Sangha Democracy (video)

Transcript
0:01 hello immortals i just got a new mic and 0:03 i want to uh 0:05 see how how it goes 0:08 and uh 0:09 how 0:10 it how its 0:12 new features such as 0:14 noise detection and such can potentially 0:16 help with my videos 0:19 so i'm going to be talking about 0:21 something that i actually was actually 0:23 the first video i was planning on making 0:26 but it's a video that uh was 0:30 rather uh but it's a video that was 0:36 a bit hard to make when i was 0:38 inexperienced 0:40 this is gonna be an abridged version as 0:42 i was originally planning on making like 0:46 a hour-long video essay that turned out 0:50 to be 0:52 totally unfeasible for 0:54 me having not made a single video in my 0:56 life and that is 0:59 and that is i want to make a video about 1:03 about politics and specifically about 1:07 the idea of how democracy 1:12 democracy promotes virtue and how 1:15 populism and authoritarianism 1:19 promote vice 1:23 so i originally wanted to do this 1:26 actually in response to the uh 1:29 in response to the russian invasion of 1:30 ukraine 1:32 and the uh basic i 1:35 the base but i see this as applying 1:38 probably a little bit more to american 1:41 politics than to russian politics 1:44 as 1:45 russia doesn't exactly have the biggest 1:50 democratic tradition to begin with 1:55 so i basically see democracy as being 1:58 some 1:59 at least when it's functioning well 2:02 as 2:03 as not exactly representing the will of 2:06 the people 2:07 so much as providing the people a 2:09 specific way to 2:10 coordinate with each other 2:14 people coordinate 2:16 at least in theory 2:18 based upon 2:19 the common values which are the uh which 2:22 are the foundation 2:24 of the democratic system 2:26 so i would uh 2:29 i might call this phenomenon sangha 2:32 democracy 2:34 although i feel that's a bit inadequate 2:36 or 2:38 not not inadequate it's a little bit too 2:40 too specific 2:42 it gives an idea of how i want democracy 2:44 to work 2:46 but it doesn't give the fact that a 2:48 democracy can be built upon 2:51 values that i disagree with and perhaps 2:54 bad values 2:56 but i see democracies 2:59 in their traditional form as be as 3:03 essentially 3:04 having it so the political decisions 3:07 they aren't just made by the people 3:10 they are made by a coordination of the 3:13 people 3:15 and this co and this coordination of the 3:17 people occurs 3:19 based upon a certain value system so uh 3:23 what this means is that say the uh 3:27 what this means is that uh say 3:29 a lot of traditional democracies would 3:32 be uh would be built upon 3:36 a somewhat christian value system 3:39 where 3:40 where people doing negative things 3:45 based upon this christian world view 3:47 was uh something that would make them 3:49 not go and not be able to get into 3:52 office 3:53 which 3:54 obviously has a lot of negatives 3:57 attached to it because of the particular 4:00 values which 4:02 which one can very rightfully disagree 4:04 with 4:05 but it also acts as somewhat of a value 4:07 enforcing mechanism 4:11 i believe that 4:13 i believe that it essentially 4:16 makes it so that even if people's virtue 4:20 is not 4:22 the thing 4:24 even if the people aren't that virtuous 4:26 in themselves 4:28 they will uh 4:31 political power is based upon virtue 4:34 and 4:36 i see this as being the case as long as 4:39 there's a strong 4:42 as long as there's a strong hegemonic 4:45 system of moral norms 4:49 that's ruling over the political system 4:52 i don't 4:55 and i believe that this is very 4:57 dependent on things such as common it's 5:00 just common religious beliefs across 5:02 this the population 5:04 and things like that 5:07 which is 5:08 in which is in a large part why it is 5:11 that i 5:12 don't necessarily think that uh 5:15 such systems 5:16 are feasible in all circumstances 5:21 however i see i see there being two 5:26 distinct 5:28 reactions or 5:30 consequences to such systems 5:32 which are the product the