Truth in a Democratic Society

It is rather late, but this subject is important.

Let us think of Society very briefly and simply. Some people are rich and wealthy. Those two situations are really quite different. You may have lots of cash, but not be wealthy, and vice versa. ‘Wealth’ is more than cash. Owning ten thousand acres of land is wealth; owning ten million credits in a bank account is richness. Baring the theft of your wealth, the thousands of acres of land are permanent and real; the millions of credits are bits of paper. What is ‘real’ is the land; what is ‘unreal’ are the bank credits. The land will always continue to exist, but your bank credits could disappear tomorrow.

No one ever talks about such things, but I wonder what happened to the bank credits which ordinary German people held, when the Nazi regime was defeated. Did the banks close down completely? Did they cease to exist? Where did the money of the ordinary people go? Who gained ownership of that money?

Roger Scruton is a thinker and philosopher. I watched a video a month or so ago in which he talked about Democracy. He postulated that Democracy depends upon a “WE”. That is, that there must be a group of people who are ‘the demos’. All the individuals in ‘the demos’ are equal, regardless of richness or wealth. In a way, that implies that the subjects of democratic decision are not going to be about richness or wealth. For example, it would be very easy for ‘the demos’ to confiscate the wealth of the wealthiest person in ‘the demos’.

But it is obvious that the people in ‘the demos’ must have some sort of equality. For example, they might all be landowners, in which case they will not steal land from each other. They would be stupid to promote civil war between themselves. Perhaps they would consider and decide the process of land being transferred from one landowner to another, or even to a ‘rich’ person who wants to buy some land. The probability is that, in ancient Greece and Rome, most day to day ‘democratic’ decisions were quite mundane.

But what is important, whatever the problems might be, is NOT spin and propaganda in a Democracy. Those things belong in a totalitarian or fascist State. In a proper Democracy, only TRUTH is acceptable. TRUTH is a ‘sine qua non’. Without TRUTH, Democracy does not exist.

Roger Scruton, wisely, said that Democracy requires ‘a WE’. There must be a unity. Thus, the People hold elections to decide who will represent them in Parliament. If a Labour candidate gains a majority, he/she is elected, and that result is accepted. People do not arm themselves and set out to assassinate the elected candidate. They might moan about it, but they accept it, at least for the time being. The slimness of the majority is not at all important. ‘The Demos’, the equal people, have decided, and that is THE TRUTH.

But what if the candidates for election do not tell THE TRUTH? In that case, elections become pointless. I really mean pointless. If untruths are allowed to be perpetuated, then there is no point in having elections at all. You might as well toss a coin.

Little things mean a lot. It seems to me that, over the last couple of decades, politicians have become shallow. Rose mentioned how Cameron agreed to Plain Packaging merely because his publicity guru used to do work work for tobacco companies. How he came to employ such a compromised person is open for debate. The sensible option is that Cameron was and is STUPID.

There is no place in a Democratic Society for organisations such as ASH (Action on Smoking and Heath) unless they are totally truthful. No spin or frighteners. TRUTH and only TRUTH.

Thus, the pictures on cig packets can only be justified if they are TRUE.

I showed a cig packet from Spain yesterday which depicted a baby with a dummy in its mouth with a cig in the middle of the dummy. That pic does not represent even the remotest possibility of TRUTH. There is no excuse for such LIES. Democratic societies cries out against such lies.

Roger Scruton’s idea that Democracy depends upon equal participants agreeing that a simple majority is enough, depends upon the equality. That ‘equality’ depends upon TRUTH.

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Truth in a Democratic Society”

  1. Samuel Says:

    “Democracy” is a sham. It always has been. It is a flim-flam intended to trick people into giving it their support by deluding them into believing it, as a system of representation and governance, grants them, as individuals, more control over the forces that control people than they had prior to its introduction. Pure lies. “Democracy” claims to empower individuals by yoking them all together in a mass group that then oppresses, robs, lies to and otherwise kicks individuals around and legitimizes itself by claiming it’s abuses are just because they are the will of the people. The only form of individual representation for the purpose of ordering relations between a group of individuals is a court room or a small city council. No larger grouping of people can ever be fair or just to any individual in its midst.

    As for money in the bank, whether it’s in the bank or in your pocket it is all just credit. For some of us it is credit earned and for others it is credit borrowed but all money is merely a claim on real property and a promise that that claim can be transferred. So, if I buy something of yours with money I give you a claim on someone else’ property (if they agree to the deal) and you accept that the money is and will be good for further exchanges. But it’s all just credit, created from nothing, proffered onto the world with the connivance of politicians who passed “laws” making paper and electric markers “good as gold”, and lent to us at interest in exchange for our labor and our property.

    • junican Says:

      I don’t agree about democracy, Sam. Not at all. The wonderful idea, of very recent origin don’t forget, has recently been perverted by spin and propaganda.
      Further, money, in its simplest form, is valuable metals like silver and gold. A weird thing that we do not often think about, is that a person who owns a piece of worthless land would become, immediately, extremely wealthy if gold or silver deposits were found beneath the surface of that land. Unfortunately for him, ‘The King’ would immediately claim it as his own.
      But that does not detract from the idea that coins (money) must have inherent value.
      What has happened in modern times is that economic wealth has replaced gold and silver. Essentially, what that means is that there would simply not be enough gold and silver to make the currency, nor would that gold and silver be capable of moving around quickly enough.
      But there are massive problems, as we know. Holdings of gold, silver, land, buildings, do not depreciate, but credits in bank accounts do, and they do so alarmingly.

  2. Rose Says:

    Cameron was and is STUPID

    Previously

    Cameron apologises over Andy Coulson appointment

    “Prime Minister David Cameron has apologised for employing Andy Coulson as his director of communications.
    “I am extremely sorry I employed him. It was the wrong decision,” he said.

    He spoke after the ex-News of the World editor was found guilty at the Old Bailey of conspiring to hack phones between 2000 and 2006.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27998411

    • junican Says:

      Will history record the truth? Cameron was a manufactured politician. I am not certain that he was not a cyborg.
      Some people have the facility to remember lines in a play very easily. They hardly have to learn them.There are a lot of politicians like that.They have a particular skill of remembering sound-bites, where most of us would be at a loss what to say.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: