MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

A System Better than Democracy?, by Q. Reyes – Artistic Warfare #12

March 8, 2009 Q. Reyes 22 Comments

181265_washington_dc_3.jpgDemocracy, even if it’s gotten better with time, still has a basis and structure that, in my opinion, are flawed. The Greeks did not spend hundreds of years planning a system that they could implement into perfection; instead, Democracy happened because it became a necessary alternative to the other forms of rule at the time.

La Optima is a form of government designed, not only to get better with time, but also to genesis with a solid structure from its conception. It is a radical concept that would take at least a couple of generations to implement.

To understand La Optima is to let go of all previews concepts and ideas, and to keep an open mind at all times. Revolution and change are always difficult and our minds tend to search for the easy way out and to dismiss anything and everything for the sake of comfort and sanity.

Under an Optima system, our roles as individuals will be clearly defined. This is unlike a Caste system, since the roles will be based on a variety of variables, including skill, motivation and determined predisposition, among other factors.

Right. You might be thinking that freedom is at jeopardy once individual roles are defined, but in reality it would not be any different than today, where in order to practice medicine, law, or pretty much any other industry trade, you need to complete pre-established sets of training and education.

In an Optima system not everyone will be considered equal, since in real life, we are not all equal. We have different brains shapes, sizes and brain cell patterns that we cannot yet comprehend. Our bodies are different, our motivations are different, and our minds are different. In an Optima system we all would not be considered equal, but rather unique.

There is no distinction between a great human being and a sub par human being. We all fall within a range of super intelligent humans all the way to humans with mental disabilities. There is no clear way of measuring where someone falls within this range. Some of us are closer to what we might consider “intelligent” and some of us closer to being handicapped by a “mental disorder”. In the end, we all fall between, but not in the same place within that range.

Within an Optima system there will be six parallel levels of role definition:

Philosophers – Leaders

Public Servants – Producers/Builders

Specialists – Handicapped

Destitutes (Rebels)

I will give you a brief overview and later on I will expand on each role.
Philosophers

They are in charged of planning and developing and providing overall guidance and direction to the system. Philosophers will make the plans that will be passed down to the Leaders.

Leaders

The leaders will implement the plan prepared by the Philosophers. They will delegate and mange the plan.

Philosophers and Leaders will NEVER be able to acquire any wealth. They will only be provided food, shelter and the bare necessities by the State. Wealth will mean nothing to them.

Philosophers and Leaders will be babies selected by the State, adopted and raised from the time they are born until they are ready to fall into their duties. They will be trained and educated for at least thirty years regarding everything human kind has been able to accomplish so far.

By not having a specific father or mother, the State becomes these children’s parents. Their love, loyalty and devotion will be completely to the State. They will never know any wealth, so corruption is out of the question.

Unlike today, where politicians run to wherever they smell money, the Philosophers and Leaders of an Optima State will only, by default, make the right decisions for the State. This will weed out the rampant corruption in today’s democracy, since I believe that politicians shouldn’t get paid to serve.

If politicians are supposedly doing their job because they love serving their community, then they should do it simply because they love it and live for it. If they are not willing let go of making money, then they are in the wrong line of business. There are plenty of other career choices.

Within an Optima State, a Leader will sacrifice a life of wealth and comfort for a cause bigger than himself. Besides, a Leader wouldn’t know any better because he or she was raised by the State, so it is embedded in him to take care of the State. An honorable leader under an Optima State will live and die a life of a hero.

These concepts are here to be broken down and discussed, and it might take a hundred years just to have a plan ready for implementation. I will continue describing the other roles next week, before getting into the actual school of thought behind what it would take to have a better system than Democracy. It’s a lot of work! [TO BE CONTINUED…]

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. Alan Coil
    March 8, 2009 - 11:47 am

    Equine manure.

  2. Keu, The Talent
    March 9, 2009 - 3:48 pm

    @ Alan Coil

    Annotation dysentery.

  3. Russ Rogers
    March 10, 2009 - 10:14 am

    “These concepts are here to be broken down and discussed, and it might take a hundred years just to have a plan ready for implementation. I will continue describing the other roles next week, before getting into the actual school of thought behind what it would take to have a better system than Democracy. It’s a lot of work!”

    It takes a lot of work to describe a “new and better” system of Totalitarian Fascism.

    Look, Democracy is a slow, redundant and wasteful system of Government. And I wouldn’t have it any other way. Yes, there are injustices and unfairnesses in our Democracy. But that is why we have a system that is always in the process of development. Perfection is not something that can ever be achieved, but it’s still a goal to strive toward.

