Democracy is a term not much unlike that pasty skinned goth chick sitting at the back of your sophomore chemistry class. It is often cut up, passed around, turned inside out and generally taken for granted by most people; even those nearest and supposedly dearest.
While most people in the free world cite the idea of 'democracy' as one of the crowning achievements of the Western world, I would first like to say the idea and form has existed in the East centuries prior (e.g. 民本主義 or 민본주의 or the populace as the root of rule in Korean) so the persistent egotism and, if I dare say, prejudiced bias surrounding the term should cease. "The diamond of the world" or "The diamond of mankind's history" would be much more apt expressions.
But I digress; the points I would like to make are twofold: Firstly, I would like to proffer my personal definition of 'democracy' quoted from the often overlooked Libertarian Political-Philospher of the UofC school Henry Simons; and Secondly, I will raise the importance and necessity of living for life juxtaposing that life system with the contemporary conceptual prison society finds itself locked in guarded by the almighty dollar.
Democracy is "...government by discussion and consensus...and political consensus, especially at the higher and highest levels, focused on clear-cut, general rules of law and policy. It is such a discussion that feeds the growth and diffusion of the moral consensus. Only from slow action out of such a discussion may a nation build solidly and progressively the principles and working rules which afford political security and economic stability. Only by adherence to the rule of law and to announced rules of policy may a people have strong government without granting inordinate, arbitrary power to ruling parties, factions and majorities of the moment. Only thus may freedom be protected..." (Simons, Econ. Policy for a Free Society, pg. 19)
"The alternative is "plebicitary democracy," the antithesis of libertarian government. Elections then merely choose among leaders or factions. Campaigns are mere contests for power - slogan-mongering, promising everything to all minorities save the scapegoats, absurd eulogies and vilifications. Platforms are unprincipled in themselves and binding, if at all, only during the campaign. Parties are simply organizations for promising and dispensing patronage, standing for nothing but unlimited prerogative of tactical opportunism, either as "government" or "opposition" (if any). Such, at all events, is the meaning of government by men as the antithesis of government by law and policy rules." (Simons, Econ. Policy for a Free Society, pg. 19)
To make it quite explicit I am in favor of, in the context of the American political spectrum, Libertarian Democracy; as defined as a hybrid form of Democracy and Aristocracy. Where all members of the nation state are citizens in the sense that their main focus or occupations reside not in the government but in the private sector and the day-to-day government consists of a small number of individuals in comparison to the overall population of citizens. Although this is obviously not quite ideal given the sheer size of the American continent and population, it appears to me at least to be the most efficient, least intrusive and fairest.
This form of government is what the founding fathers created. A country free under the rule of just law. However, as we can see in the contemporary realm of politics that this law and legislation and the overall state of politics has fallen into the category of 'plebicitary democracy' defined above. Recalling Rousseau's misgivings toward the feasibility of true democracy in states of large size and population, it is clear to see and more importantly can be overtly sensed that it is the influence of the various private interests in public affairs at the root of the problem; in short, the corruption of the legislative body. Taking the tax code as an example, government is convoluted leading to a drastic increase of esoteric business and tireless, unceasing discussions; and no considerable degree of equality exists coupled with great luxury that are the possessions of but a small minority corrupting both rich and poor at once, one through possession, the other through vanity; it has put the country on sale to vanity and soft living; it has deprived the state of all its citizens, making each of them subject to the other, and all of them to public opinion.
A degree of virtue is required in every citizen to prefer freedom regardless of the instability and dangers coupled with it as opposed to tranquility and servitude. Obviously this virtue espoused in Rousseau's 'The Social Contract' or as I like to refer to it as the "Character of Gods" is absent in contemporary America and has been for some time. Thus, the country's political state has fallen into the abyss of "plebicitary democracy," a vicious cycle flaring up at every electoral interval. Even the Judicial branch, following the Executive and Legislative branches has succumbed as evidence to the recent supreme court rulings regarding the "humanity" of corporations and legality of private undisclosed campaign funding.
