# Democracy and Inequality [May be controversial | Contains some offensive language]



## The Defenestrator (Oct 15, 2014)

PRAETER IPSUM
(DOMINUS NEMINIS PRAETER IPSUM) 

DE MALA LOGICA DEMOCRATIARUM, or: DE INIQUO HOMINUM
​The worship of Democracy[1] in the West has propagated fallacious ideas about the truth of Democracy’s assertions. Indeed, for Democracy to exist, it must assert these assumptions as truth, or the Democracy will fall.  However, without citizens who consider their individuality and who cannot think critically about every aspect of their government, what prevents these citizens from being manipulated by those in power, for the consequence of maintaining that power?  Mob mentality comes about as a result of a lack of critical thinking on the behalf of individuals, of which a Democracy is comprised.  Able-minded, critical-thinking individuals are more likely to understand when they are being manipulated, and thus vote according to their true interests, rather than the interests of those attempting to manipulate the majority of individuals.  My purpose, however, is not to convince you that critical thinking is needed – if you do not believe this already, I would be foolish to attempt to argue with you.  If it is otherwise, and you believe, it would be, (and indeed already is) a waste of page space to try and convince you of what you already know.  
The true purpose of this writing is to point out to critical thinking individuals the fallacies of Democracy’s arguments for democracy; to lift the cloud of inebriating assumptions and let their[2] mind be free of the intoxicating influence of their fallacious poison.[3] 
*The Great Assumption Underlying All Democratic Fallacy:*
*All Men[4] Are Created Equal.
*​To this assertion I offer one word: no.  Undoubtedly[5] the reader will agree that they are a completely different individual than the author[6].  How then can they assert equality with the author?  If one and one is two, that is because one and one is fundamentally the same number as two – logically, only things that are the same can be equal to each other in any literal, physical sense.  Imagine two oranges of equal mass, conceived and birthed by the same tree, of the same shape and color. . . In every way that you can tell from optical observation, they appear the same.  However, if they are really different, you will find that inside, the juice may taste better or worse; there may be a thicker or thinner skin, the number of divisions within the orange could differ.  These distinctions are what mark each orange as individual and split from each other: different.  They also mark each orange as better or worse than the other orange in some aspect.  Even if the better tasting orange has the thicker skin, and therefore less mass to eat (assuming the abandonment of the skin), in its own ways it is better or worse than the orange that tastes worse but has a thinner skin and therefore more mass to eat.  It is illogical to equate two things that are obviously not the same.  There is the argument that they have an equal amount of ‘pros’ and ‘cons’, and are therefore equal overall; this is false, or at least useless to consider outside of ideal conditions.  If the pros and cons are different, then the observed worth varies depending on the situation.  This is what I call situational worth.  To explain, I posit this example: you are starving in a war of attrition.  Which orange would you desire: the one with the more beautiful taste or the one which could fill your belly for even a second longer?  In this situation, if you choose one over the other, you are assigning more worth to one than the other, deeming one unequal and superior.  
At this point, like most burdensome readers, you will need me to connect this back to humans.  People have different strengths and weaknesses.  Who would you want to assist you in a war: someone good at strategy or bad at strategy?  It is even possible to imagine a human who is good[7] at every conceivable thing, except, of course, at those things which contradict each other. The reverse is also possible to imagine.  How could we call these two hypothetical humans equal?  

*“Oh no, humans are unequal and therefore I should get more say in democratic government than stupid, thoughtless people!”

*​            Shut up, you thoughtless, arrogant bastard.  Yeah, _I_ called you an arrogant bastard – I’m not sorry if that hurts your pride.  
            The knowledge of inequality is _not the same_ as the knowledge of how people are unequal.  It would be the most supreme act of arrogance for any individual to assume they are able to take a pure stance of objectivity and therefore accurately deem one individual of more or less worth than another.  Those hypothetical humans I talked about earlier are hypothetical because there is no empirical evidence to support their existence.  Sure, I can’t ‘know[8]’ they don’t exist, and will gladly abandon this position when I am acquainted to one, but for all purposes worth our time in considering, they do not exist.  Everyone has at least one thing they are good at, and therefore everyone has one thing that gives them situational worth.  I will be the first to admit that yes, it is very likely that there is a human out there who is qualitatively better or worse than all other humans, who has more situational worth than other humans; however, who could judge accurately who this individual is?  Were I to label such an individual, I am certain that many other individuals would label another in dispute.  Inequality, while extant, is also too well hidden in the complexities of humans, and our individual bias prevents our eyes from seeing and our mind from comprehending that which we do not have the tools to measure.


