Given the present condition of the “democratic” process, we Kandpinijsha have long felt a profound sense of revulsion. Yet we continue to examine it as a phenomenon. However crude it may appear, it remains a developmental trajectory unfolding through causal continuity.
I distill the grounds of this aversion into three principal critiques:
❶ The filling of negative social life-quality deficits without targeting root causes
❷ A power structure characterized by monopolized interests
❸ Extreme ideological and aspirational divergence among members of the shared socio-economic-political system
⚜️⚖️⚜️⚖️
1️⃣ Filling Social Life-Quality Deficits Without Addressing the Root Cause
🚩 What we Kandpinijsha consider the gravest sin is the act of bringing a new innocent life into existence in substandard conditions — without consent. ⛓️🩸🧬 We hold a refined and uncompromising standard for life quality and cannot accept the perpetuation of suffering cycles without corrective intervention from intelligent beings — humans — who ought to be capable of doing better. This perspective is what we call the ultimate pure empathy. ⚛️🦋🪐🌙 [Explore more in the article To Breed Or Not To Breed.]
In a society where the majority experience multidimensional deprivation and where expectations of living standards remain correspondingly low, political competition naturally orients itself toward patching negative deficits 🪤 rather than cultivating a sustainably flourishing future. The narrowing of discourse to “livelihood and debt,” “lotteries,” and various cash-distribution schemes predictably attracts mass approval in such contexts (even if such themes are so intellectually crude that we Kandpinijsha feel repulsed to utter them 🌀💥).
Conversely, although development-oriented proposals may occasionally surface, there is no serious attempt to confront the issue at its root: the governance of new life creation through responsible resource allocation and principled institutional rule-setting — aimed at dismantling the cycle of substandard existence at its origin.
Such proposals would inevitably alienate two substantial groups:
1) Bad Breeders — those who believe the substandard conditions they impose upon new lives are adequate and require no reform.
2.) Those who fiercely defend the “right” of existing lives to create new ones under their autonomy 🚼, yet fail to logically reconcile that right with the moral standing of unborn innocent lives — lacking the capacity to extend pure empathy comprehensively to those not yet born, and to recognize their rightful claim to a dignified life quality. 🛡️♻️
These groups constitute a significant electoral base within majoritarian democracy. Consequently, policies aimed at structurally elevating societal standards at their foundation are unlikely to gain traction. Yet hope remains: through intellectual movement and cultural recalibration, society may ultimately orient toward such deeper transformation 💫 — however regressive the present moment may appear.
⸻
2️⃣ Power Structures and the Monopoly of Interests
🚩 The concentration of power within the political-economic system persists as a dynamic status quo — an evolutionary inheritance shaped by earlier configurations and continuously re-negotiated through clashes among interest groups. 🌪️🌊🌋☄️
The unfairness embedded in the mechanisms that determine life trajectories breeds exhaustion, even when its origins are analytically understood. At the same time, resistance from the disadvantaged generates cautious optimism. The struggle against those who self-anoint as custodians of legitimacy — positioning themselves as rule-makers — is both wearisome and electrifying to witness. 🔓🗽❤️🔥
⸻
3️⃣ Ideological Polarization and Divergent Aspirations
🚩 The necessity of coexisting with groups whose values, expectations, and visions of social order diverge radically — shaped by differing trajectories of capital accumulation across life dimensions 🎰🎲🎯🧩🎭 — invites serious reflection on the efficacy of democracy.
Majoritarian rule carries the inherent risk of suppressing minority positions when democracy functions merely as a two-stage voting relay: elect representatives, who then vote again on policy agendas.
Collective policy determination should instead consist of articulated positions grounded in rigorous mapping of cost-benefit pathways across groups — transparently reasoned, and anchored in principles of efficiency and fairness that recognize initial asymmetries.
Such a democratic instrument is one I find intellectually compelling and worthy of further development. ⚙️⚖️🌈🕊️
👁️⚡️👁️⚡️
All of this compels I and us Kandpinijsha to continue thinking — and to present further reflections in due course through Wizdomkult and Oathdom of Truth.
⋆.˚ ☾⭒.˚ 𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶ 𖤐 ཐི༏ཋྀ ✮⋆˙ ⋆✴︎˚。⋆ ✠ ⊹₊⟡⋆
Find on:
