I am back

There is enough about mathematical analogies. But I think I will bring it back when I there is a need to- you see how this type of speak is so useful for everyone. It is exactly why we are a "positive" society, we are always looking "laws" and have no use for debate about normative values. But as you see now that even "positivity" is a type of "normative" value itself.

Let us talk about this thing call tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is the opposite of despotism- which is the tyranny of the few. This means that private/group interest for general interest. How then, can general interest be in itself a "tyranny" in itself- since it is often couched in benefit of the many than the few.

Let us then put into context of despotism and elitism- you will realised that this thing about "people power" or "rule of the people" can be an ideology in itself. Democracy and people's power is emasculating precisely because the despot hoard and a small groups of people, hoard resources, power and wealth. That is why things like the French Revolution, American revolution and communism is so enlightening- precisely because it takes the power away from the few and place it in the hand the many- whom is expected to then act in their own interest.

Democracy- or periodic elections become a symbol how people can elect parliamentarians to represent their interest in the state's organs. It is then easy to see why people always prefer democracy over that of an authoritarian or prescriptive type of state. This means that they wish to have choices not dictated by people with the monopoly of power.

Hence it is easy to see the legitimation of all forms of lifestyles, choices and consumption- any form of normative rejection is simply infringing on "your personal freedom." It is simply pitting one value over another.

Then put into this context, suddenly despotism and any form of authoritarian regime is considered to be an infringement this particular value of "personal freedom." It is as if life has no meaning and only freedom is the only value worth pursuing.

That is when what we call the "tyranny of the majority". This  means that the majority pursues it's interest much to the detriment of the collective. It is acting in it's interest only insofar that- it is in it's "hegemonic" state. This  means that they pursue a life which is in itself detrimental to it's interest even if it is pursuing "consciously" it's own interest.

How then can one pursue an "interest" which is in itself  "detrimental" in itself. It is simply because it is in a hegemonic state. This means that because the call for the power to them is so strong that the state have imposed a certain form of "freedom" which is "alternative" to "duties" but is in itself "destroying" it's own interest- this is just so that the status quo is maintained.

Communism has been subverted so much that it has become an instrument for nothing for bureaucracy. In similar terms, democracy placed periodic elections and run the risk of running itself to ground simply by some legal or some foreign intervention that it has placed "alternatives" in place of "duties" to relieve the pressure of the call of for a change of regime.

Democracy in it's essence is "rule by the people for the people". But I have noticed, that people place superstar status on hackers, anonymous bombers, graffiti artist that they never realised that they have lose track of the end itself.

Let me use some mathematical analogies for you this time: you cannot justify placing power onto a random group of people without even testing their efficacy. This means that placing these people into power is like plot a graph without the dots or scatterplots- because there is simply no information at all. It is really just blind faith.

You know there is this brilliant idea called a dialectic- which means that for every thesis, there must be anti-thesis, to form a fantastic state called a synthesis. This means that conflict is suppose to create an ideal state of societal trajectory. It appears that on a larger context of things, these people above perform an important function. And then to those on the thesis side, let's just call them order or authority just find them an irritant and to be gotten rid of. Hence to eyes of "the people", these people appear to be do a job that no one wants to do but know it is important.

I am not totally against the idea of these "alternative" ideas, but it is not an either/or situation. Which means that if you choose one, you cannot choose the other. The point of a dialectic is the conflict which forms a virtous state called a synthesis, hence if everyone is behind these "superstars" with no track record, do you know what is final state. This is simply call a "tyranny of the majority" Just because, a group is against the status quo doesn't make you the right one- that is why these people are not performing this "anti-thesis" function, simply because they have overpowered what is considered "good".

Let me put an example for you, let's say history's greatest emperor ruled forever and we lived prosperously, do we ever need to fathom of an idea called democracy in the first place. The only reason that the French revolution and all those revolution happened because people were being exploited. Now, the opposite is happening, the revolutionary is the norm, and any change is considered good.

The ideal state of this dialectic is that each issue must be discussed at a level that encourages discourse by which the conflict of opposing values from various interest groups can cause a change in the direction by which is implemented for the interest of all interested parties. This is simply not just about taking sides just for the sake of taking sides.

This requires everyone to have an intellectual understanding to discuss an issue at a certain level then to simply switching sides like the rainbow when it suits them. And if you are not able to have the discussion, that is what democracy is for- elect someone you think represents your interest.

Democracy was implemented in Greece 2000 years ago where every Greek citizen have a right to enter the "parliament" at a certain point of time [ they have slaves then, and they are not considered, and women are not allowed to run too], that is the ideal state- but they have a much smaller population then. And now you have periodic elections that allows you to elect people in and out of office if you feel incapable of running for office. Now that is democracy and "people power".

But now, anyone whom is an antithesis to the authority is considered a freedom fighter- oh c'mon, what are you doing behind the computer, drinking beer and eating pizza. I would rather donate to the starving children in Africa then to bother with them.

You see before you support someone or think that something or someone is good for you- consider everything that is important to you- and then vote with that. That is the most important. You don't need to have a Phd to do that.

Think of your regression line, where do they sit. Why do you consider it when it is so far when your efficacious regression line- just for some abstract idea, oh c'mon.