*But we have the tools.  IQ tests, aptitude tests—

*​            Once again, imagined opponent, I will ask you to shut the egregious bung-hole[9] that seems to open itself in your face.  Are you really such a fool to think that testing is an all-encompassing measurement of worth?  Imagine an individual talented in every non-contradictory way except at taking tests, which he is abysmal at.  This is possible because there are a couple wrong assumptions being made with testing: first, that the tests are a perfect proxy for the real situation which they are attempting to imitate, and second that the tests themselves do not require any skill other than those which they are testing.  Test taking, test preparation. . . these things are skills in their own right. In fact, a test taker is often required to be literate.  If the tested was never given opportunity to become literate, then how is the illiteracy a reflection of their intelligence, especially when, if only given the skill of literacy, the tested could pass every other challenge offered by the test.  As to the former assumption, fabricated, controlled tests, no matter how realistic they may seem are still facsimiles to the real deal in many aspects.  

*Fine.  Then if it’s pointless to try to rank people because of the complexities of humans and the flaw of individual bias, what’s the point of what you’re saying?  For all practical purposes, shouldn’t we just believe that we are equal?  And if so, then how does that defeat the concept of Democracy?

*​            You should not believe that humans are equal, that’s what I’ve been telling you.  You should not believe that just because you cannot see the inequality, that you should ignore its existence.  Now that you are made aware, you have a duty[10] to humanity: find a system of governance that does not assume the power to overstep the ability of individual bias, accounts for inequality, and is in all aspects fair[11].  
            Yes, I realize this is a lot to ask.  No, I do not have high hopes for any timely form of this ideal government.  Perhaps it is even impossible.  However, I cannot be content with mere ‘Democracy’, a government based in false assumptions and ruled by a critical thinking elite, elected by an easily manipulated, advertisement-intoxicated mob of citizens.  I also cannot deny that said Democracy is currently necessary until something better is found; after all, as flawed as it is, it is certainly the lesser of two evils to have unfair equality than to have unfair inequality. 
​[1] Capitalized as a proper name; Democracy: the official god of The United States of America.

[2] I will be kind and assume that you are a critically-open-and-able-minded individual and this therefore could read ‘your’.

[3] Now is a good time to stop keeping track of my pretentious phrases; you will get carpal tunnel from keeping tally.

[4] This is the archaic, sexist term for the human race as a whole – possibly resulting from an arrogant synecdoche on the part of other pretentious, so-called intellectuals.

[5] Unless the reader is in fact the author, at which point it would be useless to argue the truth of the statement, as I have just done.

[6] Praeter Ipsum, if you didn’t realize.  I’m sorry but truly not sorry to condescend; readers can be so idiotic, you know?

[7] Good and bad: qualitative terms, rather than the moral terms of good and evil. The word for bad or evil in the title is to be taken as a member of the former rather than the latter – it’s the bad logic, not the evil logic.

[8] After all, there are convincing arguments that I cannot know anything other than my own perception of my existence, and the fact that I exist. It is the prison of the critically-minded individual to be trapped inside his or her own perceptions for his or her entire life.

[9] I like to think that since my opponent is imagined, I may insult him as I wish.  Insults, while out of place in academic discussion, are so much fun to sling, especially at someone who can only be in pain if I imagine them so, that I could not resist.

[10] Or not.  It’s your life, and individuals are able to be selfish.

[11] This is redundant with the previous listed requirement.  I would edit it, except that I believe my readers dull enough to benefit from the repetition.


​


----------



## Plasticweld (Oct 15, 2014)

I see no glaring technical issues with your writing.  I fail to follow the logic in your analogy as being a reasonable comparison and would take the time to find something a little more convincing.  I think if you are try to convince a reader of anything it would be done in a non-confrontational tone.  One to rather educate rather than scold.  As a rule when you end an essay it would be to make a point that you  believe in. I think it waters down what you write when you tell the reader in any format "that it is a lot to ask for them to agree with you" and you have no solutions.  



*[9] I like to think that since my opponent is imagined, I may insult him as I wish.  Insults, while out of place in academic discussion, are so much fun to sling, especially at someone who can only be in pain if I imagine them so, that I could not resist.


*This is fine as long as you realize that your writing for fun and not as a matter of providing information.

Is this for a school assignment?


----------



## The Defenestrator (Oct 15, 2014)

Nope!  This is a non-traditional essay that I felt like writing.  I may create a more traditional version of an essay, but I feel that essays that try to persuade the reader into thinking one way or another ultimately fail at the goal I want to accomplish with my 'essays': the promotion of critical thought/reasoning.  I don't want you to agree or disagree; I don't care if you think I'm being sarcastic or serious -- the goal is not to be taken seriously, sarcastically, to convince or otherwise.  The goal is to make someone think.  Is this pretentious writer serious?  What was the point of that?  Why is he insulting the reader instead of pandering to them?  -- any question the reader asks and attempts to answer is beneficial to the reader.  I won't deny that the style needs some work, and I certainly wont claim to have infallible logic. Feel free to specify exactly what doesn't add up logically for you, and I'll consider your argument in depth when I go back to edit this piece some more. 

Thanks for reading, Plasticweld!  I appreciate the feedback you've already given, and will certainly take it into serious consideration in future edits of the paper.