    La Optima sounds so much like Animal Farm or Brave New World, I just have to think it’s a joke. Just the brief description of how Leaders will be kidnapped and programmed by the State sounds monstrously dystopian. Worse, it’s sounds like dull, hackneyed science fiction. I’ve heard this stuff before, but at least then I got sexy clones and a chase scene.

    I’m sorry. I just don’t think La Optima is funny, insightful or interesting enough [TO BE CONTINUED…]

  4. pennie
    March 10, 2009 - 12:00 pm

    “Destitutes (Rebels)”

    Hey, I’ve been rebellious my whole walking life–and can prove it. Although my present economic status is hanging by an unraveling thread, that doesn’t mean I want a certified government classification as “Destitute.” Reeks of Nazi branding. Sounds like a caste system bottom-dwelling “Untouchable.” Not exactly awe-inspiring cultural watermarks.

    I’d much prefer “Goddess” or “High Priestess”–or better yet, none at all.

  5. Keu, The Talent
    March 10, 2009 - 12:12 pm

    @ Russ Rogers

    Thanks for at least reading this overview of La Optima, and I respect your opinion that this very well may be a far fetch concept; however, it’s really not meant to be funny, insightful, or interesting.

    Take a look at Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” or at Plato’s “The Republic”, and I doubt you will find anything comical in their ideas – which is what they were at the time – only ideas – which is what La Optima is – only an idea. Yet, that’s where it all begins and sprouts and it’s the place where the seed of possibility is planted, and hopefully grows . Ideas. Who would have thought???

    I expect that ninety-percent of the people exposed to my beliefs for a better way of living will disagree, so I understand your opposition and attempt at ridicule. It’s a predictable reaction, and not necessarily a bad one.

    Like I said, ninety-nine percent of people will agree with you, yet unfortunately, only about one percent of people make decisions that matter. That’s what we truly get under a flawed system of Representation.

    I agree with Socrates’ biggest argument against democracy, which was that the masses are not fit to rule themselves. He had a point back then in 400 BC and it’s pretty obvious today.

    The fact is that people make decisions based on their individual emotions, and rarely do things for the better of society. That’s the reason some genial people are homeless and some incompetent people are rich.

    Hence, La Optima, is my attempt to care about society as a whole, and not my individual comfort. But don’t worry, by the time a new and better system of government is implemented we all will not be here anymore for sure.

    That said, thanks for being open minded and allowing me to [CONTINUE] to express to myself.

  6. Keu, The Talent
    March 10, 2009 - 12:31 pm

    @ pennie

    You are a Goddess! Who cares to argue differently???

    Destitutes under La Optima would be what we consider “drug addicts” or non-functional “alcoholics”, etc. Basically people that have CHOSEN to live a lifestyle that is not beneficial to neither themselves or society.

    I believe The State should not care for this people. I don’t believe they should be locked up and fed three times a day in a jail somewhere. If someone wants, or can’t help, but to destroy their lives, it shouldn’t cost the rest of us money, time or resources.

    The burden for these people’s well-being would be placed on their FAMILIES. If it’s a son, brother, father, or whatever, the responsibility falls upon his family to take care of him or her. I don’t believe it is the governments role to help those who don’t help themselves. Making the family responsible will ensure that they will take action, at their expense. This Familiar Responsibility will also become a deterrent for future Destitutes, since their actions will affect their families directly.

  7. M.O.T.U
    March 10, 2009 - 12:32 pm

    Keu,

    Stay off the pipe.

  8. Vinnie Bartilucci
    March 10, 2009 - 1:04 pm

    I’m working undr the impression you’re going for More’s “Utopia” here; a basis to start discussion.

    The main flaws I see in the theory (to discuss it seriously) are based on misunderstandings of human nature, or in some cases giving human nature too much credit.

    People are inherently competitive, and that is evidenced in civilized culture as having more stuff. So I really don’t think you’ll see too many people willing to live a life acetism as a reward for running things.

    As for the destitutes, you’re working under the assumption that the addict CARES about their family. The idea that their family would be responsible for their care may well not matter a hill of beans to them. The idea that help for them might not be available at ALL (save for provately funded charities, perhaps) MIGHT make a difference.

    The role of the government should be limited. I can’t recall who it was (I want to say Jefferson but I could be wrong) who said the job of the government should be to fix the roads, deliver the mail, police the borders and that’s about it.

