherwise, the first lesson, and what can be the last, defies retention yet after these millenea. Humanity's power and ethics have not, can not, and will not be equalized throughout a societal caste system or an instituted mass slavery. This archaic folly is the single most responsible element for any percieved imbalance in the first place. Upper class, lower class, this class, that class - even "power": all old world innanity that would sieze upon every opportunity to reinstitute with the technological prowess of a multitude of new slave denizens the same old order. Alas, this remains a ponderous debate. Here it is claimed that in order to achieve the end of the masses governing themselves, some elitism is to be instituted. Already my mean is acknowledged and elitism a mere artifice, contended to be of a less than dubious nature. The remainder seems naught but a child's fascination with empire, fables; romanticism of an ilk - the same that sends them to sleep dreaming of noble battles under an idolized parent's roof; with the nobility never quite noble, the battles never quite just, and the parents having recently sold three siblings to cannibals. Elitism bears ever the deception that what is done, this is done for the masses - even, "humanity". The dystopic double-ended noose around "elite" and "general masses" will grow ever tighter, because that is the form and essence of the relationship - the limit, slavery, that the sequence approaches. The eutopic, a society of people ruling themselves, bears no great description. It is not a place where man is coddled to the self-proclaimed moral green pastures of detached Nietzschean ubermenschen qua their detatchment - their "power". It is not a place where moral decisions are outside the domain of affairs of every comman man. It is reality, where man's every action specifically with regard to interaction among others in society is of consequence. A lifetime spent in servitude to the coin of plutocracy, the spears of empires, the engineering of technocracies, the biologies of dynsticisms, the means of enslavement for naught but its own sake - this lifetime is shared among all in consequence. No elite will suffice. No great wisdom or lie of power is needed. Only a virtue, a moral responsibility accepted for the course of humanity via the course and consequence of this lifetime - which, if the general masses do not ascend to and rescind permanently from history's "elites", will not be seen on this Earth. Marked, this third sparce diatribe awaits the fourth.
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 02/17/07 - 11:13 AM:	#7
My opponent has attempted to shatter my argument by amplifying the corruptness of certain members of the elite in history and placing them as the model of the High. He makes the notion that the press are the guardians of truth, the educators if you will. I respond with the following points: 1) The press is not a source of truth, but of whatever propaganda distributed on the demand of those who the press work for, be it Imperialists, Communists, Nazis and Fascists, or Society itself. Though I am a firm supporter of capitalism and profit, never in my life have I seen a more foul example of an organization betraying the human race in the name of its own profit. Here the capitalist system has experienced its dark side, as all things do. 2) If the elite are the oppressors of the masses, then also are the masses the oppressors of the elite. If someone has a talent, an ability that makes them different than the many, he is looked down apon, scorned for his difference. Never is this more true than in democracy. Allow me to quote from the Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis, as you, wander, have quoted from noble Jefferson. Screwtape wrote: For "democracy" or the "democratic spirit" (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and quick to snoral or whimper at the first hint of criticism. Lewis, with the mouth of a devil by the name of Screwtape (who is the main character in the book), shows us that a democracy, which is bent on equality by nature, has no appreciation for the talented, those who should be the elite (and sometimes do, but not always). The human being automatically fears that which is different from him/herself, and the common peasant will always envy the wise scholar, even when the scholar attempts to defend the peasant's rights. One, however, will note that the masses do not cause destruction like the elite. But as I have said before, the only difference between the evil of the monarch and the evil of the common peasant is the different level of access to power. The evil of the two is equal in almost every regard, save range and strength of affect. Sin is sin, not matter what the case. The common man and the monarch are neither better or worse than each other, for as wander pointed out so accurately, they are both human beings. 3) The instant hatred by the masses towards the elite is not always based apon oppression done by the nobleman. More than not, it is a natural characteristic of many mammals. The lower member of the pack will hate the alpha male, not out revenge caused by oppression, but by envy of the fact that the alpha male makes the decisions, receives the honor, has prime access to food, and gets to mate with the females first. There are problems with this such as the fact that human culture has resulted in the concept of inheritance, which prevents (or at least increases the difficulty) the lower of the clan from challenging the clan leader. Not to mention that the inheritance factor, as stated earlier, does not guarantee that the most skilled, talented, and sane are among the elite. This is, as I have said before, where the system that could have saved mankind essentially failed. But now that we are capable of understanding this, are we not also capable starting fresh again, bringing Plato's philosopher-kings into the position of "Protectors of Humanity's Future"? Is it possible for us to not only understand and learn from history, but to forgive from it? To accept that those in power are no more saints and no less sinners than the common man is? Edited by Mr.Anonymous on 02/18/07 - 08:21 AM
Hi.

