Comment So what if Lucas is kicking democracy? (Score 5) 274
What I found most disturbing in the whole affair, and the only point I will address, is that Brin's objection is Lucas presenting a story that supports the opinion that democracy might be inherently bad.
This being an opinion I currently hold, I would like to offer a couple of comments. Brin seems to be confusing several of the underlying concepts of American society and over-generalizing about how your political system works.
Democracy is not a cut-and-paste solution. Democratic governments vary greatly, and the principle behind democracy is elected government. A lot of other things that exist in American democracy and various other types of government in the Western world, such as human rights, international law, freedom of speech and expression etc. have little to do with democracy in itself.
I am not an American. I am Greek, and I live in Athens, the place where democracy was born. I would like to point out that the ancient Athenian democracy came with little of the sprinklings and egalitarian human-rights laws that come with most modern forms of government. And it didn't work well. It didn't work well at all, and it could be argued that democracy was largely to blame for Athens' fall and decline after the Pelloponesian War.
I've also read the Iliad and the Odyssey as well as several plays by Evripides (in the original, no less!) and would like to wonder about how they differ with the kind of stories Mr. Brin advocates.
For one thing, Mr. Brin agrees that a story must have heroes. And, believe it or not, this is the way history works. I'd like to see someone come up and disagree with me when I say that a handful of people have made an incredible impact on the history of human civilization while most people did indeed play the role of un-named spear-carriers. Especially in the case of war, the decision to go to war is usually taken by a small group of leaders to whom many have sworn allegiance by one means or another. It was the American government's decision to start the war in Kosovo over supposed ethnic cleansing just as it was Agamemnon's decision to start the war in Troy over the abduction of Helen.
The only moral objection that Mr. Brin brings up is how the elite is selected. The only difference he really sees between the Homerian demi-gods and everyday-Joes-cum-heroes is that one is selected by fate / hereditary rights / genetics while the other is selected by a handful of people around him. For Mr. Brin, the deciding difference between Agamemnon Atreides and Bill Clinton is that Agamemnon was king because he was the son of Atreus, while Mr. Clinton is president because of the small percentage of the American public that actually voted, more than half chose him over the other candidate.
The fact that he's at least partially responsible for bombing the houses of people in Serbia, half way around the world from the Oval office, is not the problem. Supposedly, our beloved democracy would have struck him down in his place if his action was morally reprehensible.
Please get me straight. Although I do take interest in these matters, I do not wish to debate the moral right of this or that leader to wage war against another nation. That is a matter of a different discussion. What I am debating is Mr. Brin's point that all the good in society comes from the fact that our leaders are elected.
Let me tell you something you might have forgotten. The Nazi government was elected, through due democratic process. The public loved them. For the average German in the 30s, a government that promised freedom from the economic hell imposed by the winners of WWI and getting rid of the Jewish commercial elite that they believed was the source of all their problems (there, another elite creeps into place). HITLER AND THE NAZI PARTY HAD A DIRECT MANDATE FROM THE GERMAN PEOPLE, AND YET THEY ARE STILL THE CAUSE FOR SOME OF THE WORST ATROCITIES EVER COMMITTED .
Mr. Brin supports that power corrupts, and that despots invariably become egotistical and power-hungry, incapable of acting in the best interests of their people. Just because a (relatively small) bunch of people picked an elected president over his opponent does not mean that the above cannot apply to him as well!
Democracy is, IMHO, just another way to pick an elite. But the way the world is governed at the time being means we NEED an elite. We just switched from passing the crown down from father to son, and are now passing the mandate from politician to politician.
The average citizen might have an opinion, and even a valid and just way of thinking about how the country should be run. But he might not. Putting the decision of one political party over another in the hands of the public does NOT mean you get good government.
This is Slashdot, a site for geeks, people who see ourselves as an intellectual elite. Saying that if more people pick a Democrat over a Republican (or the other way around) means we get good government is like saying that having people pick Windows over Linux (which they do, mostly, and the reasons, though bad, apply equally to democracy: lack of choice, lack of support, bad media coverage, lack of education and awareness, lack of interest) means they get good computing.
If George Lucas wants to thrash democracy, let him. You might disagree with him (and me), but it's a valid point and not unethical or morally reprehensible. Mr. Brin's point about GL thrashing a culture that has been good to him is invalid. GL is thrashing ELECTED GOVERNMENT, not the institutions that allow freedom of expression and opportunities for financial success. The two do not go together hand-in-hand. You can have one without the other. And in ALL forms of government to date, be it monarchy, aristocracy, communism, tyrrany, democracy or anything else, (perhaps not socialism? But the examples are few and far apart, and hard to judge) an ELITE has governed the masses, who have had little say in government except when they rebelled or went to the polls to exchange one elite for another. The question here is how an elite is selected. Elected government might be the best we have so far , but it is not close to being a good and effective system. You can judge individual elites (e.g. Nazis were bad, JFK was good, Agamemnon was bad, Pericles was good etc.) but you will find that the way they were brought into power has little to do with their effectiveness. Mr. Brin's objection to this I find appalling.
