democracy

Socrates and Tyranny

October 24, 2020October 24, 2020 Joseph Dewey

Socrates and Tyranny

This statement from my book, “The Lost Key of the Buddha,” caused quite a bit of feedback from the group:

“Tyranny by the majority is almost non existent,” he said. “In almost every example you can give me of tyranny there is a very small group involved who is causing it, not the majority. In the rule of the majority lies the path of safety.”

Some seemed to feel that a tyranny by the majority is a common thing whereas I maintain that it is rare. Instead there is generally a small minority seeking power for themselves who are at the helm. I challenged he group to give me an example of a tyranny by the majority and one put forth was the execution of Socrates in Democratic Athens.

First we must note that there has never been a true democracy in recorded history. Athens was perhaps the closest to a real democracy in ancient times but consider this.

Greater Athens had about 250,000-300,000 people. Only a male head of a citizen family could vote. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 were the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. In addition to this those qualified to vote were required to vote.

Most people of today would not view a government where only about 10% of its residents having the power to vote as much of a democracy.

Even with its flaws, however, Athens grew to be the most prosperous and free society in the ancient world. After the government was destroyed by Sparta, the principle of democracy lived on and provided much inspiration for the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Overall, Athens was probably the least tyrannical of states in ancient history. Because of their lack of tyranny creativity flourished and this was one of the few times in ancient history that writers, actors and philosophers such as Socrates were allowed to teach controversial philosophies without restriction from the state. There was some intolerance as there always is in any state, but overall the freedom was an anomaly for that age. On the other hand, the neighboring city state of Sparta was ruled tyrannically with an iron hand, similar to a Nazi type of government. For instance, young male children were taken away from parents and raised by the state, indoctrinated to be warriors.

As intelligent as Socrates was it is amazing that he erred so greatly on some of his views on authority. For instance, he taught the superiority of the Spartan government ruled by strong tyrannical authority and the weakness of the government of Athens by weak authority. He felt the people were too stupid to govern themselves and states should be run by kings and dictators, “those who know how to rule,” as he expressed it. Now he felt these kings and dictators should be the wise and intelligent, but failed to present a plan that would insure that a Hitler or Stalin would not slip in now and then.

Now here is the interesting point. Where did Socrates choose to live – Athens or Sparta?

He chose citizenship in Athens because the democracy for which he had contempt allowed him to teach, move and live how he pleased. He avoided Sparta like the plague even though he taught that Athens needed to be like them. Doesn’t this remind you of some of the intellectuals in this age? Many college professors in America teach that we need to be more like many of the tyrannies existing in the world, but do they move there? Of course not.

Socrates’ basic premise of government, according to Xenophon’s “Memorabilia,” was “that it is the business of the ruler to give orders and of the ruled to obey.”

Athens tolerated Socrates undermining the government until he became a threat to the overthrow of the democracy. He gathered young people of aristocratic birth around him and several of them betrayed Athens to its enemy state of Sparta causing Athens to lose its democracy for a time and suffer tyranny. Athens began to look upon Socrates as treasonous toward democracy, as one actively teaching principles that could violently overthrow their government for good. They encouraged him to leave the area and go to Sparta or some other state, since he was so critical of Athens, yet he refused and insisted on staying and teaching the sons of the governors the superiority of dictator kings over democracy. Finally Athens arrested him and charged him with treason wording the charge as “corrupting the youth.”

Even after he was arrested it was made known unto him that he would be allowed to escape if he would just leave, but he refused. The democratic council reluctantly tried him and found him guilty by a slim majority of 281 guilty and 220 not guilty. Even after the trial it was made known to him that he would be allowed to escape if he would just go, but he refused. He wound up executing himself by drinking poison. Why did he do this? It is quite possible that he was determined to be a martyr and thought that the Athenians would wimp out and refuse to do it themselves. Perhaps he thought he would be expelled from Athens and actually have to live in a neighboring state that he taught as being better than democracy. Perhaps he finally realized that death was better than living in Sparta.

Overall, it cannot be said that the democracy in Athens represented any kind of tyranny by the standards of that age. If Socrates had lived in neighboring Sparta or most any other state of that age and was seen as posing a threat to the government he would have been immediately executed without a trial. As it was, he lived and taught controversial teachings in Athens to the ripe old age of 70 until he was slain by his own hand. This gave him great status as a martyr, but also gave power to his teaching of authoritarian rule that helped lead to the extinction of the freest most noble society of ancient times.

Today many label governing policies by the opposition party as tyranny, but such are generally more inconveniences than related to the real tyrannies of the past.

King George, Hitler and Stalin, for instance, are commonly called tyrants because they exercised absolute and unjust power over their subjects. If the subjects defied them they were tortured, jailed or put to death. Cruel and unusual punishments were the rule of the day.

The statement “Tyranny by the majority is almost non existent,” means that in this present time in the free world the majority do not accept absolute and cruel authority that suffocates the free will of humankind. An individual can often be corrupted with power and turn into a cruel tyrant, but it is rare indeed for over 50% of the population to desire such a thing, even if we go back in history searching for examples.

A reader mentioned past injustices such as: “censorship of talk in regards to things like sexual mores, or even scientific theories like evolution.”

Censorship of sexual mores is certainly not a current problem nor has it been a tyranny in recent times and I would even doubt that it was supported by the majority at any time in my lifetime. I know when I was young all but the most religious desired less censorship.

Censorship of scientific theories in this century would not qualify as tyranny in my book, but there was some unjust use of authority. I would also doubt that a majority supported such censorship. They certainly do not today and the present time was the issue under discussion in the chapter. The only time the majority go along with something unjust is when they have been fed with censored information.

