« An amazing girl reminding us things we've mostly forgotten | All (nearly) about a name »
@ 25/05/2008 – 16:20:23
In an interview with Alain Robert, the human spider, who has climbed, unprotected, many of the tallest towers in the world, he claimed that it’s much easier to climb the towers than to get the license to climb them.
This is true in many areas, and it made me wonder if the true role of our democratic institutions is to promote and establish mediocrity.
TomTheCat
so maybe instead of using knives to show you are a real man, people would climb buildings
TomTheCat
the picture i imagine looks more like this:
parents talk to their children: 'and don't forget, my child, to look up! 'cause men fall from buildings now and then... don't worry, just watch out!'
evilhippy
Democracy kind of IS mediocrity, but still "the least worst system of governance" we have so far found.
The problem, I suppose, is that only very few of even the best climbers, in this example, could do this without getting splattered across the ground. Or have the guts to do it - still, far more manly than stabbin or shooting someone or trying to live within a system of respect; that is seen fit to kill for; or anything ridiculous like that.
What do you mean 'we have so far found' I don't think we are looking very hard, because whenever we say that maybe democracy is not so good a solution, everyone comes to defend it. Seek not and you shall not find
evilhippy
Find a better way to govern millions and I'll follow dude, everyone with an ounce of individuality has been trying for the last 200 years. I think it's fair to say that we've been looking as hard as we can 
Thing is, there just isn't a better way. And as far as capitalism Vs communism or anything like that goes, I go with the status quo. I love capitalism, wouldn't have the world any other way 
Democracy is the tool of capitalism and vice versa - and I for one have always liked the idea of being able to work harder to get more, rather than be assigned a prisoner's number and given no better than the laziest of my fellows.
We?
What alternative have you peronally been looking at if I may ask?
evilhippy
Totalitarian governance with me at the helm, of course.
I'll be genuinely benevolent, loving my people as best I can while exploiting the benefits of the position just enough to keep me happy 24hrs a day 365 days a year. Nothing much, you understand.
Seriously though? Can you think of any way in which socialism would work? I would hate it - we are not equal, and I'll be damned if I get the same treatment as those less worthy than me, and ashamed if I got the same as those far more worthy.
Less equal = here's the crunch really. People who have a better knowledge of certain areas (healthcare, foreign policy, welfare, defence etc.) should have more weight in those votes.
Actually voting as a country on many matters would be nice, too
Of course honesty and integrity are more than welcome - would it be too far to administer truth drugs to experts and have them decide on the best course of action for a nation to take? If the person asking the questions were shrewd enough and thoroughly egalitarian in all ways then I would have no problem with it.
But the questionmaster must not only be totally honest, very clever and equitable in his asking, but also have no hidden agendas whatsoever.
Then again there is always the question of who put the questionmaster in his position, and who administers and regulates the drugs, and it all comes back to "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" - who watches the watchmen?
This is why a roughly democratic party in a very free country where we have no worries of war, famine or plague seem like pretty good options to me.
I gave up being an idealist a long time ago Ran, this is part of why I'm on a three-year holiday
interesting. You only compare to old. To systems that were all conceived a few hundred years ago. As the world has changed quite significantly it is unlikely that you would find the answers there.
As for being idealist. You are on a three years holiday, and yet, you do care about these issues. So maybe you still have some idealist in you
'he claimed that it’s much easier to climb the towers than to get the license to climb them.
This is true in many areas, and it made me wonder if the true role of our democratic institutions is to promote and establish mediocrity.'
It's also easier to kill a kitten than to get a licence to do so. Your point is?
In our local paper, it was reported yesterday that a man had died in a fall, after climbing thirty feet up the side of a cliff, to see if there was an egg in a bird's nest. His 14 year old son was the only witness, and 'ran to his family saying his dad was dying.' It was the son's birthday, they went to Nash Point to celebrate it. It probably wasn't illegal to climb the cliff, and he almost certainly didn't plan to fall and die on his son's birthday, but that's what his family have to live with now, and you complain that stupid buggers on the sides of buildings should be cut a break?
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news.html/Man-died-family-cliff-fall/article-185395-detail/article.html
Yes, I claim that it's our legal right to be stupid, and no government can decide it for a mature adult. Otherwise, we will not be able to indulge in our own stupidity, and will have to conform with stupidity arbitrarily decided by other (for instance pot is illigal alohol is - can it get more arbitrary than that?)
You're not going to get an argument from me about *your* right to be stupid, but stupidity that endangers other people is another matter. Or did the 'human spider' set up barriers before his climb, to prevent anyone from being under him if he fell? A couple of signs saying 'Warning, Human Spider At Work'?). I suspect he could climb as many cliffs as he liked, whatever the consequences.
Related posts
The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.
the common argument is like this: "imagine if everybody would do so..."
and, by the way, i can imagine...