process of the 5:35 breaking down 5:38 the first one 5:40 is probably the first 5:43 the first 5:44 consequence of such systems is 5:47 that people can 5:51 is that oftentimes 5:54 the values can become disingenuous 5:58 i would personally describe hillary 6:01 clinton as this 6:04 i don't believe that she necessarily 6:06 didn't believe in the values but they 6:09 were weak enough that 6:11 essentially her following them 6:14 had no 6:16 her following them was a very shallow 6:17 thing it comes off to most of it came 6:20 off to a very large portion of the 6:22 population at least 6:25 as being something very patronizing and 6:28 uh 6:29 and elitist rather than something rather 6:32 than a uh 6:34 representation of 6:36 the correct way of uh 6:39 of behaving and a example for people to 6:42 follow 6:45 i don't think that this is necessarily 6:48 the entirety of why it is that why it is 6:51 the democracies work well 6:54 and why it is that 6:56 non-democracies don't work well 6:59 but i think that there is a large 7:01 contrast in populist movements 7:04 with their traditional 7:06 but i believe populist movements have a 7:08 big contrast with uh more 7:11 traditional politics and i think a lot 7:13 of this comes down to that once there is 7:17 a more 7:20 once there is more of an elitist 7:22 morality 7:23 rather than a people's morality 7:27 or a widely accepted people's morality i 7:30 should say 7:32 then 7:33 popul then essentially populism can be a 7:36 sort of rebellion against it 7:39 and when populism is a rebellion against 7:41 it 7:42 that is actually something that is 7:44 rather uh 7:47 this can essentially make it so that 7:50 people do the opposite 7:52 they will coordinate 7:54 more based upon their disregard 7:57 of moral norms 7:59 rather than based upon following their 8:01 moral norms so this is uh 8:05 this is something that i see as being a 8:07 particularly 8:09 harmful phenomenon 8:11 which is really uh which really hurts 8:14 people 8:16 i believe this is why it is that you'll 8:18 partic in particular see that uh 8:23 you'll particularly see that like 8:25 the 8:26 the cronies of donald trump and 8:30 bolsonaro and several other people 8:34 will 8:34 very much 8:36 revel 8:37 in uh 8:38 breaking norms 8:41 saying that they have uh 8:44 giving rape threats etc 8:46 because of the fact that these things 8:48 are perceived as essentially being 8:50 the nature of the people 8:52 in contract 8:55 in contrast with the elitist norms of 8:58 the uh 9:01 of the central government 9:03 or the traditional political culture i 9:06 should 9:06 say 9:08 this 9:09 means that 9:12 and so i believe that this explains a 9:13 lot of behavior 9:16 that one 9:17 that that may be confusing to some 9:19 people who are following politics 9:22 but 9:23 not really 9:25 following 9:26 the moral landscape 9:31 i think there are certain other things 9:33 that are pretty uh 9:35 significant to this it's not just 9:38 the it's not just a product of 9:41 the it's just not it's not just a 9:42 product of this uh there are particular 9:44 calvinist norms that 9:47 make people 9:49 have a uh 9:52 that make people tend towards being more 9:55 in favor of the breaking of moral norms 9:57 based on the notion of people being a 10:00 good person or a bad person or in the 10:02 case of or in the case of russia 10:06 there is a lot of autocratic norms that 10:08 have a similar effect 10:11 but i think this is a crucial element of 10:14 democratic peace theory that is not 10:17 often explored 10:20 because 10:22 because populist movements oftentimes do 10:26 represent the people 10:28 but they don't represent the people in 10:30 the same way they represent the people 10:34 they represent the people's most 10:36 violent 10:37 most violent immoral impulses 10:40 in contrast with 10:41 a properly functioning democratic system 10:44 which emphasizes people's uh 10:48 highest moral nature 10:52 so if you uh 10:54 please comment your thoughts on this 10:57 and 10:58 to omega