    I do see the value of the government being there as a safety net should things go wrong as well. But that safety net should be a last resort, not something to look forward to, and certainly not someplace to stay for long. There used to be a stigma about “not taking charity”, where the goal and desire was to support one’s self without assistance. That’s gone away for a lot of people.

    Case in point, if there was more of a process (and therefore a greater likelyhood) to have the government to step in on a company that was doing things unfairly, there might be more of a deterrent. But right now the reaction is “We should do something – what do we do?”

  9. pennie
    March 10, 2009 - 1:13 pm

    @Keu,
    Some of my best friends are drug addicts and alcoholics…
    Seriously, I think one should VERY careful defining exactly what constitutes terms like “rebel.” I am neither a drug addict nor an alcoholic. I AM a natural-born rebel. One man’s rebel (or for that matter drug addict/alcoholic) is another woman’s dream date and responsible citizen.
    In fact, most of my best peeps are–and have always been-rebels, able to shower, dress, feed and care for ourselves as well as pay the rent and help others. Dependent on families: not so much–and what family?

    When it comes to hierarchies I’m so not in love. To quote Groucho (not Karl) Marx, “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”

    He also said: “Just give me a comfortable couch, a dog, a good book, and a woman. Then if you can get the dog to go somewhere and read the book, I might have a little fun!” and “Oh, I know it’s a penny here and a penny there, but look at me. I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty.”

    PS: Thanks–Some days I feel like a goddess, others like a pew.

  10. Keu, The Talent
    March 10, 2009 - 2:48 pm

    @ Vinnie Bartilucci

    Thanks for your refreshing perspective, Vinnie. I agree with you one hundred percent that there has been a complete misunderstanding of human nature for as long as we have existed. In fact, we are so out of touch with who we truly are, that it has become part of our nature not to understand that.

    I believe in schools we should learn about ourselves before anything else. The problem? The teachers don’t know who they are. No one does. No one knows with complete certainty why humans exist and for what purpose. That’s a big flaw in any theory that depends on the understanding of our human nature in order to function.

    I also agree with you that the role of government should be limited, yet I go a bit further, and say that it should be specific, as well. Right now the government attempts to make money for it’s own survival, and they cannot be concern with our individual needs, when their own individual needs are a priority. If a congressman’s decision came down between your kid’s life and a his kid’s life, his kid will come first. That’s just human nature. Another thing: We don’t elect most of the people who run our government – a big flaw in our democracy.

    Regarding the Destitutes, it would not matter if they care about their families, since their families would be FORCED to take care of them. Simply put, you have a child, you take care of it. You have a brother, you take care of him. You have a niece, you take care of her.

    Accountability should fall within the families, not within the government. If a person has a problem with the way their family is handled, then they need to deal with that, and not just run away from the problem for the government to look after them. Fathers shouldn’t be allowed to abandon their kids. This is unfair to the child and to the state. If they don’t want to take care of a child, then they shouldn’t bring it into the world. And if they do, why should anyone else pay for that?

    Again, there’s lots that needs to be worked out. A lot more than one article could handle.

  11. Keu, The Talent
    March 10, 2009 - 2:55 pm

    @ pennie

    You said it best, pennie, when you said that your peeps are able to “able to shower, dress, feed and care for ourselves as well as pay the rent and help others.” This sounds far, far way from destitution.

    I believe you could be a rebel without being destitute, but you can’t be a destitute without being a rebel. A rebel is someone that goes against the grain. Sometimes rebellion its good, others times its harmful.

    Some people might consider Rush Limbaugh a “rebel”. When 50 years ago the rebel would have been Obama.

    Don’t worry about the Destitutes within La Optima. That’s just a classification for those people that MAKE A CHOICE to not be functional.

  12. MOTU
    March 10, 2009 - 5:37 pm

    KEU,

    STAY OFF THE PIPE!

  13. Keu, The Talent
    March 11, 2009 - 9:01 am

    @ MOTU

    Who said it was a pipe I was using?

  14. echobanzai
    March 11, 2009 - 1:14 pm

    we do NOT live in a democracy.

    we live in a REPUBLIC, and those are two drastically different systems of government.

    a republic is run by LAWS. in our case, the law of the constitution.

    obama, clinton, bush, reagan, carter, bush sr, all have done their best to wipe away the memory of the REPUBLIC only to replace it with a democracy.

    please go and research the differences between a republic and a democracy. in our constitution, the word democracy never appears, as our forefathers were smart enough to steer away from such a corruptible form of ‘leadership.’

    free the republic. we live in a soft fascism now, and it is time for the people to take back our republic.

