What is the problem with democracy?

(Picture I)

Kimmo Huosionmaa


The problem with democracy is that the most popular person would be selected to the head of the state. And that's why Hungarian prime minister can work against rest of European Union. The most problematic thing is that if we want to use censorship against those persons, we might make them more popular than without censorship. And the thing, what makes them so popular is, that they have straight principles, how to handle things and make their nation proud. And why people would not be allowed to be proud of their nation and history? Every nation has right to be proud, but that would be very devastating, because of the nationalism have sometimes turned to militarism and totalitarianism. There have been writings that left-wing persons are working against democracy, and this is not very far away from the truth.


When we are thinking about socialistic, or "realistic socialistic" governments, they are always worked against democracy and destroyed the opposition with massive police actions. And this has been raised the hardcore militarism in the visible sign of the politics of Eastern side nations during the communist era. The problem of the relationship with those nationalist politicians, who are grown in communistic states is, that if rest of the EU would kick them off, that would give more water to their wheels because they would claim, that EU and the elite of EU would kick them of this community.


This is what some of those populists want. If the EU would tolerate and accept their behavior, that would cause the situation, that those politicians must divorce from EU by them self. They must make the first movement in this question, and of course, that would be quite embarrassing for the populists. When we are talking about the way of making decisions in EU, there would always be mentioned the word "elite", what is used in the negative or positive way, depending on the writer's relationship with power. If the writer has the positive relationship with the way to make decisions in the EU, would this person use this world as the positive way, and claim that every person, who sits in the parliament of EU, is some kind of specialist.


If the relationship with the EU is not good, the term "elite" would be used about the isolated financial groups, what are ruling the economy in this area. But when we are thinking about the way, where police would be used against the people, who protest against EU, would we face the situation, where we act like some Soviet Union, when the ally doesn't please it. And if we would use force against the persons, who protest, we would become similar than some NKVD chief, who murdered millions of people, because comrade Stalin was thought, that they were against the communistic way to think, that proletarian dictatorship was the only right way to make world socialistic paradise.


And sometimes I would think, that would we be proud if we keep EU existed with using power. This is the very tricky question because many man and woman want to be "big boss in the small country", and of course, Russia what have very much nuclear weapons is very good "police" for some nations domestic politics. And somebody, who are defending democracy have opinions, that the only right opinion about every question. And the people, who are protecting the freedom of speech have sometimes become the worst limiters of freedom of speech and publishing.

Sources:

https://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/artikkeli/kommentti-orban-on-eu-n-mutapainissa-niskan-paalla/6931134#gs.nbco7Ro

Picture I

http://www.turituri.com/wp-content/uploads/budapest-parliamentwith-reflection-in-danube-image-id-176965334-1424439725-KDcO.jpg

luonnonihmeitakaikillamausteilla.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/what-is-the-problem-with-democracy/


https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/

It's not prohibited to use own brains

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When he was at Swedish court René Descartes wrote a book, what has a very strange name "Rules for the direction of the natural intelligence". Sometimes I have thought that René Descartes was not this man real name, and I certainly believe that this man was not even visited in the court of Stockholm, and there are many stories about those famous philosophers what are not true. The name of that book will tell everything about the life and the soul of that man. The nucleus of this book is, that in every decision the person must remember, that independent way of thinking is not prohibited. This is seen very often when people are talking about defending the country.


When the superpowers like the USA and the Soviet Union made their nuclear arsenals, the leaders of those nations forgot, that everything, what the physics can create is not necessary to make in full function model. And this is the reason, why those nations have more nuclear weapons than another nation, and the bad thing is that they pushed many more nations to the "nuclear club". And then there would become the situation, that nuclear disarmament is not any more realistic answer.


And the most comical thing is that the USA and Russia, what is replaced the Soviet Union are the first states, what are talking about the nuclear weapons. But when we are going back to think about the name of the book, what Descartes wrote, we must think that there is nothing more dangerous thing than the human mind, what makes something in the impulsive condition, and those things might often be very devastating. When the human makes decisions, must this leader able to listen to another persons, when the orders are given.


In this scenario, I don't mean that the leader must do what the henchmen say, and the decision might stand, but the modal askings about the opinions of the action are not the bad thing at all. Of course, the leader makes the decision alone, but if other persons are heard, that would give the information, what might be very important. And if the landscape or water area is polluted, the price could be decreased for this reason. When he was in Swedish court Descartes sees what means absolute monarchy and the absolute power.


The king could execute anybody by given orders to execute some person, and if this man was angry, the results could be devastating for all nation. "What bigger the ruler is, that bigger is the damage, what the ruler can cause for the nation", is old fashion wisdom, and if the king were executed all his generals would that cause little problem in the military forces. When Descartes made that book, he probably got the king angry. The name of that book was mentioned, that someone in the kingdom needed instructions to use their own brains, and maybe the king was one of those people.


Who knows about the relationship with the Descartes and court. There are many things what is written about those men, and probably great philosopher René Descartes was actually some Gunnar Eriksson, who even saw the court of Stockholm. Sometimes I believe that this famous philosopher might be the artistic name, what was used the ordinary man, who spoke and wrote very good French, and that was the reason, why the king would not able to find that man.