wander
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Location: Diogenes' tub

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 96

Posted 02/23/07 - 12:55 PM:	#8
The fourth ensues, ill and late. Points made in the positive of elite rule descry it as some means to realize a civilization as advanced ethically as technologically. Submitted again here is the mere observation that, coupled with the institution being in itself one of slavery, rule of man does not facilitate, expedite, or allow in any wise the development of a politic outside the scope of master-slave ettiquite - leaving the only factor of equilibrium between this ethos and say, telos, attributable to the outright retardation or twisting of technology to the mechanations of the established rule. So on to the most interesting of the positives for the contrary: the press, here attributed with qualities not suggested by myself, is stated to be the most foul existing example of an organization betraying the human race for "profit". While I might echo the sentiment behind this, the press is but one among a long list of oathbreaking, lie propagating, death dealing, stupifying slaver institutes of existing elite rule. Rank among them generally corporations and governments, and then understand the scope of the rot in defense of an tenth generation leech spewing the catchisms of "just rule". That being the first point, the second reflects that rule is in fact mutual. This is covered earlier - that a man will not be held down without energy being wasted in the apparatus utilized to do so. The third point then refers to some sociology of dogs or so. Not to be kurt, but here is discussed a rationalization for being subject to the whim of an "elite" human being chosen somehow to "rule" another's life down to the neuron firing by nanosecond due to their correspondence with certain pack animals designated in Greek lettering by levels of aggression. A nation without great men, as it were, corresponds closely to a nation without institutionalized alphas; i.e. composed of entirely of omegas that govern themselves - without giant portraits in every building of the standing ruler proclaiming greatness. Rephrased, the mentality that some excellence facilitates a capability to decide carte blanche the courses of others' lives for them is a conceptual sieve best left in the nationalist domains of lesser or greater animals. Further, hatred is no more a natural characteristic than love or any other emotion. There is no biochemical grounds for the assumption that some are hated not due to their actions or the actions associated with their position, but because of some inherent societal bent. Are we to assume no hatred is merited? Or after a long list of failed elitist structures, now this particular hatred of an aristocracy qua aristocracy is nothing more than an animal response to some natural pack interaction? Further yet, that this response while base and animal is something of a lesser quality than the rule of an alpha itself? While continuously searching less than rational animals for ques on politics, it appears that the argument for elitism only counts dissent among the ranks some base creature habit - while the elitism itself or just drone obedience is something befitting a society. So, as dismissive as biology might engender itself let it dismiss equivalently, eh? Alphaism, elitism. Or let biology take verse in what has gone so far as to be codified self-evident among men in fairer politics, liberty. The piecewise detail of the former contrary in this latter is complete and onward the tattered speech continues. Again, humanity is the protector of humanity's future. What every bloke will not ascend to on his own will not by Pavlov be extracted in his arbitrary definition as subject to elite ruler - naught but more incessant tyranny avails the very notion of elitism. And what to date has elitism cost mankind? What has liberty gained? I submit that the latter, while fruitful sporatically manifold over the former, requires on time alone some thousands of years to be properly tested next to its precedent, which yet lingers - ever availing itself to drink the blood of mankind. Understanding history and learning from it is quite the purpose, but foregiveness does not involve allowing the repetition of its crimes. Finally, since those in power are evidently no more saints than the common man, their power over the common man is by no account more valid than the common man's own. Trailing off until next post, with due allowance for bacteria.
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 02/23/07 - 03:20 PM:	#9
