In majority rule, each person in a 51% majority has a power beyond and
above each person in the 41% minority. Often, the minority groups are powerless,
and the interests of the majority are imposed on them. Democracy would
be meaningless without isocracy, meaning equal power for everyone.
1. Sham democracy.
No doubt that what is called democracy is better than the different forms of dictatorship practiced in some parts of the world. Yet, it is a false democracy.
Democracy means rule by the people, not by a part of the people. Even its literal translation, people power, does not give all of the power to a part of people. The true democracy is a power shared by all of the people, and is not limited only to `one person, one vote`.
The greatest lie in the history is that what has always been called democracy has never been democracy. It has been the majority rule, and the majority rule is what put Christ on the cross, and ordered Socrates' death.
The true term for the majority rule is pleocracy, not democracy. The ancient Greeks knew this, and deceptively called their majority rule democracy. In fact, their three greatest men stood against it.
Socrates criticized democracy, and the majority rule put him in prison, and ordered him to drink the hemlock, thus kill himself, which he did. Plato resented democracy so much that he designed a utopia ruled by a philosopher king. And Aristotle tutored Alexander (so-called The Great) to become that philosopher king. In turn, Alexander killed the Greek's false democracy, and replaced it with a MiddleEast style dictatorship!
The majority rule (pleocracy) is unfair because the majority can legalize what they want no matter how unfair it is to others, and criminalize what they don't want no matter how fair it might be.
The false democracy serves the interests of every member of the majority against the interests of every member of the minorities. That is, it makes a minority member unequal to a majority member. Thus, it violates the principle of equal rights.
The Greek pleocracy was a participatory system even though it excluded women, children, and slaves. Athens was a small village, and all of its voting men could gather in one place, discuss the issues, and cast their votes. The larger populations have adopted the representative pleocracy which is even worse. Because, their elected officials are invariably bought out by the rich.
If you believe
that the majority rule is just, then you must believe that Christ and Socrates
were guilty as charged, and deserved to be crucified or condemned to death
as felons. After all, the majority ruled so!
In truth, unjust cannot be just
even if the majority says so.
Ordinarily, the majority rule turns into the tyranny of the majority while pretending to be just by giving a false sense of it.
The majority rule, plutocracy (rule by the rich), aristocracy (rule by the blue blood), etc. are variations of some people ruling over others. Where the majority rules, the minorities are ruled, and this violates their equal rights.
Those who have criticized the subjugation of the minority interests to those of the majority have used the word isocracy to mean equal powers in voting and governing.
The American congress is formed on the principle of the majority rule (pleocracy). According to the size of its population, each state elects a number of representatives for the congress. The American senate is formed on the principle of isocracy: two senators from each state regardless of their sizes. The American government consists of three forms of government:
a. Pleocracy (majority rule) which
is unfair to the minorities.
b. Isocracy which is unfair to
the majority.
c. Bureaucracy which is rule by
the bureaucracts including their so-called `fair hearings` or `administrative
hearings` which rule
regardless of the evidence, and
often despite of it in order to justify their often unnecessary jobs, and
ascertain their budgects.
The fair way of governing is the appropriation of the power to each group proportional to its size instead of giving it all to the majority or dividing it equally among the majority and the minority groups. This would be the true democracy: rule by all people, each according to its size: the proportional governing or analogocracy.
For example, in a society of 100 people divided into three groups of 10, 30, and 70, the governing power must be divided among them as 10%, 30%. and 70% respectively. To achieve this, two ways are being proposed here.
A. Credit Vote. The idea is that x% of the legislators must win x% of the times. For example, a 4% minority would make 4% of the decisions, a 96% majority 96%, etc.
To do this, each member of the congress gets one credit vote each time he/she loses in a vote casting. In time, each group would accumulate enough credits to outvote the others. That is, the one single minded person can accumulate enough credit votes to outvote all others. In such a system, the Supreme Court would decide what law is fair or unfair, and has the power to abolish the unfair ones, but does not have the power to write a law.
B. Divided Purse. The congress would determine the federal projects. Then, instead of voting on each project, the money to be spent annually is equally divided among the members of the congress in the form of chips. The federal money must be spent only on the federal projects, and the state money on the state projects, etc. The members deal with one another in putting together their chips for their chosen projects.
This can
provide political justice, but cannot prevent other forms of injustice
including war. To establish and maintain universal justice, this must be
a part of a universal system based on unidirectional competition where
each community governs itself on the basis of internal independence, external
co-dependence (see unidirectional competition below).
3. Positive Radicalism.
Radicalism is a procedure to achieve change. The different kinds of radicalism can be divided into positive and negative.
Negative radicalism is an aggressive and destructive path that varies from breaking windows and looting the stores to bombing buildings. Positive radicalism is progressive and constructive and varies from fair speeches to sit-ins.
Nagative radicalism uses hearsay, lies, foul words, and false or non-scientific evidence. Positive radicalism does not deviate from the truth based on scientific, demonstrative, and material evidence.
Progress comes through change. Therefore, progress justifies positive radicalism to improve the human condition. In this light, positive radicalism is as essential as is progress. Meeting the obstinate social injustices with positive radicalism is everyone's social duty, and everyone's hope for a better human society.
A point of contention must be addressed by the opposing sides. Therefore, a one-sided view must never be taken seriously. We must have impartial media that provide equal time and space for the opposing sides in a debate, and always publish a reasoned view along with its reasoned critic.
DATED: 9 October 2000
NOTE: The article above is from "Thus Speaks Zarathustra", a 4-volume book (presently not available) by Behrooz Bassim, MD. This book is a 21st century sequel to Nietzsche's 19th century masterpiece. Other pages from it on the internet are:
Abortion
Artificial
Color & Flavor
Capitalism
Civility
Darwin
Was Right So Was LaMarck
Democracy
or Isocracy
Etymology
of sacred, etc
God,
Who?
Guns
in USA
Homosexuality
Honesty
Me
Intelligence
Monetary,
A Unique Unit, A unique
Particle
Physics, Grand Spectrum
Plight
of the Mice
Politician,
The American
Race
& Class
Sermon
Sham
Justice
Soul
Is Mind
Unidirectional
Competition
Universal
Army
Universal
Language
Zarathustra
CONTACT: bassim@usadatanet.net