--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <no_reply@> 
> wrote:
> > People have embraced democracy because good people are 
> > not available to be rulers...
> People have embraced democracy because it's a good idea.

Exactly.  It's a good idea because, as Bob says, we
can't count on good people being available as rulers.

> Only sheep are looking for "good rulers."  You seem
> to be one of them.  Baaaaaa, dude.  :-)

That would depend, of course, on what one means by

> > ...but this is only a temporary phase in human history. 
> It's been "temporary" so far for pretty much the full
> *length* of human history.  I suspect it will remain
> equally "temporary" for the *rest* of human history.

Actually, the phrase "human history" has two meanings,
depending on the context.  It can mean *recorded*
history; or it can mean the entire course of human
existence, including what happened before records
began to be kept (or at least records that have

So one can make the statement that Kali Yuga has
been "temporary for the full length of human history"
only if one means "history" in the first sense, i.e.,
recorded history.  That period is the only one we
can have any objective knowledge of.

> > When enlightened people are found again on earth, the 
> > people will dump democracy's inefficiencies and 
> > inherent unfairness (majority rule means that the 
> > majority will always repress the minority) and live 
> > with kings again.
> That is possible.  There are a *lot* of people who are
> afraid of taking responsibility for their own lives,
> and who are hoping desperately for Santa Claus to come
> along and "rule" them and tell them what to do all the
> time so they never have to make any decisions ever again.  
> Most people call this form of government a cult.  You 
> seem happier with the term Sat Yuga. Whatever.

To me, this assertion represents a certain lack of
imagination.  It seems to me within the range of
possibility that "enlightened dictatorship" could
involve a style of governance quite different from
any that we are familiar with in the "real world," one
that would *give* people responsibility for their own
lives rather than taking it away from them.

Even those forms of governance we know about that
grant people the greatest measure of responsibility
nevertheless restrict that responsibility in some
areas.  As Bob points out, democracy can result in
a "tyranny of the majority," in which only the
majority is granted full responsibility (and even
its responsibility may be curtained in some ways).

Plus which, even in nations that are supposedly
governed according to the highest ideals of
democracy, those ideals can be subverted and
corrupted--as we are seeing today in the United
States, for example--when leaders take power who are
not committed to the principles of democracy set out
in their nation's charter.

Churchill's famous aphorism about government--that
democracy is the worst system of governance ever
devised, except for all the rest--may be germane

Whether an "enlightened dictatorship" could remedy
the deficiencies of our current systems of government
is unknown, but to proclaim that it could *only*
function by telling people "what to do all the time
so they never have to make any decisions ever again"
seems to require a pinched and limited ability to
conceive of possibilities.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to