Anarchy and Democracy

OK, here is some food for thought: Is Democracy the first step towads anarchy?

In order to answer this question we should go back to why and how Democracy came into being as an idea: In Ancient Athens, of course. Now, in order to understand democracy, you must understand the ancient (and most likely modern) Greek. There is a common characteristic that underlies the personality of most Greeks: they were, are, and will probably always be stubborn and resistant to any authority telling them what to do.

Perhaps it was fine for the ancient Egyptians to be ruled by a godlike ruler, the Pharaoh, for the Persians to have a mighty emperor, but not for the unruly ancient Greeks, no way! They wanted to have a say on who rules them and how long they would be ruled by that individual. They wanted to be able to punish their ruler for making the wrong decisions by toppling him from power. Each Greek actually deep down wanted to be the one in power!

If it was at all possible, Greeks would thrive in an anarchist environment. They don't respond well to authority, rules and regulations. Even today, to a Greek, the law is merely a suggestion, not a binding force. Only the dire need for collective safety forced the Ancient Greeks to form some sort of government, and they tried to make it as painless as possible, ergo: Democracy.

It's a miracle that the idea of Democracy took such a widespread hold over the Earth in modern days. Most other peoples believe that it is a very haphazard and inefficient form of government. Even the U.S. who purports to be democratic has watered down the original idea by turning their government into what is more of an oligarchy than a true Democracy. As a matter of fact, oligarchies are much more common than true Democracies and for a good reason: Power is something people want to hold on to and pass it down only to their own families or trusted heirs.

True Democracy - one person one vote - is only one step away from anarchism. The will of the majority only loosely rules the minority, who given half a chance, would take over at the first opportunity. Only the majority's control of the power, such as the army and the police, stops the system from complete collapse.

Anarchism is deemed undesirable for some obvious reasons, the safety of others and the need for some order in society being the major ones. Democracy is the next best thing for the unruly individual who still retains a modicum of responsibility and Oligarchy is the next step towards the concentration of power to a few.

It seems that the pendulum has been swinging both ways in the past between the two extremes: dictatorships and total anarchy being the two end points. For some reason, dictatorships appear much easier to achieve than total anarchy.

Given the historical experience, once more we can conclude that the ancient Athenian Greeks had it right. A society needs government and order, but not too much government and order. Checks and balances are necessary to keep the power from concentrating in too few hands, and the right of the people to get rid of a bad leader is paramount. The democratic system allows for the freedom of the people, while still safeguarding society from extreme behavior.

Perhaps there are better systems of government to be found. Perhaps there is a utopic system of equal treatment and increased social conscience that may be developed in the future. If it does not take into consideration the two extreme forces - the need for people to possess power on the one hand and their equal need to be free and unfettered - it would be doomed to failure.

Mutants

Mutants, mutations, people with special powers over and above what "normal" people can do are the bread and butter of Sci Fi.
Why are we so enthralled by this idea? Why are Superman, Batman, the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Mutant X and hundreds of other heroes and their equally formidable foes so appealing? Are we not satisfied with the albeit limited but still growing human abilities we do possess or could it be a yearning combined with the suspicion that we are capable of a whole lot more than our five senses and mundaine life provides?
We want more, there is no doubt about that. Obviously, we can imagine more. Of what use is this ability to imagine if not in order to make the things we imagine come true? But I'm starting to veer off the subject.

In the "real world" 99.9% of all mutations are harmful mutations. We may now have "genetically engineered" mutated tomatoes and mutated soya but how beneficial are they? Personally, I'll take the good old home grown stuff grown in natural fertilizer. And these are vegetables! How many harmful mutations would have to be dumped in order to genetically engineer one beneficial mutation in humans? I shudder to think of it.

No doubt people will try. It's human nature to be curious, to experiment, to keep at it until final success or ultimate failure are achieved. It's fascinating to imagine the "finished product", a human that can do and be a whole lot more than we are today. Is it ethical? That is the subject of another discussion.

I HATE blank pages!

A blank page just begs to be filled, but what to fill it with?

Perhaps I can write about my cat who is lying on the chair next to me, sleeping the sleep of the innocent, certain that he is safe and loved.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we too could feel safe and loved, at least some of the time?