Apparently my opponent has a thing for poetic-style writing. Interesting. But now it is time to make some more points: 1) So far, the best support for a society ruled by the masses is a critism of the failures of past leaders, the so-called "slave masters". I would be very interested to read about what a society of "omegas" would be like, and how it would be any better than that of the rule of the great. Otherwise, repeatedly pointing out the failures of the elite don't make any sense, as a rule by the masses could be even worse. Which would you rather have: the Berlin Wall (lesser evil) or WWIII with the Soviet Union (greater evil)? I would very much like to learn about your great utopia of liberty and justice. 2) wander claims that the best rule possible, the one that we as a species should work for, would be that of a society made up only of omegas. Would it not be better to have a society of alphas? A race of super-intelligent philosopher kings? Why have a society of unintelligent weaklings when you can have a society of intelligent, strong men? In the end, the latter was (and still is) the original goal of the human race: make everyone a member of the elite. No more servants, just masters yet guided by morality rather than self-interest. 3) My opponent asked what the elite have costed our species, what freedoms and liberties have they bestowed. He implies much of the former and almost none of the latter. I counter by saying this: if the elite have worked tyranny apon the people, why have they not overthrown their rulers and established the desired system of equality and justice? The masses that my opponent so highly values have never, and will never, overthrow their masters on their own. A quote from George Orwell (a.k.a. Eric Blair), perhaps my favorite philosopher of all: George Orwell wrote: ...The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim-for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too mush crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives-is to abolish all distictions and create a society in which all men shall be equal...They (the High) are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude...Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. And why are they never successful? They have not the will or the intelligence to eliminate the Middle when they get the chance and establish this system, for intelligence is required to overthrow someone with intelligence. None of the socialist revolutions have ever been led by the Low, but by the Middle. What Orwell was describing has never been more evident than in the Russian Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet Union. The Middle/Communist Party enlisted the Proletariat to overthrow the High/Royal Family, then put the Proles back into a position of labor and servitude, killing whoever had the will to oppose them. A bunch of omegas, even with strength of numbers, are ineffective against an alpha or two. And no matter what attempt is made to eliminate the High, it will only be temporary, as those who innitiate that attempt (the Middle) will automatically become the High. And even if that was not a problem, eventually out of the ranks of the Low, some Alphas will appear and seize control. So thus why promote a society of omegas, of people with lesser intelligence and only an interest in the basic functions of life, when you can achieve a society of alphas? 4) The Press belong neither to the Elite, the Middle, or the masses, but to whoever will pay them. They are not an institution of the Elite, but of humanity's own self-illusions. And if one is looking for some other institution of corruption other than the Press, look not at governments or corporations (for most of the "corruption" in these organizations is blown out of proportion by the Press), but at political parties. America's political polarization and division is the result of these units of self-interest. If the government is the High, than the political parties are the Middle who enlist the Low in their quest to destroy the High. 5) My opponent states that since the elite are no more saints than the common man, an account based on moral superiority is invalid. And in this particular case, I agree. A moral account cannot be valid. So what would be such an account? Intelligence, which is not the same as morality through occasionally links with it. The Elite have a right to rule based on the fact that they are the ones who are capable of doing so. And rulership does not automatically mean master over slave. Rulership means one man, the ruler, takes a look at the building materials and the builders' skills, and apon those conditions directs the builders in what he/she believes would be best to build (or defend, teach, ect.). Making sure that the right directors are in place should be our first step to a great civilization, not attempting to eliminate the talented and put power in the hands of those who do not know what to do with it. And yes, wander, forgiveness does not involve repeating past crimes. But forgiveness does involve making a change in the system and then letting it have another go to see if your forgiveness was worthwhile. 6) wander also mentioned there being a problem with portaits and statues of rulers. Such things once, as sometimes still, serve a purpose: To give the masses a chance to thank and reward the Elite for good rulership, as well as to inspire new generations of Elite to behave like the previous, benevolent generation. While this practice has sometimes been corrupted as a way for bad rulers to satisfy their vanity, such statues have been made in honor of great men such as Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Mr.Anonymous on 02/23/07 - 03:44 PM
Hi.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

Posted 03/18/07 - 04:05 PM:	#10
Since the participants were unable to complete the scheduled five rounds we'll call the debate concluded at four. Thanks to wander and Mr.Anonymous for their participation.

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.