Comment: “Not too many years ago, in fact in living memory of many on this list, a majority of Americans appear to have favored various forms of persecution and discrimination against homosexuals.”

I would seriously doubt that in our lifetime that the majority actually supported persecution of gays, some discrimination, perhaps, but discrimination is far from tyranny. I have been discriminated against many times in my life, but this falls far short of an experience with real tyranny.

Again, if we move to present time I think most would admit that the majority are against discrimination or especially persecution of gays or any other minority.

I believe that the civil disobedience became effective right about the time that the majority opinion favored justice for the minorities and without this majority support the revolution of the sixties could not have taken place.

Now let us go back to the statement causing the problem: “Tyranny by the majority IS almost non existent.”

It seems to me that the disagreement with this is based on either a miscommunication on my part or a misunderstanding on the part of readers, but I can find no example that contradicts it.

The point to keep in mind is no claim is made that the majority is perfect, just as no human or group of humans is perfect, but imperfect actions or beliefs of the majority in this present time are a far cry from tyrannical dictators past and present. Perhaps one should ask this question. Would you rather cast your fate to the whims of a dictator such as Hitler, Stalin or Castro or to the graces of the common people making up the majority? Abraham Lincoln indeed showed much trust toward the majority when he said “God must have loved the common people, for he made so many of them.” There are a lot of them and this great majority, though imperfect, seeks to do what is right and does not desire tyranny.

Comment: We read stories of law enforcement and various authorities overstepping their bounds. Would that be tyrannical?

The fact that abuses occur, of which the majority is unaware, does not mean that the majority supports them. In order for the majority to support any form of abuse it first has to know what the abuse is.

On the other hand, if the majority is deceived then the true will of the majority is not expressed. For instance, if a jury is convinced an innocent man committed a crime and they convict him – this does not mean that the jury “wills” that innocent people go to prison. The point made in the book is that the majority generally will desire that which is right and not knowingly support terror or abuse of others – but a power crazed dictator and his inner circle will not care about the suffering of people.

If a person is lobbied or pressured a certain direction he is still responsible for the direction he takes. If he is deceived through misinformation then his good will may be misdirected and the deception can prevent the true will of the majority from being expressed.

An important point to consider is that there are laws in existence that almost everyone as an individual will have a gripe against. I really do not like some of the speed limits out there. On my way to the office there is a long stretch where the speed limit is 20 MPH where it could be 40MPH and I have received several tickets traveling it. Now let us suppose I was not careful and received so many tickets they took my driver’s license away. Many people in this situation would cry “tyranny” because of the inconvenience.

The fact is that if we water down the definition of tyranny to abuses of police in enforcing the law then there is tyranny everywhere in every country. Many burglars and bank robbers think their treatment is tyrannical after they are justly arrested.

Perhaps we can put things in perspective by applying tyranny to a marriage. In marriage A, the couple has a good relationship with few complaints. The only problem is that the female smokes and the male is demanding that she not smoke. Finally he gets so upset that he starts stealing her cigarettes and throwing them away. She is upset and cries tyrant.

In marriage B the male seeks to control all aspects of his spouses life. He controls her money supply, where she can go, the friends she can have and how much she can see them. He controls the indoctrination of the children and forbids her to see her mother. She has to ask permission for the simplest of things.

In marriage A you have an imperfect marriage situation, but not a tyrannical one even though the wife may attempt to make a case for it. But in marriage B you have a true tyranny and the wife is just in rebelling and dissolving the marriage over the situation.

The free (relatively speaking) countries of the world are like Marriage A in relation to the true tyrannies past and present. Some of their citizens cry tyranny, but overall there is not enough abuse to label it so.

Marriage B is like the Old Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Nazi Germany etc. These are true tyrannies and the majority of the civilized world today are indeed against such a suffocation of freedom.

The reason the wording IS was used in the quote is that if we used past standards and primitive cultures in examining this principle it would seem to be incorrect. This is why the discussion went into the issue of slavery in ancient times and shows how it generally wasn’t considered tyranny back then and Jesus did not even speak out against it, but used the example of “good and faithful slaves” in many of his teachings.

On the other hand, in a future time many of the things we think to be acceptable today may seem to be a tyranny to the people of the future and the majority of these people of the future will be against tyranny, however it was defined.

Actually, the principle is elaborated quite clearly in the book of Mormon ass follows:

“Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.

“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law–to do your business by the voice of the people.

“And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.” Mosiah 29:25-27

There are abuses of freedom in all countries and even in this country clear from its beginnings there have been problems. Are we to say that we have lived in a tyrannical country since its beginning? If the United States is a tyranny then why would only a very few call it so?

The vast majority would not call the United States, Canada, France England or many other nations tyrannies for this reason. When we think tyranny, as most people understand it, we think of a society where the oppression is great enough to touch every person who lives there and cause him to live in fear of unjust authority to some extent.

Take me and my wife, for example. Not once have either one of us in all these decades had even one experience with tyranny of the state. I’ve never worried about authorities unjustly seizing my cash, banging on my door because of my strange beliefs… I have never had to concern myself with the restriction of speech because of the state. I had a problem with the church in this, but not the state. Basically, we like most of the people we know, live our life without fear of these things while being vigilant to do our part to see that these freedoms remain.

Believe me, if I were to live in a tyrannical regime, a controversial person like me would have to go underground and perhaps live in hiding. That is not to say that tyranny cannot happen here, for we must ever be eternally vigilant.

