Rousseau is the truth

[percept¡on]

"Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason it cannot be alienated. It consists essentially in the general will, and the general will does not allow of being represented. It is either itself or something else; there is nothing in between. The deputies of the people, therefore, neither are nor can be its representatives; they are merely its agents. They cannot conclude anything definitively. Any law that the populace has not ratified in person is null; it is not a law at all. The English people believes itself to be free. It is greatly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of Parliament. Once they are elected, the populace is enslaved; it is nothing. The use the English people makes of that freedom in the brief moments of its liberty certainly warrants their losing it." - Rousseau, On the Social Contract

[elijahcraig]

I fundamentally disagree with Rousseau on the nature of "Freedom," so I don't really agree with this.

[Tchuncly]

I agree, representative democracy is bullshit

[iloveatomickitten]

it is free only during the election of members of Parliament

:lol: We are about as free then as we are at any other time - considering the media and the fact that only two parties have a chance of winning. Not to mention the fact that only the majority are free and the minority have to live in slavery to their will.

All forms of majority rule are bullshit not just our saintly representative democarcy

[mEds]

all form of democracy is bullshit. people already go like mindless lemmings and vote in a two party system. do you really think that some people can be re-educated or even be intelligent? I don't know exactly how or why, but some people are just so goddamned stupid. Some people just don't care and wish to be ignorant. If everybody was pretty much forced to vote than only the most popular ideas would be represented. democracy is thus flawed. communism with a Platonic "warrior-king" leader I believe is what would make a good "country/world." However, it is essential that communism does not lead to the same mishaps of american democracy where cenorship is allowed. People's creations/ideas should not hurt people. This is exactly where some democrats go wrong and say "let the states decide."

[monkeydust]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Plato talk of "Philosopher Kings" rather than "Warrior Kings".

Let's be honest, if philosophers were in power, not a lot would get done. But that's beside the point.

A classic argumenbt against democracy is that: "ordinary people are not capable of governing themselves".

Some people here have expressed opinions about people being "goddam stupid". I agree, in relation to politics there is a great deal of ignorance, apathy, and downright stupidity.

Though this isn't necessarily an inherent problem with the common man.

I know several people who are essentially "political idiots", yet are very much intellectually capable in other areas. I don't think that politics is that much more complicated.

Myself, I believe that if people did not feel so alienated from their representatives, they might become more actively interested in politics. In other words, direct democracy may well create greater interest in politics, due to greater involvement.

[pandora]

I appreciate Rousseau's view on parliament above BUT go under EMile, Book Fifth, The Education of Woman, A little chap. I and friends call
"The Bride of Frankenstein":
"One must be active and strong, the other passive and weak. One must needs have power and will, while it suffices that the other have little power of resistance."
Hey wait a minute as a revolutionary i pride myself on my power of resistance

But read on there's more:
"This principle once established, it follows that woman is especially constituted to please man. !!!!"
What a crock
Hey Rousseau, no body would know your freaking name now if it weren't for a ruthless woman known as Catherine the Great, purchasing all your stuff for a few pennies, recognizing it's value, and ensuring it's publication after your death, otherwise it prob. would have been BURNED.
She was real subservient! :P
How he could dare write this when he depended on literary women in France to support him in their salons is beyond me, they should have banned his ass.

[percept¡on]

And Marx was an alcoholic. It is a small mind which discards the whole of an individual's philosophical works for one mistaken viewpoint, especially one which was quite prevalent at the time.

[elijahcraig]

"One must be active and strong, the other passive and weak. One must needs have power and will, while it suffices that the other have little power of resistance."
Hey wait a minute as a revolutionary i pride myself on my power of resistance

But read on there's more:
"This principle once established, it follows that woman is especially constituted to please man. !!!!"

1. I agree with this statement completely. But this does not mean that women cannot fulfill the role of the active and strong in any relationship, as the man can occupy the role of the passive and weak. It happens in relationships in all forms all the time. There is no such thing as equality in human relationships.

2. Woman is especially constituted to please man, and I am sure that most women would agree that it would be much better if men were fully able to please women as many are not able to. I don't see this "principle" as being wrong, but merely expressing a common truth. Women are also especially constituted to give birth, and any number of other things. Men are able to do things "specially" as well.

I don't see these views as "wrong," "mistaken," or any other feminist nonsense you can reach out and grab onto.

EDIT: and PS, Marx being an alcoholic is neither bad nor good...Joyce considered alcoholism an attribute. Him being Irish, he didn't affect his writings very much in scope and magnificence.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:44 AM

"One must be active and strong, the other passive and weak. One must needs have power and will, while it suffices that the other have little power of resistance."
Hey wait a minute as a revolutionary i pride myself on my power of resistance

But read on there's more:
"This principle once established, it follows that woman is especially constituted to please man. !!!!"

1. I agree with this statement completely. But this does not mean that women cannot fulfill the role of the active and strong in any relationship, as the man can occupy the role of the passive and weak. It happens in relationships in all forms all the time. There is no such thing as equality in human relationships.

2. Woman is especially constituted to please man, and I am sure that most women would agree that it would be much better if men were fully able to please women as many are not able to. I don't see this "principle" as being wrong, but merely expressing a common truth. Women are also especially constituted to give birth, and any number of other things. Men are able to do things "specially" as well.

I don't see these views as "wrong," "mistaken," or any other feminist nonsense you can reach out and grab onto.

EDIT: and PS, Marx being an alcoholic is neither bad nor good...Joyce considered alcoholism an attribute. Him being Irish, he didn't affect his writings very much in scope and magnificence.
Can we not turn this into a thread about feminism.

[Salvador Allende]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:51 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Plato talk of "Philosopher Kings" rather than "Warrior Kings".

Let's be honest, if philosophers were in power, not a lot would get done. But that's beside the point.
unless you had a philosophical warrior in power. (think Cao Cao for the best example)

[apathy maybe]

Anyone who believes that representocracy (rule by representitives) is democracy (rule by the people) is stupid, ignorent or worse.

If we look at the present system (almost anywhere), not only isn't it democractic it isn't even representitive. The way elections are held today is flawed (but you should vote for your favourate leftist anyway), and the people elected represent only a small number of the people they are supposed to represent. The are not a representitive sample if you look at mathematics. Must people in parliament (in Anglo-Saxonish countries at least) are white middle-age (or old) men. etc.