emotions and politics - alive why

emotions and politics

the discussion about tyranny vs democracy in philosophy
can be reduced to the fact
that humans can be overwhelmed by emotion
either as individual tyrants
or even in groups aiming at democracy

the root problem is that the directives of emotion
can allow paths that don't serve
communal or sustainable happiness
this is because of the ability of non communality
to prevail in the selection of goals.
this is the influence of self.
thus you have people like mugabe or pol pot.
here the self is overweening,
blotting out communal happiness
in favour of the few or a tribe,
and non sustainability blotting out happiness
for those to come

these unhelpful, emotional directive paths,
starting from the self,
can be enacted by any individual or group

the hope is that what ever system is in place for government
it tends to evaluate emotional directives

this is the nature of the debate between chomsky and harris/ hitchens
to see how much different methods of government
best serve communal happiness
chomsky siding with the people
and harris trusting to the administration

the only real solution is to
institute direct e voting on all important issues
with the caveat that human rights remain protected
once it is possible for the populace to vote on important issues
then education on the issues would become worthwhile
at present in most systems
issue voting is rare
so it is just a case of choosing personalities
and hoping they are faithful to their promises
when there is no such guarantee

democracy means ruling by the people
but what we have in western established democracies
is still only representative type democracy
that is politicians represent us, or are supposed to,
but in many cases they don't represent us,
because they reneg on their promises and undertakings

in the days of the internet,
with vast amounts of communication and money
already trusted to the care of the web

the old representative democracy is no longer necessary

so people should vote directly on issues
ending the chomsky vs hitchens argument
in favour of chomsky
as a minor spin off