A tyrannical country would have to have a degree of oppression that would make the majority live in fear of the state and that is not the case here. Some live in fear, but the majority do not live in any degree of fear as is the case of a true tyranny.

Overall tyranny is a matter of degree. The best of the nations have their imperfections and all have individuals and groups with tyrannical minds, but overall these more civilized nations cold be called flawed nations seeking to find their soul.

Oct 2, 2002

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Keys Writings, Part 7

September 5, 2011December 11, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 9 of 34 in the series 2011C

Welcome
Aug 23, 2011

Let me welcome Lori as a new poster. She is not new to the teachings though for she is Duke’s (socioheresy) wife and I have met her several times. They are both very nice people.

Kris points out that that the posts here seem to lean to the right and wants to know if there is room for a liberal.

My answer is, yes, of course. In my first couple years of teaching on the Keys I pretty much stuck to metaphysics and members did not know what my political views were. I would guess at that time that the majority of the members were liberal. Eventually we did discuss politics and it turned out the majority posting anything political seemed to have more conservative views. At present we have a mixture of many political views here, but the most popular is probably libertarian.

When discussing pure metaphysical truth it doesn’t matter much what your political views are. People from all belief systems are looking for higher truth and answers to their many questions, There are not many places where the right and left can merge in a group and calmly talk politics together without insulting each other. We try and do that here.

The strongest arguments in political discussions though have come between me and several here that are not liberal by any means, but in many ways close to my libertarian thinking.

If a liberal here sees an error in thinking or disagrees with something said he or she is surely free to speak up. All we ask is that members stay on the plane of the mind as much as possible.

To insure that things stay fairly civil we do have moderation here. When a person joins he is automatically placed on moderation until we see he is a responsible poster. Then if a member gets out of control or quits and rejoins, he may be placed on moderation again.

You should have been here in the last days of the unmoderated group. The conflict really got to a point of tension and we had to make a change and overall moderation has helped, for the main thing it does is keep the troublemakers away. When they realize they can’t insult people they move on.

Anyway, I hope you feel welcome here.

Dream Book
Aug 23, 2011

I don’t think I ever told the group why I chose red as the dominate color for my books. I first started playing with writing around the age of 16 and I gave a couple things to a good friend to read. Then one day he comes to my place all excited and told me he had a dream about me that seemed very real and significant. He said that in the dream I had written a book that became a blockbuster seller and everyone was talking about it.

I asked him if he saw the title or what it was about.

He said he couldn’t recall the title but did remember it had a bright red cover.

I don’t know if there is anything to his dream but have used the idea of a red cover and plan to keep red prominent in future books.

Re: Book Cover2
Aug 24, 2011

Not only do most of the Keys members like your cover, but so does my wife so that just about seals it up.

Re: Book Cover2
Aug 24, 2011

Steve writes: Concerning your friend’s dream about a red book of yours becoming a bestseller, perhaps The Immortal is the one but has yet to make its mark. You can’t get much ‘redder’ than that.

Maybe the foundations are still being laid behind the scenes (spiritually speaking). There is something very special about that book.

JJ Yes, I still think that The Immortal could become a best seller if it got the right publicity. That could still be the book in my friend’s dream.

Molecular Art
Aug 24, 2011

Good to hear from you again Viggi.

This must be the artwork you created:

http://www.synthesisnet.com/Art/Triads.jpg

I had forgotten that it was you that designed it.

Mental Plane
Aug 25, 2011

Speaking of Ann Coulter and the mental plane – here is a great example of her intelligent writing on Darwinism. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45747

While checking out this subject I discovered the best article yet on intelligent design. It is lengthy but worth the time to read it. http://spectator.org/archives/2005/08/05/the-little-engine-that-couldun/

It starts out stating:

“IMAGINE A NANOTECHNOLOGY MACHINE far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm (ten times faster than a NASCAR racing engine), and can reverse direction in a quarter of a rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide — far smaller than can be seen by the human eye.

“Most of us would be pleasantly surprised to learn that some genius had designed such an engineering triumph. What might come as a greater surprise is that there is a dominant faction in the scientific community that is prepared to defend, at all costs, the assertion that this marvelous device could not possibly have been designed, must have been produced blindly by unintelligent material forces, and only gives the appearance — we said appearance! — of being designed.”

Then I had to laugh at the author’s description of non believers stereotype of believers in intelligent design:

“Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it’s an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes — mostly from the South, or places no better than the South — who voted for Bush.”

That sentence is a masterpiece in description.

Re: Sharón prophecies from 26 June 2011
Aug 25, 2011

Ruth writes: JJ I have not read anywhere in your teachings about this point about Judas that Sharón mentioned:

“Northern India will produce proof that Judas Iscariot did not betray Jesus but a guy with a similar name… Authorities attempted to change the story by rewriting that one of Jesus’ own disciples betrayed him in an attempt to discredit Christ. The new books will expose their illusion.”

Any clarification on that?

Judas was like the one chosen to betray Jesus, from my understanding.

JJ Variations on the idea that the disciple Judas did not betray Christ has been around since the days of early Christianity.

I believe the betrayal as portrayed in the gospels is fairly accurate. This is also supported in the Gospel of the Nazirenes, believed to be the earliest gospel, and the Aquarian Gospel.

I am not infallible so there is nothing wrong with members having another opinion.

Re: Mental Plane
Aug 25, 2011

JJ posted: Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it’s an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes — mostly from the South, or places no better than the South — who voted for Bush.”

That sentence is a masterpiece in description.