----------



## The Defenestrator (Oct 15, 2014)

Accidental double post.


----------



## Plasticweld (Oct 15, 2014)

I was thinking that instead of using your orange tree as a analogy, how about using a litter of pups. both share the same parent yet will have different degrees of skills and traits.  Having been both a farmer and someone who raised coon hounds it might suit  your purposes. A tree never produces both bitter and sweet, yet in a litter of dogs which should have all equal advantage or disadvantage they can be 180 degrees apart from one dog to the other


I write a lot of political and religious themed things.  I am an old guy, a Capitalist and Christian so we are at different ends of the spectrum as far as philosophies  go.  We are still both trying to do the same thing when it comes to swaying a reader.  I try and offer a example of why my point is correct, then offer an personal story and then an historical story, in my case either just history or the bible to re-enforce the point I am trying to make.  I then try and answer the question I asked in the first sentence  or heading.


If you want to use the combative approach I would use humor as way of doing so.  You would be surprised what you can say in the form of humor and still make a point, and still make a jab...Bob


I wrote a story posted in the fiction section called  "Tears of Regret." which was my response to the anti war crowd when we were talking about how involved we should be in supporting Iraq and what our response to ISIS should be, it was done in parable form


http://www.writingforums.com/threads/150631-Tears-of-regret-695-word-language  link to the story if your interested


----------



## ppsage (Oct 15, 2014)

This essay, while almost disastrously emphatic, seems to have considerable difficulty saying clearly what it means. I find it impossible to ascertain whether this is a call for elitist governance or an call to understand the difference between ideology and praxis. If the latter, it might benefit from reference to Lefebvre or other established analysts, which will provide a navigable bridge to the larger views wherein the reader might orient herself more practically.


----------



## The Defenestrator (Oct 15, 2014)

The 'runt' of a litter is certainly a beneficial example, Plasticweld.  Obviously my knowledge of fruit is lacking, and that shows; that bit definitely needs revision.  Thanks. 

Also, ppsage: I intended the confusion concerning the meaning, as a method to force the reader to think about the things being said.  I acknowledge that doing this seems to have sacrificed much of the power behind any statement I make, however.  I'm going to have to reconsider how I go about expressing myself (as I do not seem to be communicating clearly), or leave it as is and acknowledge that it'll likely never be appreciated for being vague.  Thanks for your feedback, and good suggestion.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 15, 2014)

I'm not sure I believe in a theory of deliberate confusion as motivation to further study. Especially in a milieu of constant insult. Together, these do not engender a close first reading. Once I've scanned the gist, my impulse is brief re-reading followed by dismissal. And maybe muttering crackpot. In this, for what it's worth, I doubt I'm very different than most. But maybe there's different reactions, building up among the progeny.


----------



## qwertyportne (Oct 16, 2014)

Your Writing 

Paragraphs => some writers get tired of hearing less-is-more advice, such as "Tighten up your writing." and "Show, don't tell." but fewer words (quantity) improves understanding (quality). I recommend you take another look at this quantity vs. quality issue in your revision.

Footnotes => That helped make your position more clear, but jumping back and forth between the text and the footnotes distracted me. I kept losing the flow of your argument. Probably more my problem than yours, but I recommend you explore ways to merge the footnotes into the text.

Your Argument

Tone => your attitude toward me, the reader, really put me off. Tact is the art of making your point without alienating your audience. You can't sell a vacuum cleaner if the door gets slammed in your face.

Audience => Are you preaching to the choir or to the pews? Despite your stated purpose, I am confused about the target of your argument. If I am a critical thinker, for example, you say "it's a waste of page space to try and convince you of what you already know." 

But then you say your purpose is "to point out to critical thinking individuals the fallacies of Democracy’s arguments for democracy; to lift the cloud of inebriating assumptions." Later in your article you target a "thoughtless, arrogant bastard" as an "imagined opponent" with an "egregious bunghole."

Looking over my own comments so far, I probably shouldn't be confused. Despite the possibility that critical thinkers are likely to have a discriminating understanding of democracy and a wide range of other topics, your target audience is readers who are...

 1) Not critical thinkers and therefore just plain stupid and terribly deceived;
2) Critical thinkers but not as discriminating a thinker as you claim to be;
3) Critical thinkers who somehow thought their way to a very different conclusion than yours. 

Whatever the case, I recommend your revision takes a softer, more tactful approach.


----------



## Seedy M. (Oct 16, 2014)

The big fallacy in your presentation is that you only took part of the definition of Democracy. The definition of Democracy (in governmental aspects) is equality _under law_ - which doesn't exist, either. I agree with most of your dissertation. It is the basis of why the _Flight of the Maita_ series has a machine emperor. Who ever heard of a greedy machine or one who cared? About anything? It does only what it is programmed to do. The fallacy in considering that factor is the programmer will have programmed in its own ideas and positions.
The only way democracy can work is with an absolute dictator.
It's a weird world we live in.


----------

