Next: The Disarmament Syndrome
Up: The World Solution for
Previous: A Concept for Government
Herodotus reported about a people that had the custom
(like many animals living in tribes) to kill a person who is
ill. 'Naturally', he comments, 'the unfortunate man
protests that nothing is wrong with him but to no avail'.
In such a case, a veto-right, the right of one person in a
small scale group being able to torpedo a general decision,
would be life-saving (for the man). It would even be advantageous
to the group in Summum Bonum fashion. In our case,
things are different. When 20 shipwrecked people in a lifeboat
should agree with a proposal to drill a hole in the
boat except one sane person, who means to survive, the existence
of a veto right, then, might well save the lot. This
example more or less reflects our state of affairs. But
there are other reflections possible.
- First of all, one
wise man in a boat-load of 20 may compare to a ratio of 100
in the 5 billion, or even to 3 in the 1000 governors.
- Secondly,
the proposal and vote to drill a hole, can easily be
made into the opposite proposal 'not' to drill such hole.
The veto of a sane man for the first, could be compared to
the veto of a crank, the one saving lives, the other
destroying life. When you veto the 'not' drilling, you in
fact drill.
- Third, it may be thought that a decision should
be unanimous when it is lethally serious. When 10 doctors
decide that operation is very urgent, and 10 others decide
it is deadly, what are we to do? Also, a mere simple 'majority
decides' can easily be disastrous too. Ten to one,
the majority consists of totally ignorant and disinterested
illiterates, the minority would be the wise, the thinkers.
For this, the curve of Gauss shows the story of the two
minorities, the proper (?) insane on the one end, genius on
the other end of the scale. Gauss shows the impossibility
of democracy, the majority always the nuts, hardly ever the
mediocrits, the wise in the minority. It is inconceivable
how modern pseudologists remain mathematical game players,
therefore know the Gaussian curve, yet do not translate it
into their reality, meaning that democrazy is the most utter
undesirable form for organizing a group, any group of persons
in a society, let alone rule the world by it.
With regard to the veto right, when we call a 999 of the
1000 votes as being unanimous, we have eliminated this possibility
of a crazy person wrecking things by veto. But
there still is the possibility of voting 'for' drilling a
hole, and voting against 'not' drilling a hole. What is the
difference in the two propositions? This clearly is that
the one proposal asks for a change (in things) the other
asks for no change. Drilling is change, not drilling is
'let alone' is no change. These ideas should be worked out
into a system for decision making in our world-government.
When a really serious decision is to be made (governors will
meet with no other than serious ones) the rule should be:
acceptance when there is unanimity only, (i.e. 999 votes)
'for' a change in natural being, and dismissal of the change
only when at least 750 are against the proposal. There then
'must' be the stipulation that these proposals should be
made in such a way that this unanimity is necessary 'for' a
change in the natural things, and 750 votes necessary for
proposals that leave things alone (non-change of nature, the
normal 'let go' of nature (65) ). A 750 is enough
to decide to do nothing, but in order to do something, to alter
things, 999 of the 1000 must be voted.
The animal world may know dictatorships, even the
right of the better, it is fortunately free from democracy, not to
mention Veto-rights. May Ling.
Next: The Disarmament Syndrome
Up: The World Solution for
Previous: A Concept for Government
Ven
2007-09-11