The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

Larry Woods passed through Boise a couple weeks ago and he, Lorraine and I had breakfast together. He was excited about starting a chapter of The Majority Speaks in his area and he asked me what project we should pick to push. He was thinking of something like, “No taxes on the internet.”

We didn’t have much time and I wasn’t able to give him a complete answer so I thought I would add a few details here.

The first problem Larry or others have to deal with is that I have not yet started the central organization here in Boise. I plan on doing this after the book is published and not before. I’ll have a lot more clout with influencing people when I can present myself as the author of a unique political book.

When I begin the organization the first goal will not be to implement one of the 95 points, but to gather and organize groups in order to garner sufficient power to create change. If we only have a handful of members and attempt to change national policy and attitudes then we are doomed to failure.

The first step is to gather enough laborers so we have a chance to become a center of influence.

Now, if Larry or someone else wants to get started early I would suggest that he seek to gather people around him that are interested in some of the 95 theses or points I made as well as participating in a more direct democracy. He could organize this like a study class and invite in guest political speakers. There are many in the political arena who like to speak and many looking for interesting speakers.

Larry reminded me of my teaching that we need to concentrate on one thing at a time rather than scattering our energies and wanted me to name one of the 95 points in which to begin.

I don’t plan on pushing any one of the 95 points at the beginning (except to group members) but will concentrate on teaching the groups the basic idea that people can create change and have a strong influence on how our politicians vote.

As the group grows we will use our influence to encourage members to create activists groups centered around the 95 points. Ideally a group created around this idea would pick only one of the points so their energy can be concentrated. I see the main purpose of the initiating group would be to promote direct democracy and encourage the adaptation of the 95 points.

If this project becomes successful it is bound to draw attention to my other writings. This is likely to lead to some controversy, which may turn out to be a good thing.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

I haven’t changed my mind on the one thing at a time approach but to influence an issue takes a lot of money and manpower. Since we will not have that on start-up the one thing we will be teaching group members is about their own power and motivating them to use it. Group members may go several different directions with their own “one thing” which we will support if it makes sense.

Once we have the manpower to influence legislation then we’ll examine the field to see what the next best one thing will be – probably implementing Molecular Politics.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

Blayne: Sorry I couldn’t help but chuckle at the irony of a central organization promoting direct democracy 😉

JJ I don’t see the irony. There are central organizations in any endeavor. Not much can happen without them.

Blayne It sort of speaks to where we are as a people. I see the free market as the ultimate direct democracy

JJ I am a big promoter of the free market but don’t see it as having much to do with democracy, but a result of democracy. The free market does not elect a President or Congress, but a democracy can.

Blayne: if you will but the majority of people still need some central authority and refuse to claim their full rights to individual self determination and self government as long as they are harming no one.

JJ It sounds like you want to throw out the Constitution and have no president or Congress, or even state legislators. Perhaps you could clarify as I have a hard time thinking you believe this.

Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.

Blayne One of the main problems is the majority of people accept the idea the government or central authority has a right to intervene in almost every aspect of the individuals or groups lives. I doubt direct democracy will cure this wrong belief.

JJ It wouldn’t cure the problem, but the majority believe the government is too intrusive and that is a starting point.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

The issues I see us dealing with are those that naturally evolve which is normally one main issue at a time. The last main issue was raising the debt ceiling. The one before that was the Health Care Bill. As these issues come to the forefront we can take majority opinion beliefs that make sense and offer solutions.

To take an issue and force it on the public consciousness as happened with the Health Care bill would cost billions of dollars. By taking something already in the public’s concern we save a giant costly step.

When the organization becomes large and powerful it can then introduce ideas for change that are not already in the front pages.

One thing that is coming before the public more is the changing of the Constitution by either adding amendments or a Constitutional Convention. We’ll have to watch this and see where it goes. JJ

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

Blayne The free market is the purist form of democracy WITH NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY! Just people voting with their feet or wallets deciding market trends demand etc. period.

JJ I’ve never heard the free market where people vote with their feet called a democracy before. Everyone I have ever seen write about it just calls it a free market or capitalism for there are no ballots and you elect no people to represent you. It appears you have an unusual personal definition of democracy.

The terms, democracy, republic, monarchy etc usually have to do with government rather than business.

Quoting JJ I don’t see the irony. There are central organizations in any endeavor. Not much can happen without them.

Blayne Really? Seriously? Read my explanation to Dan above…

JJ I still don’t get it.

Blayne Wow… So you don’t see people VOTING with their feet and wallets in a free market as having anything to do with democracy?

JJ People are voting with their feet in China as far as business goes but they do not have a democracy or close to it. Business is business and politics is politics – two different animals.

Blayne: The free market does not need to elect a congress it allows people to decide for themselves.

JJ No one said they needed to elect a Congress.

Quoting JJ Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.

Blayne You certainly have a strange view of a free market. There are no central authorities in an entirely free market.

JJ So are you saying that your version of the free market will have no bosses or owners who are the central authorities in their business??? It sounds like you think a free market will not create any business larger than one person.

As long as you allow the freedom for people to own their business and hire people you will have central authorities created. The central authority is called the “boss” or maybe just “the owner,” or “president.”

I am really curious about clarification here as I cannot imagine the existence of any substantial business without a central authority whether in or out of a free society.

The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

The problem that the debate has evolved into (as it often does) is that we have veered away from the original argument and Blayne and Larry are arguing against something I never said – something with which I agree.

Yes a free market where people vote with their feet loosely uses the democratic principle. That is not part of any argument. On this we agree.