  15. Vinnie Bartilucci
    March 11, 2009 - 2:12 pm

    “Simply put, you have a child, you take care of it. You have a brother, you take care of him. You have a niece, you take care of her.”

    On pain of…what? This system forces others to be responsible for the wrongdoings and selfishness of an addictive individual, the only difference is that the current system makes it everybody’s problem (through tax-funded assistance programs) and yours makes it the responsibility of the family. That SOUNDS like a good idea (from “as long as it’s not my problem” mindset), but I think it’s actually a worse one. The family are the ones an addict hurts the most, or more correctly, are the ones they are most likely to hurt. Odds are in most cases they’re the LAST who’d want to help. And as I said, not too many would think twice about their addiction because it would affect their family, because it ALREADY affects their family.

    The main (I’d almost go so far as to say “only”) problem with the American governmental system is it’s too interested in the gaining and maintaining of power. The government as a unit is no longer a servant of the people, and the politicians who make it up are too busy worrying about getting re-elected to actually get anything done – they’re more interested in making look like the OTHER guy DIDN’T get anything done. THAT’S what needs to change.

  16. Mike Gold
    March 11, 2009 - 3:14 pm

    @ echobanzai: Soft fascism? I keep hearing we’ve gone socialist. Which way is it? We certainly will have fascism if the banks we’re bailing out wind up controlling the government, instead of the other way around.

    I think government has gotten an unnecessary bad rap from the libertarians. It ain’t perfect, and its susceptible to takeover by dictators like Bush, but if people would actually take voting as their responsibility instead of a baseball game, the government would, in fact, be under control of the public. A republic can’t work without the participation of the people. All of the people. Without restriction, other than age. And I’d lower that to 16.

    We’ve had plenty of very effective government programs. You might not like the pot holes in the street, but at least you’ve got a street. Massive deregulation is what’s gotten us in this current mess. We need the government, as actively overseen by the people, to stop these thieves and murderers. The government is there to protect us: deregulation is akin to dissembling our police, fire and military.

  17. echobanzai
    March 12, 2009 - 12:00 am

    obama has the exact same foreign policy as bush. obama will be every bit the dictator bush was, as clinton was before bush.

    in the first few days of obama’s office, the guy went ahead and whacked a couple dozen pakistanis. i guess obama agrees with bush’s assessment of those pesky ‘dark people.’
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/Inauguration/story?id=6724182&page=1
    also do you really believe he is going to stop a multi-trillion dollar war? do you realize how much money him and his handlers will be making from said wars?
    he might take soldiers from iraq, but he will sadly send them to their deaths in afghanistan instead.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/25/obama-airstrikes-pakistan
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/homeland_security/
    and just like bush, obama is all for taking away our liberties-
    http://i.gizmodo.com/5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just-like-bush
    and just like bush and clinton, obama loves big government, which is good news for him, his lobbyists, and the rich, but bad bad bad for the whats left of the shattered middle class.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5478373.ece
    mccain is no different than obama, as is evidenced by their alliance now.
    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/maccain_obama_allies/2009/01/23/174580.html

    obama is not the answer, he is merely the continuance of the soft fascism we live in. obama’s main man is Zbigniew Brzezinski. if you do not know who Brezinski is, i suggest you do the research. this man is certifiable, he brags about instigating the Afghani-Russian war, which wiped out one million more of those ‘pesky dark people.’

    the guy giggles about starting that war, and then what does obama do? brings him right back into the white house.

    why do you think obama has a hard on for afghanistan?

    obama can end all wars tomorrow, by simply commanding every soldier to come home. he is the commander in chief, according to the law, every service man has to obey his command. every day he continues war, is another day the bankers and moneymen running the world get richer.

    so if the moneymen are getting richer by the minute by war profiteering, do you really think obama is going to stop any war?

    there will be many wars under obama’s watch. just like bush before him. and just like bill clinton bombing iraq on a monthly basis while he was president. why was clinton killing thousands of iraqis when we were not at war with them? why kill anyone who is not a threat?

    unless someone is invading america, (in which case i say give em hell and make sure no one is left standing) then there is absolutely NO reason for an American Empire. there is zero need for an empire of any kind, when people in AMERICA need education and health insurance.

    as for the fascism we live in, i suggest you watch Naomi Wolf’s amazing lecture.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

    if you knew who obama’s bosses are, you would be as terrified as i as to the future of the republic and our freedom.

    mainstream media looks the other way, and most people are asleep to the atrocities going on.

