posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:18 AM
Okay, this post will make me very unpopular but...democracy is a #ing joke.
In an ideal world, the people governing themselves would be utopian. Everyone makes the decisions they wish to make. Everyone does their bit, and
everyone contributes, and everything runs perfectly.
Unfortunately, British society is not like this. As a British man of 28 years and a traveller of the length and bredth of our nation, I can honestly
tell you that this latest initiative is not far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
The major misconception comes from the fact that people don't seem to realise that society is not a natural, God-given occurence. Society
only works when everybody makes it work. After millennia of strong, stable (albeit warlike) societies, it may seem like civilization is a constant
and irrevocable part of life, but it is not.
For civilization to work, it requires people, and these people can initially be broadly categorised into two groups: those that see the system, and
decide to support it, and those that see the system and decide to exploit it.
Luckily, the first group are the majority. If they weren't, society would collapse. These people work hard, contribute taxes and ensure that those
who are incapable of doing so should not die of hunger or exposure.
The second group are the parasites, who take but do not give. They are the ones who see the laws of the land, democratically chosen by the people
because that is how they want their stable society to function (these parasites actually have the option of changing this and, with the current
democratic system in place, could actually vote to remove it), and deny their place in that society.
Remember these people are actively working against the progress and success of Britain today by being a drain on its resources. I might not do much
to advance the cause of British Civilization, but I do work and pay my taxes. I do what is required of me and reap the rewards of doing so.
Why should those who decide they shall simply exploit the system share in those same benefits? More importantly, why should they be allowed to
reduce my standard of living and quality of life?
They make a point of avoiding the cultural traditions of our country to make a mockery of our benefits institution, an institution we set up to help
those members of our society who are unable and not simplyunwilling to contribute.
Remember, this option is only available to them because we have deigned it to be so. There is no natural law forcing our hand. We, the law-abiding,
tax paying majority, do this out of the kindness of our hearts via the government we have chosen.
So what is a society of like-minded people to do with these wayward types who take advantage of our good nature?
Well, that's the big question, but first there is something to consider.
Democracy is not fair, period. There is no opt-out clause when two mutually-exclusive viewpoints are being decided upon. The third option, neither
party's preferential choice but more acceptable to both than the opposing party's view, is never chosen, and cannot be.
This means that if 51% of the people decide they prefer blue, the 49% who preferred red will be utterly marginalised and their opinions ignored, when
purple would have suited both parties better than having their preferences rejected due to chance and numbers, despite the fact it was neither's
Of course, the Americans believe this automatically means the only other form of government is a Nazi-esque state in which the populous must suffer,
because of their unending campaign of brainwashing their country, and the rest of the world, into thinking what they do is automatically the correct
and best option.
Democracy is a popularity contest, in which the candidates with the prettiest manifeso wins. It does not judge on merit or ability, but purely on
likeability and charisma.
Democracy means you are as totalitarian as any despotic government in history. If you have decided it is acceptable to ignore the opinions of the
minority, then you have decided that might is right, regardless of the direction in which it heads, because as long as the strongest party is
in the lead then it must be heading in the right direction.
So to return to the main issue, how should it be decided how society functions? Since we have decided to ignore the votes or opinions of the
minority that have decided they do not want to help British society work, we are now morally no better than tyrants.
But why is that wrong? After all, if the majority has decided that the minority do not know what is best for themselves (those who say "all must
work" vs those who say "I don't want to work"), and therefore have their opinions ignored utterly, then why should the minority get a say in what
happens next? We have made the judgement when we called the vote.
If the parasitic section of people have chosen to ostracise themselves from the society that beget them, so be it. They have decided it, it was not
forced upon them.
Why should we have to deal with them at all? Why shouldn't we just round them up, dump them naked on an island and say "fine, if you don't like
our civilization, make your own"?
If a person is on benefits unlawfully, why should we punish them any further than exile? It is not our responsibility. It is entirely theirs, as
sensible, intelligent human beings. If they are not capable of this decision, they are infirm or mentally deficient and should be taken care of
accordingly, as we do any mental disorder sufferers. The responsibility of decision should not be on their shoulders.
We do not do this, because we think it would be inhumane. This implies society itself has failed the parasites, as it implies they do not
fully understand the consequences of their decisions. They don't understand that if they do nothing, they shall starve, because they have never been
taught it by life.
The only solution to this is tough love. These parasites are actually society's mercurial children, who need to be brought back to the fold.
They may be entirely resistant to it, but we know that it is for their own good. Their rights as individuals must be suspended, so that they do not
starve nor cause others unnecessary suffering through criminal activities to those who support our way of life.
Cont. next post.