Iron Oxide

Oy vey.

Apparently, nobody reads my blog anymore.
At least, no one have posted any comment for a few months.
(Yeah, as if I have such a significant audience. You wish.)

Also, nearly all the blogs I follow seem to have gone on unannounced hiatus.
Perhaps it is simply because we are all starting to get busier at the same time?
(I suppose that would make sense, since most of the blogs I follow are those of my friends'.
Even my posting frequency has been reduced to once a month. In fact, this is my first second-post-of-the-month in months.)

Or is it simply that blogging have gone out of trend?
Maybe so, like the practice of writing in diaries before it.

I kinda hate it when the world moves too fast.
Oh wait. It doesn't.

It's you people who move too fast.

I'd really like to try to keep still. Just for a few months, maybe.

And if staying in the same place means moving against the current, so be it, I guess.



It's quite tiring, staying in place, you know.

I probably have no right nor am I qualified to be writing this

Recently (a week ago) I read a magazine, which I suppose was intended for college students and related instances. The focus of the magazine, mostly, was about democracy. Of course, we all know about democracy. About how it is a good system, where everyone was equal, blah blah blah. That is the usual stuff.

The interesting part is, in the magazine, democracy was scrutinized and, to my surprise, most of the articles speak of democracy negatively.

This is intriguing! Most of my life, the word democracy had always had a positive connotation to it. My father, not wanting to be a dictator over his children, claims that he always tries to be a democratic leader. In a teen magazine I read, 'democratic parents' are praised and encouraged. Even Obi-Wan Kenobi once said to Anakin Skywalker (in Star Wars ep. III: The Revenge of The Sith): "My allegiance is to the republic; to DEMOCRACY!"

So you see, reading that article, I felt as if someone was claiming that my faith all these years were misplaced, misguided and possibly downright wrong.

But let us view what was meant by democracy nowadays.

Democracy, as I understand it, means 'power to the people.' This statement has been repeated countless times in my lifetime, always with positive undertones. But just what is meant by 'the people' here? How is 'power' distributed?

The most obvious example is of course at the elections. The whole nation gathered together, at least in spirit, to appoint the person/people deemed most worthy and able to lead them.

Really?

As a matter of fact, the elections were decided on a majority vote. The idea with the most adherents wins. The master with the most servants rules. Is that kind of reasoning logical?

Of course not. Having a million people thinking 'killing is good' doesn't make it true or acceptable, does it? But unfortunately, that is what most of the world believes now, although people don't admit it. If the majority of people think a course of action is right, then it will be viewed as right.

.....

Of course all would be well if most people use their minds and choose the best decisions. Too bad it is not always the case. Suppose that most of the population pick the wrong choice. The righteous few will have a hard time, as the system itself will have become wrong.

Thus, democracy can be very dangerous, people.

Which brings me to another question: what, then, if not democracy, is the best form of government?

I personally would say anarchy.

Not the looting, rioting kind of anarchy, though. My idea of anarchy simply means a society without organized government. A society which is based on the idea "Mind your own blessed business and be good to people." Atopia perhaps would be a more refined term.

But that also will require everyone to be able to choose the best choice for them, which is not yet likely to happen.

Cripes. What a dilemma.