Consideration of the direction society is taking.

Consideration of the direction society is taking.

Is society developing in a sustainable way?

In the “western” world, often called the developed world, (A term based on the economic standards of the viewer) and in the democratically governed nations, society appears to be taking a dangerous turn away from tolerance and towards the suppression of some views. A form of social fascism appears to be developing. This has nothing at all to do with ethnic or racial origins, it is about moral attitudes and “norms”.

As we move into the future, in economically and materially developed nations who have some form of democracy as the method of government, we have to take great care not to descend into false democracy. False democracy is where the majority only appear to have any say, but the reality is that control is exerted by a self-selected few who can manipulate the majority.

Consider a few innocent questions.

When did retaliation become a bigger wrong than provocation?

When did effect become wrong but cause acceptable?

When did preventing crime become a criminal offence?

If you think this last sentence wrong try putting a barbed wire fence round your front garden. Consider many media reports about British police not even investigating a burglary but same media reports of police arresting anyone who injures a criminal who was invading their property.

Carrying an offensive weapon is illegal in many parts of the world; but what about a defensive weapon?

Why is it a crime to cause offense but not one to be offended by a reaction to a belief?

Person “A” holds a certain belief, Person “B” gets offended when told of the belief that “A” holds. Person “B” then tries to prevent “A” from holding and voicing their belief.

It should not matter whether the belief being “prevented” is right or left of political spectrum. It should not matter if the belief is religious or atheist. Why should “B” have the right to suppress the express of a belief held by “A” ?

These questions are innocent, in that they solicit thought and answers without attempting to manipulate or coerce anyone, but to those who wish to control a false democracy they are loaded, deadly questions that must be suppressed.

In a democratic society- that is one governed by the principle that the majority is right, that the views of the majority must govern; what actions are acceptable is decided by that majority. Anyone may hold whatever belief they like but their actions are governed by what is acceptable to the majority of fellow citizens. Anyone who disagrees with that majority view has a choice of moving from the nation to another where their beliefs are shared by the majority. They also have a right to peacefully try to persuade the majority, but they have no right at all to attempt to coerce others to their views. They have no right at all to supress the expression of views they do not like. Law in democracy has to be to govern actions, making laws to govern beliefs is not democratic, it is the way religious fascism governs, it is the route taken by religious fanatic and ultra-zealots to coerce all others.

This has nothing at all to do with ethnic or racial origins, it is about moral attitudes and “norms”. The danger is in the suppression of views simply because a majority hold them. More and more we are all being told we must accept rights of minorities, that opposing the granting of privileges to minority views, is a hate crime and so punishable by law. Yet any member of that minority appears to be supported in their hatred of the majority. This is obviously a very dangerous path. The danger comes from the fact that this can lead to a level of control by a minority, control that will inevitably lead to coercion, in order to be sustained. Fascism.

One of the many factors to be considered is “voter apathy” As an example, consider recent election of the mayor of London. 6,164,119 people were registered to vote but voter turnout was around 40% which means 3,698.471 people did not bother to vote at all. The mayor was elected by getting 43.8% of votes cast or put another way he won with only 17.6% of total registered voters actually voting for him. This mayor had already served 2 terms and by many accounts and evaluations, has headed one of worst and least popular, administrations ever. So how was he able to win? possibilities are the payroll vote, huge numbers of people are paid to work for this administration, and most are unionised, and the unions support this mayor because he gives in to their pay demands. He is also from a specific religious background, and this may ensure those from the same religion support him simply because of that. The big question is for the future. Is London to always governed by such a small number- less than 1 in 5 of total population? This is false democracy because, although democratic elected, it is rule by a minority simply because of indifference by the majority.

Attempting to force the majority to accept the beliefs of a minority, when those beliefs are directly opposed to the majority view, will end in destruction. When reason and argument fail, violence takes over. As we move towards societies where artificial intelligence and automation start to take over most unskilled physical and mental tasks, as we move to a time when commerce and industry are even more global and distant from national control, than now; we are going to increase the political frustration of the vast majority of people. As individuals we all know the frustration of believing no one hears or cares what we think. Multiply this by billions of people and we have an explosion waiting to be set off. Democracy is government with the consent and support of the majority. Requesting tolerance that allows a minority to hold alternative beliefs is very different from trying to enforce permission for those minorities to take actions which are opposed to the will of the majority. The law of a nation applies (or should apply) equally to every person within that nation’s geographical boundaries. The moment any person, any group of people, is allowed to live by and enact different laws simply because the claim it is their chosen belief, is the moment that allows any and every person the right to disobey laws. Claiming racial prejudice and intolerance, when in fact the intolerance is due to actions that are opposed to the norms of the majority, cannot be acceptable if social stability is to be maintained. Prejudice simply on the grounds of skin colour or religious belief is unacceptable, and this applies whatever the skin colour or belief of both victim and perpetrator. The notion that only one racial group can hold prejudicial views and so only one other group can be the victim, is obviously absurd. Prejudice is (unfortunately) a human trait whether it is some form of natural instinct, or a matter of social conditioning is debatable but in either case what matters is the actions of the individual. Laws govern actions. Laws must be applied equally otherwise they stop being relevant.

When national government, democratic or not, cannot fully control their own economy, when the average person feels all the laws are being made to supress what they believe in, then instability is established on a grand scale.

When a socio/economic group or a group who hold a select political view, seek to impose their moral standards on everyone else, particularly when they seek to impose actions which adversely affect others who do not adhere to their view, discord is started. When opposition to those views is supressed, or suppression is attempted by censorship, or refusing permission for dissemination, then the pathway to fascism and away from democracy is started. What is the future? Will we arrive at truly democratic governance or degenerate into false democracy followed inevitably by outright fascism even when disguised as communism, since in real life, the extreme of socialism is indistinguishable from fascism? If we are to have true democracy we have to make some changes, first and most obvious is to ensure all elections are honest, with free and secret voting. The second factor is to use technology to ensure honest counting, eligible voters only etc. Then much wider use of referendums on local and national issues to reduce the tendency to have fixed periods of elected dictatorships, where the majority are ignored once a governing body established. A bigger problem socially is overcoming voter apathy, as seen earlier this results in false democracy.

How to get people to vote? Some nations have tried legal enforcement, but the bigger issue is getting people to feel involved, getting people to believe they have a say, that their vote will honestly be counted and matter. May be reverting back to the time when most politicians were doing the job because of conviction. Far too many are now professional career politicians, they have not had enough experience of the reality of the voter’s way of life. The party-political machines recruit candidates who have been involved as students who have qualifications in political science, who have been researchers working for the party. They select candidates to support based on the loyalty to the established leadership of the party, this reduces the likelihood of an elected politician acting solely in the best interest of the majority of their constituents.