Emphasis placed on such an abstract and ideal notion such as 'virtue' has long been esteemed in Eastern philosophy with unlikely a bigger proponent or laudable figure as Confucius. To quote from the second book of The Analects entitled 'Administration' or ‘為政’ chapter 3, "Confucius said, "If the people be led by laws and punitive measures to bring about uniformity they will seek to evade punishments and not know shame. If the people be led by virtue and courtesy and etiquette to bring about conformity they will have shame and know the difference between good and bad."" ［子曰“道之以政， 齊之以刑，民免而無恥。道之以德，齊之以禮，有恥且格。”］Is this the virtue Rousseau spoke of? The virtue he so eloquently decried as being a pipe dream only suited for Gods?
The perception of what a God is differs when viewed from a Western perspective and Eastern point of view. Western theologies have stripped mankind of the direct links to omniscience of the mind and heart leaving only a vague and metaphysical dotted line leading towards the Gods. Eastern thought, specifically traditional and pre-imperialist thought, on the other hand, emphasizes that every man and woman is capable of achieving and possesses "godliness." Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism etc... all have titles for the "godlike" state or peak state of the enlightened. Therefore Eastern thought produces a more humanistic state of mind and consequently the hitherto metaphysical ideal of virtuousness and virtuosity, being a part of human existence, is materially and temporally closer and more attainable. It moves from the realm of idealism which implies an otherworldly connection and thus risks ostracizing many who feel that they are not worthy of the gods, into the world in which we live turning it into the most equal yet significant goal of each and every individual performing in the concert of humanity.
At this point I would like to bring up my second point; the importance of living for life. When I say living for life, there is an inherent assumption and acceptance that everyone has different preferences and the idea of an all encompassing secular or societal goal will not and hasn't worked evidenced through such failures and imminent failures as the former USSR and the DPRK. Living for life is the daily struggle to refine oneself and try to develop ones every faculty, with the metaphysical goal of sharpening each and every aspect to its highest point eventually coalescing at the "God" point; seeing the world through a pure lens and reflecting oneself back onto the world. That reflection is virtue. Virtue isn't just found in the end, but during the stages of leading up to the the point where one exits this world and the conscious acknowledgment of such a process.
This stage and process is more eloquently explained in The Dao and Self-Independence of the Korean People (韓國人의 主體性과 道）the seminal work written by one of Korea's original founding fathers of modern psychiatry and more importantly taoistic psychiatry, Dr. Dong-shik Lee (이동식 박사님). The 'Self-Independence' is simply stated the point at which and individual becomes the main actor of one's own life and the pinnacle of such a mind state being found in the words of Buddah, “In terms of myself, in this universe the most revered being is Me." (天上天下唯我獨尊）Without self-reverence and respect how can one respect anyone else. So what is to say that our current generation with its innumerable scientific and technological advances hasn't already achieved this?
Referring briefly back to Rousseau's quote regarding luxury, it deflects everyones attention to superfluities that benefit no-one. In other words our societies life quest for money in the name of capitalism acts as a deflector taking our minds off of ourselves, and thus off of our fellow man onto an inanimate abstract nothingness. Is there any room to question what is the root of the unspeakable inhumanity (you fill in the ______ in terms of what atrocities have been committed or are still underway....) our generation is witnessing? To clarify, of course it is not money itself that is the problem, but our preoccupation with it. The same can be said of religion in the past and now that perverted mans eyes away from himself to a nothingness above. An the Warring past of Asia that despite the teachings and nominal state religions of Confucianism, saw leaders diverting the eyes of the people onto the conquest of abstract territorial power. These diversions are labeled ‘礙膺之物’ or objects that obstruct/hinder the heart or in other words unhealthy obsessions; true addiction.
The only way to get rid of such obsessions is to admit that such a problem exists. There be no methadone for the masses to estrange itself from its opiate. Time is necessary, and more importantly our leaders need to help set examples and lead themselves in a healthier way. I'm afraid that there is no pre-fab model for this either. However, the answer lies in education. I repeat education as an enlightening process as opposed to the indoctrination that has persisted until present day in most schools. To emphasize the need for reform in education, one need not argue on such an abstract and metaphysical basis because the three elements that currently define and control our era and the world itself, science, economics, and political technology are taught to not a single student with the exception of science although the quality is extremely sub-par. It is extremely dumb founding as to the extent that the masses have been misdirected from the forces that affect their everyday lives to the pursuit of such an abstract commodity.
More needs to be written. More needs to be said. More needs to be done.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기