However in order to communicate it is good to use words as they are currently defined and rarely would anyone call Walmart a democracy. They call it a business. Yes, people do make it successful by voting with their feet.

Here are three popular definitions of the word Democracy and a business doesn’t fit any of them:

▸ noun: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives ▸ noun: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them ▸ noun: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

That said let us get back to the real disagreement rather than arguing that with which we agree.

The problem started with Blayne quoting me as follows:

“The first problem Larry or others have to deal with is that I have not yet started the central organization here in Boise… I see the main purpose of the initiating group would be to promote direct democracy…”

It appeared to me that Blayne thought that any central organization or central authority was completely unnecessary for he responded:

“I see the free market as the ultimate direct democracy if you will but the majority of people still need some central authority and refuse to claim their full rights to individual self determination and self government as long as they are harming no one. Many people see this as chaos however it really does not preclude group work it just makes it all voluntary instead of coerced and forced by government or central authority.”

JJ This sounded like you disagreed with my plan to create a central authority in the planned political organization and I responded as follows:

“Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.”

Then in your responses following you seemed to disagree with this, bringing in the idea of businesses voting with their feet which had nothing to do with the disagreement.

So, here seems to be the point of disagreement.

I believe that it is unavoidable to have a central authority in almost any successful enterprise.

If you have a successful business with 30 employees that is participating in the free market then that business will have an owner/president that will be a central authority. If you have a crew of twelve then a manager will be a central authority to the twelve.

If you have a Masonic lodge, a church, a charity or anything organized you will have some presiding central authority giving it structure and purpose. It is as DK says – “All is hierarchy.”

You seem to disagree with me on this and think that if we just have a free-for-all then churches will not need pastors, business will not need managers or owners, lodges will not need presidents but everything will just move ahead with no organization necessary or central authorities at all.

I think the Second Key of Judgment is the key to understanding here. Strong central government governmental authority that strictly governs lives and does now allow any freedom to make decisions on levels below it are indeed terrible and tyrannical. This is one extreme. But the other extreme is also destructive where no central authority would exist in the various organizations.

Central authorities in organizations that people are free to reject by leaving or voting the guy out are essential and no civilization in the history of earth has been without them.

I am amazed that my stand on this obvious point has caused such disagreement.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011
I made a typo or two that needed correction. Disregard my previous post and read this.

Yes a free market where people vote with their feet loosely uses the democratic principle. That is not part of any argument. On this we agree.

Here are three popular definitions of the word Democracy and a business doesn’t fit any of them:

That said let us get back to the real disagreement rather than arguing that with which we agree.

The problem started with Blayne quoting me as follows:

It appeared to me that Blayne thought that any central organization or central authority was completely unnecessary for he responded:

JJ This sounded like you disagreed with my plan to create a central authority in the planned political organization and I responded as follows:

Then in your responses following you seemed to disagree with this, bringing in the idea of businesses voting with their feet which had nothing to do with the disagreement.

So, here seems to be the point of disagreement.

I believe that it is unavoidable to not have a central authority in almost any successful enterprise.

If you have a Masonic lodge, a church, a charity or anything organized you will have some presiding central authority giving it structure and purpose. It is as DK says – “All is hierarchy.”

I think the Second Key of Judgment is the key to understanding here. Strong central government governmental authority that strictly governs lives from which there is no escape and does now allow any freedom to make decisions on levels below it are indeed terrible and tyrannical. This is one extreme. But the other extreme is also destructive where no central authority would exist in the various organizations and you have a free-for-all instead.

Central authorities in organizations that people are free to reject by leaving that organization or voting the guy out are essential and no civilization in the history of earth has been without them.

I am amazed that my stand on this obvious point has caused such disagreement.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

Wow, Blayne, you have my head spinning. At first I thought you disagreed with me that a central authority was necessary for groups and organizations – now I am not sure so I do not know where to approach or clarify.

If you can point to any disagreement so I can understand then I will seek to clarify my position. If we agree then we can move on.

There is one specific thing you said to which I take issue. You say: “The definition of central authority is the anti-thesis to direct democracy.”

Now in a democracy as defined by the dictionary (not speaking of a loosely used principle) a leader is elected and then that leader becomes a central authority to the group. I see no irony here.

Even in a business where people vote with their feet a central authority exists within that business. This is something that just always happens so I do not see the irony if you’re thinking irony-odd. If you’re thinking irony because two opposites are involved in creation then I can see your point, but then a marriage would also be ironic.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

I don’t personally see the irony between democracy of any kind and central authority that develops in organizations that spring up in a free society because it makes sense to me but I see where you are coming from.

The irony thing alone would not have been enough to make me respond to your post. The reason I responded is because you said, “The definition of central authority is the anti-thesis to direct democracy.

My point was no matter whether you have a direct democracy, a representative democracy or any other type of government you will have various central authorities spring up. They will be created in business, groups, clubs churches – anything with an organization.

Even in the direct democracy I advocate there will be various central authorities spring up – “ironically” as you say, even in the group promoting such an endeavor. A Senator or Representative, even though he shares the vote, will be somewhat of a central authority as the manager to his co-legislators. He decides how to handle the committees he is in, what legislation he wants to introduce, what materials and information to make available and doesn’t have to take counsel as to how to do his job in mixing with the senate – except when it comes to voting on essential issues. He’s the central figure co-legislators look to for assistance and direction and has powers given to him by his office that voters do not have.

Blayne: Their (businesses) central authority is limited to their business and has nothing to do with the democracy of the free market.