  18. Vinnie Bartilucci
    March 12, 2009 - 6:23 am

    “obama can end all wars tomorrow, by simply commanding every soldier to come home.”

    That’s like saying they can stop all fires by closing the firehouses.

    And what about the petty internecine conflicts going on in the world that we’re not involved in? Will they end too?

    I’m sorry, that’s just a simple, almost childish mindset.

    You end wars by winning (defined as “other side gives and promises not to do it again”), or by arranging an amenable peace treaty.

    The goal is to not start a war in the first place. I believe it was Sun-Tzu who said (and I mangled by paraphrasing) avoid war at all costs – negotiate, attempt peaceful methods, make war the last resort. But ONCE you’re at war, fight as hard as you can to make the war as brief as possible. That is not what was done here, has not been done in many years.

    Once we invent that wonder fuel that will render oil obsolete, we can tell the middle east to go twist, and all the folks who are asking us to leave will of course cheer, return to their homes and never cause us any problem ever again.

    See? I can make up dream scenarios too.

  19. Keu, The Talent
    March 12, 2009 - 10:36 am

    Trying to define whether we live in a Republic, Democracy, Fascism or Socialism, etc. is not the way to make things better. Trying to “fix” our economy does not make it stronger. Trying to rid ourselves of corruption (which we are not doing) doesn’t work.

    Regardless on what kind of government we live under, it’s flawed. We’re all powerless. You can vote, write your congressman, attend rallies, boycott whatever, you CANNOT CHANGE THE DECISIONS MADE IN YOUR BEHALF.

    Send a letter to anyone you want about completely ending the war in Iraq, and you will get no response. Go ahead. Try to change something in government and see how far you get. Try hard enough and you’ll get yourself audited by the IRS, and thrown in jail.

    The system is flawed from the ground up. Whether you vote or not, you have no say into how much money goes anywhere. You have no say into what schools open or close. You have no say into whether taxes are raised or not. You have no say into what banks and insurance companies get bailed out. Go ahead and write your congressman about that.

    I challenge you to try to stop anything the government is doing, and I guarantee you that you will fail, and if not worse, you’ll be in trouble somehow. The first thing we have to do is admit that we are POWERLESS. That’s a proven fact.

    Do the government really care about rallies? And protests? Really? They really care? I guess the only way to understand it is by admitting that no one owns land in this country. Don’t pay your property tax for five years, and see what happens to “your house”. Or wait until someone decides that a shopping mall would be a better fit for the land “your house” is built on, and see how long it takes before they take your house away through “eminent domain”. We are POWERLESS and live under the illusion that we could do something if we wanted to. We’re like the alcoholic that thinks that he can stop drinking anytime he wants.

    We need a brand new system. Whatever we are under right now is not honest. Call it Republic, Fascism, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Kentucky Fried Chicken, but one thing you can’t call it is FAIR.

  20. Mike Gold
    March 12, 2009 - 12:43 pm

    Kau asks, maybe rhetorically, “(does) the government really care about rallies? And protests? Really? They really care?”

    They really care about getting reelected. In a nation where only slightly more than half the eligible voters actually vote, protests and rallies most certainly do count, and have counted in the past. We haven’t seen many lately because we’re a bunch of lazy fucks, but most certainly: continued demonstrations by farmers, truckers, gay rights advocates, breast cancer awareness advocates, AIDs policy promoters, and many others have had a very real impact on decision making. There’s nothing more politic than a candidate standing before a crowd of tens of thousands of people, cheering on every word. Look at how Obama got elected. Those, my friend, were protest rallies.

    As for fair, nope, it ain’t and I agree with your analysis of property rights. We are not born with any rights whatsoever. We used to have a saying, back in the day: The only rights you have are the rights you have defended.

    Personally, I’m not joining the KFC party until they go back to trans-fats oil. Their stuff now really sucks. I wish there was a Popeye’s nearby.

  21. Shane Kelly
    March 12, 2009 - 1:59 pm

    You could start making a difference, by doing what I am about to do…

    I will be running for City Council, and if I don’t get the results that take our residents into account, I will run for Mayor (if I have to) in order to make sure that the city my family and I live in, is a good place to build our foundation and our future.

    So, if you don’t like the system, get elected (or raise enough of a ruckus) and change it from within.

  22. pennie
    March 12, 2009 - 2:57 pm

    A large wooo-hooooo for Mike G and Shane!!!!!

Comments are closed.