This being an opinion I currently hold, I would like to offer a couple of comments. Brin seems to be confusing several of the underlying concepts of American society and over-generalizing about how your political system works.
Democracy is not a cut-and-paste solution. Democratic governments vary greatly, and the principle behind democracy is elected government. A lot of other things that exist in American democracy and various other types of government in the Western world, such as human rights, international law, freedom of speech and expression etc. have little to do with democracy in itself.
I am not an American. I am Greek, and I live in Athens, the place where democracy was born. I would like to point out that the ancient Athenian democracy came with little of the sprinklings and egalitarian human-rights laws that come with most modern forms of government. And it didn't work well. It didn't work well at all, and it could be argued that democracy was largely to blame for Athens' fall and decline after the Pelloponesian War.
I've also read the Iliad and the Odyssey as well as several plays by Evripides (in the original, no less!) and would like to wonder about how they differ with the kind of stories Mr. Brin advocates.
For one thing, Mr. Brin agrees that a story must have heroes. And, believe it or not, this is the way history works. I'd like to see someone come up and disagree with me when I say that a handful of people have made an incredible impact on the history of human civilization while most people did indeed play the role of un-named spear-carriers. Especially in the case of war, the decision to go to war is usually taken by a small group of leaders to whom many have sworn allegiance by one means or another. It was the American government's decision to start the war in Kosovo over supposed ethnic cleansing just as it was Agamemnon's decision to start the war in Troy over the abduction of Helen.
The only moral objection that Mr. Brin brings up is how the elite is selected. The only difference he really sees between the Homerian demi-gods and everyday-Joes-cum-heroes is that one is selected by fate / hereditary rights / genetics while the other is selected by a handful of people around him. For Mr. Brin, the deciding difference between Agamemnon Atreides and Bill Clinton is that Agamemnon was king because he was the son of Atreus, while Mr. Clinton is president because of the small percentage of the American public that actually voted, more than half chose him over the other candidate.
The fact that he's at least partially responsible for bombing the houses of people in Serbia, half way around the world from the Oval office, is not the problem. Supposedly, our beloved democracy would have struck him down in his place if his action was morally reprehensible.
Please get me straight. Although I do take interest in these matters, I do not wish to debate the moral right of this or that leader to wage war against another nation. That is a matter of a different discussion. What I am debating is Mr. Brin's point that all the good in society comes from the fact that our leaders are elected.
Let me tell you something you might have forgotten. The Nazi government was elected, through due democratic process. The public loved them. For the average German in the 30s, a government that promised freedom from the economic hell imposed by the winners of WWI and getting rid of the Jewish commercial elite that they believed was the source of all their problems (there, another elite creeps into place). HITLER AND THE NAZI PARTY HAD A DIRECT MANDATE FROM THE GERMAN PEOPLE, AND YET THEY ARE STILL THE CAUSE FOR SOME OF THE WORST ATROCITIES EVER COMMITTED .
Mr. Brin supports that power corrupts, and that despots invariably become egotistical and power-hungry, incapable of acting in the best interests of their people. Just because a (relatively small) bunch of people picked an elected president over his opponent does not mean that the above cannot apply to him as well!
Democracy is, IMHO, just another way to pick an elite. But the way the world is governed at the time being means we NEED an elite. We just switched from passing the crown down from father to son, and are now passing the mandate from politician to politician.
The average citizen might have an opinion, and even a valid and just way of thinking about how the country should be run. But he might not. Putting the decision of one political party over another in the hands of the public does NOT mean you get good government.
This is Slashdot, a site for geeks, people who see ourselves as an intellectual elite. Saying that if more people pick a Democrat over a Republican (or the other way around) means we get good government is like saying that having people pick Windows over Linux (which they do, mostly, and the reasons, though bad, apply equally to democracy: lack of choice, lack of support, bad media coverage, lack of education and awareness, lack of interest) means they get good computing.
If George Lucas wants to thrash democracy, let him. You might disagree with him (and me), but it's a valid point and not unethical or morally reprehensible. Mr. Brin's point about GL thrashing a culture that has been good to him is invalid. GL is thrashing ELECTED GOVERNMENT, not the institutions that allow freedom of expression and opportunities for financial success. The two do not go together hand-in-hand. You can have one without the other. And in ALL forms of government to date, be it monarchy, aristocracy, communism, tyrrany, democracy or anything else, (perhaps not socialism? But the examples are few and far apart, and hard to judge) an ELITE has governed the masses, who have had little say in government except when they rebelled or went to the polls to exchange one elite for another. The question here is how an elite is selected. Elected government might be the best we have so far , but it is not close to being a good and effective system. You can judge individual elites (e.g. Nazis were bad, JFK was good, Agamemnon was bad, Pericles was good etc.) but you will find that the way they were brought into power has little to do with their effectiveness. Mr. Brin's objection to this I find appalling.