JJ But these central authorities in business will spring from a free market and be stronger than in a dictatorship. In a dictatorship the power of the business owner is diminished or even shared by the state. In a free market the business has one strong central authority – the owner/president etc.

I don’t see how we can possibly disagree on something so basic. I think when I say “central, authority” you must visualize an omnipotent Big Brother controlling all things in the country and that was far from my mind.

I agree with what you said about business being little dictatorships and pointed that out in my treatise on the Molecular Business, which seeks to incorporate more democratic principles into business giving the employees more participation and to diminish the dictatorial powers of the bosses.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

Democracy or Tyranny?

February 22, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 41 of 50 in the series 2011A

Blayne asked for my comments on the situation in the Middle East. I have been thinking of posting something on this for some time but have been preoccupied with other things.

On the surface it appears that the situation in Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya is a revolt of freedom loving people seeking true democracy. Others like Glenn Back are warning us that this same situation occurred in Iran when the Shah was overthrown. The world along with the press rejoiced that the way was being paved for true democracy. Instead they were all fooled and Iran was taken over by a religious tyranny that counts the worth of a female as one half that of a man and returned to covering women with veils and stoning to death people for various crimes.

Which is correct? Is the Middle East headed toward greater freedom or a giant religious dictatorship that could spread to Europe?

First, an important ingredient that has influenced the current actions has been mysteriously overlooked by the thinkers of the day as well as the press. I wrote about this in the Keys around eight years ago. Here are some things I said:

Bush was wise to tackle Iraq first because success here can lead to much greater power to seal the door elsewhere. The destruction of one point of the Triangle of evil will be a dramatic blow indeed. The other day when I heard Bush address the nation and state that the goal was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people I felt the mind of Christ through the Oneness Principle and knew that Bush was being contacted and responding to higher will. He is not perfect, of course, in responding to higher impression, but he received the correct message on this.
March 22, 2003

Unless we make some great mistakes in the near future, this war will be seen as a turning point in history and for the disciples of the world it will be seen as a partial closing of “the door where evil dwells” and an opening of the door to the externalization of the Hierarchy.
April 9, 2003

Few people realize the great good that will be accomplished if the Bush Administration is successful in overriding all the enemies of freedom at home and abroad and establishing a free society in Iraq… If Iraq can become a successful democracy then other Mideast nations will follow. One of the best candidates to be first could be Iran. It could turn from being an “Axis of Evil” to a partner in cooperation. There are many citizens and students there watching Iraq, and if it becomes a successful democracy, the demands of the common people for similar freedoms will become overwhelming. July 27, 2003

If Bush succeeds in creating a democracy in the Middle East and the work is not undone by his enemies he will create an effect as powerful as the emancipation of the slaves. We are in danger now because of pressure from do-gooders to turn over power prematurely and run the risk of loosing many of our gains. If, on the other hand, success can be gained and a true democracy established a domino effect will be created that will eventually transform the Middle East and even lead to a resolution of problems facing Israel there.
Jan 26, 2004

The world press has downplayed the movement of Iraq toward democracy because they have always hated Bush and do not want to write anything that makes him look good. The hate is still there. Just the other day Bush had to delay a visit to Europe because of the danger he could be arrested for being a war criminal.

Even so, the youth of the other nations in the Middle East are aware of the increase of freedom in Iraq and this has given them a greater hunger for it themselves.

Iran claims to have democratic elections, but so did Saddam Hussein. There is testimony surfacing that the elections are rigged. Certain citizens are not allowed to vote and the count is thought to be tampered with.

Here is my current thinking on the matter. There has for some time been a great struggle in the Middle East between light and dark with darkness gaining the upper hand. The Brotherhood saw an opportunity to assist and inspired Bush to overthrow Saddam Hussein and set up a democracy in the hopes of creating a domino effect. The success was not sure a sure thing but the hope and plan was that the demand of the people for a greater voice would grow over the years.

This part of the plan has been a reasonable success as the desire to be rid of oppressive leaders has increased along with the desire for democracy.

But now the people are making their power felt the brothers of darkness are not taking this lying down, but trying to take advantage of it. They see the possibility of doing to the whole Middle East, and possibly Europe, what they did earlier to Iran.

The Brotherhood of Light realizes there is great risk involved but it is better the revolutions take place now before Iran and others have the atomic bomb.

In the next few months and possibly years we will see a struggle between light and dark in the Middle East and no one from either side knows exactly how the dust will settle in the end. If we can get one more democracy out of the deal then this will pave the way for more democracies over a period of time. Even if the forces of light succeed, it will take quite a few years for the Middle East to make the transition that is envisioned.

Even though revolutionary forces in Iran have been suppressed they are still alive and a lot of people there are willing to risk their lives for greater freedom.

And do not overlook China either. A lot of the common people there are starting to make waves and eventually there will be major changes in that country.
Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Kalispell Gathering 2006, Part 28

March 3, 2010April 2, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 13 of 24 in the series Kalispell Gathering 2006

You seem like a pretty sensitive person, have you ever gone into the future?

Audience: I think I did once or twice but I really do not remember.

