16/12/1997: Democracy and Liberty
So that democracy and liberty
do not become instruments of abuse, like reasonable or necessary
limitations by constitution on certain types of freedoms, democratic
movements and rights can be exercised also only within reasonable
limitations.
It is not merely a question of having national stability or security
as the overwhelming consideration to restrict such movements to
not fundamentally destabilize an otherwise stable society objectively
needing no [violent] revolution. It is also essential that such
actions are targeted only for public good and not for self-serving
gains. After all, the basic ingredient of democracy is to let
the public at large enjoy something more than what they may have
now. However, if a democratic movement is undertaken to basically
bring the nation and people miseries and civil strives, it should
not be encouraged. As well, since it is to gain only democratic
freedom which has never been and should never per se be sufficient
cause for a revolution, anything promoting democracy by threats
or violent means should not be misconstrued as a true democratic
movement. That is because if it is done to threaten or overthrow
the very existence of a stable system not meeting the strict criteria
for a revolution to have it overthrown, it would have become an
unjustified revolution. Therefore, the very purpose and nature
of democratic movements demand that such be done in a civilized,
peaceful, non-violent fashion. Otherwise, it would have become
and must be classified as a revolution.
Under the false disguise of "democratic movements,"
even warlords, fascist dictators can resort to massive "democratic
movements" to gain power using massive or sufficient public
participation to force the government out of office. That means
if "democratic freedoms" are not reasonably restricted
to within civilized limits, barbarity can replace civility by
democratic means. In terms
of consequences, democracy should never be permitted to be the
only thing people treasure or pursue. Instead, if decency and
civility would be overcome by barbaric democratic means, the so-called
democracy must be reasonably limited. For instance, if most of
the public would turn aggressive if given democratic freedoms
at that point in time, the leaders have that moral obligation
to deny democracy until the public has been educated to being
civilized and peace-loving. It is the story of mankind that few
always led the way to civilize many. Jesus Christ, Confucius,
Buddha, etc., were among the few who taught us to be nice. We
have evolved from barbarity to civility. In that process of evolution,
less and less do we think and behave like the wild beasts. However,
had our ancestors that great freedom of democracy to live out
their primitive instincts, today, Jesus would still be crucified:
that is what it means that when people are barbaric or incompetent,
they must first be educated before given that freedom to act out
their own individualism in public affairs or wield power. Jungle
democracy where the lions rule surely is always worse than a civilized
orderly society governed by benevolent and competent dictators.
Without a certain necessary degree of dictatorial power for the
moral leaders to civilize the otherwise barbaric public, democracy
and democratic freedoms only mean the persistence or even promotion
of barbarity in human societies which have nothing to show other
than "democracy and freedoms to be wild, aggressive, inhumane,
and outright criminal." So, when speaking of democracy and
freedoms, see who is talking (hopefully not barbarians having
all the freedoms to be bad and aggressive), and who could/should
enjoy them( hopefully not those acting out barbaric instincts
when given "democratic" power and their brand of freedom
to do evil). (21/12/1997)
Even where a cause may
be just, democracy has to be practised in a truly democratic fashion.
Imagine what it would be like for the blacks by their civil rights
"movements" without
going through the democratic processes of elections in the U.S.A. to replace the presidents
with their own! Would that still be a "civil rights movement?"
That would be undemocratic: they were not elected but forced their
way into the White House using a "democratic" movement
to replace the presidents.
Rest of my arguments on democracy can be found in my earlier articles.
Continue Invasion of privacy
psychology, psychiatry,beyond Freud