Why Democracy Needs Aristocracy
Even the concept/word, Aristocracy has been corrupted...I've read Plato and Aristotle and didn't realize this...
The original meaning of Aristocracy:
http://richard-hooker.com/sites/world...
"[The founders of American democracy turned back to the original, philosophical definition of aristocracy when they built American government. Very conscious of Plato's and Aristotle's criticisms of democracy, the founders of American government wanted to avoid putting the government into the hands of the worst members of society. They also, however, wanted to avoid the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy, for European history proven amply that the hereditary aristocracy is many things but it rarely consists of the "best" members of society either in moral or intellectual terms (look at the royal family in England, for instance). So the framers of American government created representative democracy, in which the people collectively decide who the "best" people are to run the government. In this way, a democracy (a limited democracy) is allowed to co-exist seamlessly with a government that is primarily ruled by the most qualified people morally and intellecturally (well, sometimes).]"
From the Article:
"[To be clear: “Egalitarian” does not mean equality; it means the lowest common denominator having the highest possible cultural and political influence, whether elite or mass-driven. “Aristocratic” is used here not in the sense of baronies, barbicans, or bloodlines. The term is meant in its original, philosophical sense, best summarized by no less than Lord Tennyson himself, as “self-reverence, self-sufficiency and self-perpetuation“.]"
"[This is the egalitarian on his path of destruction. He creates for the short-term, because the present is an ordeal to get through, the past is invariably a source of evil and the future is beyond his control or care. The short-term is the convenient, the instantaneous, the whetting of an appetite. Soon, the short-term becomes not only the economic, but the political, cultural and social mentality of choice. This becomes: the short-term in financial practices; the short term in political expediency, the short term in art—all recycled, disposable and forgotten—the short term in education standards, the short-term in durability of a product or a service; the short-term in human relationships, in concentration and commitments…all of it leading to the current crop of human capital we have today. Then, the vox populi and its elite-mass representatives bemoan the “Individual” as a rapacious, quick-scheming wretch. Well, they should know. They created him.]"
The original meaning of Aristocracy:
http://richard-hooker.com/sites/world...
"[The founders of American democracy turned back to the original, philosophical definition of aristocracy when they built American government. Very conscious of Plato's and Aristotle's criticisms of democracy, the founders of American government wanted to avoid putting the government into the hands of the worst members of society. They also, however, wanted to avoid the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy, for European history proven amply that the hereditary aristocracy is many things but it rarely consists of the "best" members of society either in moral or intellectual terms (look at the royal family in England, for instance). So the framers of American government created representative democracy, in which the people collectively decide who the "best" people are to run the government. In this way, a democracy (a limited democracy) is allowed to co-exist seamlessly with a government that is primarily ruled by the most qualified people morally and intellecturally (well, sometimes).]"
From the Article:
"[To be clear: “Egalitarian” does not mean equality; it means the lowest common denominator having the highest possible cultural and political influence, whether elite or mass-driven. “Aristocratic” is used here not in the sense of baronies, barbicans, or bloodlines. The term is meant in its original, philosophical sense, best summarized by no less than Lord Tennyson himself, as “self-reverence, self-sufficiency and self-perpetuation“.]"
"[This is the egalitarian on his path of destruction. He creates for the short-term, because the present is an ordeal to get through, the past is invariably a source of evil and the future is beyond his control or care. The short-term is the convenient, the instantaneous, the whetting of an appetite. Soon, the short-term becomes not only the economic, but the political, cultural and social mentality of choice. This becomes: the short-term in financial practices; the short term in political expediency, the short term in art—all recycled, disposable and forgotten—the short term in education standards, the short-term in durability of a product or a service; the short-term in human relationships, in concentration and commitments…all of it leading to the current crop of human capital we have today. Then, the vox populi and its elite-mass representatives bemoan the “Individual” as a rapacious, quick-scheming wretch. Well, they should know. They created him.]"
The founders were not as concerned with which class would best govern as they were with limiting the accumulation of power to any one class. The primary thing that makes the constitution great and unique is its embodiment of the separation of powers. Checks and balances are at the core of our freedom.
Still, the original intent and understanding of aristocracy is a good one. The Best, Honorable and Moral only, represent us in extremely limited government and the attainment of national and societal goals for a limited, self sacrificial period of time.
It is government that need be altruistic...not the individual.
The Founders envisioned something quite different. They hoped that our representative government would be made up of those who had gained respect for their accomplishments outside of government, lending their considerable talents TEMPORARILY to act on our behalf. Donald Trump very much fits that model.
Today, we have been played into a goal occulted by one group against the many. Of course their goal is not occultated anymore. Many of us now understand we need to eclips that goal permanently!
But each person has natural strengths and weaknesses that define him as his fingerprint does. The most "competitive" individuals are those who do not offer a unique product, i.e. those who do not produce. (As an aside, this association of "competition" with force is how the liberals win votes.)
The state where the number of job functions exceeds the number of people available to perform those functions is exactly the relative scarcity of people. I believe this is the natural state of the capitalist economy. As such, the producer and worker both win.
An aristocracy does not assume this approach. Rather it guesses there are a limited number of roles to fill and that competition among the best yields the best result. Perhaps that was good for them. But if we want the best economic structure, each person has to squeeze the very best from his work and give his unique capability to his work. If he is bested by his competitor, it is not a failure so much as it is an invitation to learn. The spirit of entrepreneurship is what differentiates capitalism from aristocracy.
In that respect, with humility and honesty, it is perfectly compatible with free market capitalism.
"Governments turned out to be a safe space for the mentally perverse, criminally insane and those without brains.
Demonocracies must have rules and a goal to live by...it all goes south when anything goes... not to mention, history and the future be damned.
First, get rid of the parasitical humanoids for which we unintendedly inherited, and mostly by rape and coercion, their perversions.
Second find a cure for, or edit our genes in order to insure that never again, will their recessive perverted genes ever rear itheir ugly heads again.
Third, educate with the truth and the understanding that what population remains is not bad by nature but good by nature if allowed to be. We are not decedent of apes nor from Africa as we've been told...we likely were created from the stuff of earth and existence/creation, (which ever you like best) by a crude usurping brood of idiots of which we turned out to be potentially better than.
Fourth, Make it so.
I know that there is such a thing as a bad seed, but the type you are describing is not genetic but clinical. When it comes to genetics there is no sure way to filter out and you run the risk of uniformity.
What other choice do I have but to wonder if it is not due to their peculiar genealogy? It does seem to pop up unexpectedly.
I do agree that some of these perversions can be learned but it's just not in our nature otherwise.
I'm thinking of One, that those that fit the mold be forbidden from engaging with society...period. Two, for the rest of us, perhaps, there is some natural remedy; stem cell rebuilding, education, screening to which we could likely ensure a successful human being be born. Ancient tribes used to have the future mothers cleans, eat certain foods to ensure, best they could, have a healthy baby. To that angle, I would suggest predicting and monitoring electromagnetic cycles as well. I have observed that does play a role along with upbringing.
They were right...
I think much can be done by empowerment and suggestion, opposed to regulation. If one does not catch on...then, like most of us in the old days, we paid the price and didn't blame anyone else for our own screw up.
PS.(what I meant by "fit the mold" was a reference to the non productive, non conscious parasitical humanoids...most times, you can't tell when they are young...many of us started out with a deficit but made up for it over time.)
The things I wanted to do, school did not provide. The earliest time they captured my attention, ended in a screw you; they didn't keep their word. It was in English and the transition from phonics to look see. Otherwise I might have been a writer back then and not as an old has been.