JJ: We took Shirley into the future and she came up with some fascinating stuff, let’s see what you might come up with. Okay, get comfortable and close your eyes. Visualize your body totally relaxing, first your legs are totally relaxing, you see a beam of light shining down your leg, tingling and relaxing every muscle in your leg, first your right leg and now your left leg, your right arm and now left arm, your face, your neck and all the rest of your body, this beam of light is shining all over your body relaxing every possible muscle. Now you feel yourself on this boat again in the middle of the crystal clear water. You look in the water and it looks so alive and clear and you see fish swimming down there and you are going to turn right and go to the right shore this time at the top of the lake. You get out of the boat on the shore and there is a stairway that goes up ten steps and after the ten steps it is going to take you into the future. Your soul can see into the future and understands the most probable lives that you will most likely have. You will go into the future and see everything as if it were in the present. You are going up the steps, first step, second, third, fourth, fifth, feel almost like you are lifted up, sixth, seventh, eighth, nine, ten, you are going into a future life and you know who you are.

Audience member: A woman, I do not get a name.

JJ: What do you see around you?

Audience member: It is like a city in a way but there are not tall buildings, it is more like you go underground and that is where the living spaces are.

JJ: Was there a war or anything like that?

Audience member: No it is a way to save the environment from harm by keeping less of an impact on the surface. There are a lot of plants and trees and that is really cherished and allowed to be the way it is. People can go up to the surface and commune there. Living underground helps with the heating and cooling of the living spaces.

JJ: How far into the future are you, what year is it?

Audience member: 2038 is what I am getting.

JJ: Has there been any earth changes?

Audience member: Oh yes, there are a lot less people.

JJ: Less people because of earth changes, war or both?

Audience member: It seems like both, lots of changes with the temperature or climate.

JJ: Is it warmer or colder?

Audience member: Warmer, tropical in a way.

JJ: Is that why they are living underground?

Audience member: Partly yes, yes.

JJ: Is there still quite a bit of technology or have we lost some of it?

Audience member: It is just different, it is like people decided to do things differently so some of the technology is not needed anymore, we just don’t want it or need it. It is simplified it seems like, yea.

JJ: Do people still have TV sets?

Audience member: I do not see that no, I am not getting many details about the living spaces, mostly just view from the outside. There are not many people outside but a few are meditating and things like that. Communing with nature.

JJ: Okay, very good. I am going to count to three and you are going to be in the present, one, two, and three. Thank you very much. There are just a few minutes left does anyone have any questions on this before we continue? Let’s end with a short get together. Annie, please come up here. You look into each others eyes and you share your souls with each other and you say something like this, Annie, I share with you the pure love of Christ, you and I are one. Say that back to me.

Audience member Annie: JJ, I share with you the pure love of Christ, you and I are one.

JJ: Okay, then we give each other a hug. We are going to do this with everyone in the room.

End of this session

JJ: We are going to talk about several aspects of the gathering, the cities of light and what type of government we will have once the gathering has taken place and whether it will be like the governments we have today or something different. We are going to recap the basics of the gathering. Often I have talked about what is called the gathering principle, what is the gathering principle, does anyone know?

Audience member Assaf: Evolution

JJ: Assaf is on the right track. The gathering principle does produce evolution, why?

Audience member: Creates a point of tension.

JJ: Yes.

Audience member Wayne: In the natural course of events, for instance one way you can say it is returning home from the source. We go out like all creation and then we come back in and on the incoming trip it is called the gathering. The gathering principle mainly refers to the gathering of humanity.

JJ: Wayne made a very good point. According to the science we all began with a big bang and all the particles of the universe scattered all over. Active intelligence then gathers all matter into the galaxies, stars and planets, then they live out their lives and finally they are gathered back home to the point of a singularity. Then there is another big bang and we begin again and that is kind of how the theory supposedly goes. So there is a scattering and a gathering, a scattering and a gathering and this is the way nature works is it not? Right now on the earth those people who are considered the lights of the earth – are they gathered or scattered?

Audience: Scattered

JJ: Scattered all over the place. Look how you guys are scattered all over. We had to have a gathering principle to be able to have intimate spiritual session like we have right here. Annie, all the way from Denmark, Assaf from Israel, Mindy from Sterling, Illinois of all places, Shelly from Olympia, Washington and that is really God’s country. Me, Artie, and Wayne from the big city of Boise, Idaho.

When we look at the beginning of the evolution of everything, after the big bang, subatomic particles were created, they gather together to produce bigger subatomic particles and these particles gather together until atoms are created and then electrons circling around the atoms and the atoms gather together to create molecules, and molecules gather together to create larger compounds and these gather together to create cells and life. The cells gather together to create small organisms, the small organisms gather together to create bigger life forms, these bigger life forms gather together to produce plants, the plants gather together to evolve and produce animals, the animals gather together and evolve to produce bodies for humans and we gather together and evolve to produce what?

Audience: God

JJ: To produce the Kingdom of God. But in between the beginning of man and the Kingdom of God there are a number of gatherings that take place for humanity. First of we began our evolution in a tribal family type living. We lived in large families and the families gathered together and they produced tribes. The tribes gathered together and they produced kingdoms. Then the kingdoms become so tyrannical that people did not really like living in them and they began to outlive their usefulness. So instead of kingdoms gathering together we had a different type of gathering, people gathered out of the kingdoms and came to a new land called the Americas and they wanted to build something better.

When they got here did they build another kingdom, or did they build something else? They created a democracy or a republic as it is technically called. This was created through the gathering of lights. Some of the most enlightened people on the planet got together and said the old ways are not good enough for us anymore and so they got together and wrote something like, We the people in order to form a more perfect union – they wrote the constitution, a declaration of independence, a bill of rights and all kinds of good stuff that made life a lot better for us.

But then just like when the kingdoms were formed everyone was enthused about them and at the later end of them they became crystallized and everybody wanted to move out of them. Now much of the world has type of democracy, many people are unhappy with the governments they are under and so again the same idea that gathered out of the kingdoms to form something better is happening again.

Many people are going to gather out of the competitive democracies to try and form something better. Because many of the democracies are crystallizing and becoming much more like the old kingdoms were. There are more and more laws, we have so many laws on the books it boggles the mind and if we were to enforce them all we would live in a sorry state. You know there are laws against spitting on the sidewalk, kissing longer than thirty seconds, laws against cars going more than 5 miles an hour through main street that they have been not taken off the books. When cars first came out you know, all kinds of weird laws were passed that are still on the books. Rather than getting rid of all the old laws we just keep passing new ones. What was that wrestler’s name, the Governor of Minnesota?

Audience: Jesse Ventura

JJ: Jesse Ventura came up with a heck of a good idea. He said we should spend two thirds of our time passing laws and then stop and spend a third of our time examining laws we can do away with. None of the lawmakers liked that idea, and why did they not like that idea? Why is it the people governing us do not like any ideas that shrink government?

It is because of the way they see their job description. They see their job description to exercise power, make laws and spend the people’s money. We do not see this, but they do and as soon as they get into power they sit around and figure out how to spend money. Then we grumble that they spend money as a whole but we pat the local guy on the back who is from our state who spends money and say, you did a good job so I guess we will put you back in because you brought some money to build us a bunch more parks and save the raccoons. But we hate this guy over in New York who spent all this money to save whatever is over there.

The public hates the idea that we are spending so much money as a whole but they love it when it is spent on them. And so we have this situation where each representative feels it is their job to spend as much money as they can and to spend so much they have to tax us to death and we let them do it. So they spend a lot of time sitting around figuring out how to tax us without us complaining too much. They tax us more and more and more and we grumble more and more and more but then we pat the guy on the back that comes home and brings money to build some useless project.

It is strange the way that goes. What people do not see is that it is silly of us to grumble about them doing their job well. Because we have given them the impression it appears that we want them to spend lots of money and we have given them the impression that their job description is to spend money. So why should we grumble when that is their job description?

March 1, 2010December 29, 2010 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 22 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 8, 2010

Larry W:
Also, many of your quotes are wrong. JJ will be correcting you on
this, I’ve seen him do it before.

JJ
Looks like you’re a prophet. Here goes.

Blayne:
Might want to review what the founders had to say about democracy. there is a reason why it is not mentioned in the constitution. The founders deplored it.

JJ
Not so fast. First let us look at your quotes from Thomas Jefferson

First quote: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”

JJ
This is a fabricated quote, evidently made up by someone who didn’t like what Jefferson really had to say about Democracy.

Check this out:
Click Here

Let us look at your second Jefferson quote:
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Again this is a fabricated quote.
Click Here

It seems to be a true statement though that says nothing negative about democracy itself.

Here are a few of many examples of what Jefferson really thought about democracy.

“The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail.” Thomas
Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.

“I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law.” Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

“Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.

“[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law.” Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808.

“Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, ” Thomas
Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

There are more in my book The Lost Key of the Buddha

Now let us look at the rest of the quotes.
Benjamin Franklin: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

JJ
This is also most probably a false quote and the closest thing to it was originated by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a contemporary with Franklin. No one seems to find this quote being attributed to Franklin before 1988
More information here

That said, let us see if this applies to democracy in our age. It doesn’t, but it does apply to our Republic for this is happening in the here and now before our eyes. We have a small minority having power to vote themselves money and benefits and this, not the majority, is causing our financial ruin. The majority of the people are very concerned over this abuse.

Benjamin Franklin:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Another false quote. There is no record of Franklin saying this.
Click Here

There are a lot of flaws in this quote that Franklin would have seen. For example what we have now is a dozen wolves voting what to have for dinner with none of the lambs being able to vote at all. Since lambs outnumber wolves then a democracy would wind up protecting the lambs.

I’ll assume the rest of these quotes are accurate, as I do not have time to check each one. So far it looks like anti democracy people just make up quotes to fit their need.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy…it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

JJ
Hamilton is dead wrong on this. Where has there ever been a democracy that was a tyranny? Never. Mainly because there has never been a democracy in the history of the world. The closest thing to one was Athens, but even this was a representative government with each potential voter representing at least a dozen people who could not vote.

Even so Athens created the greatest example of freedom and enlightenment the world had seen up to that time. Nearby Sparta was a dictatorship and very little light came from there compared to the more democratic Athens.

John Adams: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

JJ
Adams didn’t know what he was talking about. There has never been a democracy.

James Madison: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

JJ
Yeah, right and the opposite of democracy like North Korea, Cuba and the old Soviet Union are really compatible with personal security and property rights.

John Quincy Adams: The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

JJ
The same could be said of freedom. Wherever freedom surfaced in our world history it only lasted for a short while because all the powers of the beast fought against it. The one great example of a group seeking freedom during the Roman Empire was led by Spartacus. It was short lived and failed. Did this make it wrong?

No. never.

The human spirit will pursue freedom and true workable democracy until they are achieved.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

JJ
Tyranny is always a possibility in any system, however without the right of the people to vote they will have a tyrant by default. The more democratic the government the less likely is tyranny for what people will vote to elect or re-elect a known tyrant?

John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world.

JJ
And where is there a great injustice that the majority of the people of the United States desire?

I can’t think of any.

I can, however think of many that minorities desire. Here are a few.

Murder, rape, racism, slavery, dictatorship, more stimulus, forced socialism and communism, no free speech, no guns and lots of others.

I’ll pick the will of the majority any time over the present will that the minority in our government is attempting to force upon us.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey