September 19, 2015 No.1
https://www.facebook.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10153045257401922
Is majority or "number of citizens" a real power? OR what are the conditions where "count of citizens" matter and what the conditions when "count of citizens" become irrelevant?
.
In 1936, some 120,000 British, were ruling India + Pak + Bangladesh + Nepal of population 40 crore. And of this, number of British with weapons were only 80000 . The remaining 40000 were pure civilians , like doctors, engineers, administrators etc , who rarely kept any weapons with them.
.
Even if one adds whole population of UK, it was only 5 crore. And that 5 crore population was ruling over several countries , whose population would add up to some 80 crores.
.
Alexander stared with army of 50000 Greeks. And many historians say, that he conquered or subdued Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and came all the way to Yamuna. He went back because his troops were tired, missed family, had enough gold and didnt want to risk their lives anymore, and they had figured out a way to deal with war elephants but not implemented that way. And Alexander had decided to come back with 5 times the Army, with methods to deal with war elephants and better engineers who can make bigger floats to cross rivers. Back tnen population of area he conequered was in several crores,.
.
I can give countless examples
.
So obviously, "majority" isnt always the power.
,.
But then, a country which practices majoritarian rule often becomes stronger that country where educated / apex minority rule. Greece had Jury System , which made it stronger, Ever since UK started using Jury System, elected MPs and then elected PM who has all powers of the King, it has become more powerful than all Monarchies. And USA, which has more majoritarian procedures, like RTR and referendum, became even more powerful. So sometimes, numbers do matter.
.
=======
.
So the question is ----- what are the conditions where "count of citizens" matter and what the conditions when "count of citizens" become irrelevant?
..
=====
.
My answer is
.
1. At the end, the answer "who is relevant" is decided by weapons. But "number of persons" do play important role in quality of weapons, ALONG with other factors
.
2. So what are the OTHER factors?
,
3. Consider country-A and country-B with population PA and PB.. Say country-A has better engineers who can make better weapons. So obviously country-A will win, regardless of how big country-B is
.
4. But all countries are gifted with Engineering talent in population. So % of population with engineering talents in BOTH countries is same
.
5. So say NA persons in country-A are working in engineering and NB persons in country-B are working in engineering.
.
6. NA persons will have disputes amongst themselves as well other PA. And NB persons will have disputes amongst themselves as well as other PB
.
7. Now this is where role of "majority" or "number of citizens" come. The country which (a) involves LARGER number of citizens in framing law-drafts that disputes dont happen and (b) involves larger number of citizens resolve disputes , using FORCE if need be, will be ahead of country which use smaller number of citizens
.
So say country-A uses xa% of citizens to frame laws and resolve disputes. And say country-B uses xb% of citizens to frame laws and resolve disputes. And say xa >> xb, i.e. xa is much much larger than xb.
.
Then engineers of country-A will be LESS INEFFICIENT of engineers of country-B. And so country-A will be able to make more weapons and will get ahead of country-B.
.
IOW, "larger number of citizens" are useful ONLY if and when activists ensure that a larger number of citizens are used and working to frame law-drafts as well as resolve disputes. If the karger number of citizens are used only for slogan shouting , attend meetings, cap wearing, vote gathering, rallying etc , then such headcount has no value.
.
So this is now numbers do matter, and numbers dont matter.
.
When it comes to law-framing and dispute resolution, BRAINS are needed. And 1 crore brains are better than 1 lakh brains which are better than 1000 brians. One can take best brain, but he will also have 24 hours a day. While society need 1000s of laws, 100s of amendments every year and there are lakhs of disputes to be resolved every year. So one brain or even 1000 brains cant do this task, as each brain has only 24 hours a day. So the country which uses higher % of its humans i.e. brains to do the last of law-drafting and dispute resolving will have less bad laws and less bad judgments compared to country which uses lesser number of brains for printing law-drafts and printing judgments.
.
Whereas when it comes to slogan shouting, rallying, cap wearing etc only body is needed , not brains. Even when it comes to voting, brains are needed creating political alternatives. Not much brain is needed to pick one of 10 available parties or persons.
.
So "number of citizens" matter, provides, numbers are using their brains and not just bodies.
.
So here we see a good correlation.between strength of nations, and NUMBER of citizens they used to print law-drafts and print judgments.
.
1. The ancient Greeks used 1000s and 1000s of citizens to give judgments using Jury System. Whereas the then Trukey , Egypt, Iraq, India etc used judge system, where handful of judges used to decide the dispute. The laws were made by TRADITIONS i.e. the series of judgments would make the law , across the world !! So in Greeks used more brains to make laws, while other countries used LESSER number of brains to make laws
.
2. UK was first country to adopt Jury System using Cornor's Jury System in 950 AD and "trial by peers" in 1100 AD in Magna Carta. Later UK also had elected MPs, where % of voters were 2% of adult population and later increased to 100% of adult population in 1900s. And in 1840s, , whole adult population was used to elect School Board members, In India, judgments were given by tiny elite of kings and their officers. The Panch were confined to family and petty commercial disputes. So UK used MUCH larger number of brains to print law-drafts and print judgments.
.
===
.
So question was --- Is majority or "number of citizens" a real power? OR what are the conditions where "count of citizens" matter and what the conditions when "count of citizens" become irrelevant?
.
My answer is --- the "number of citizens" do matter but only if thei number is using BRAINS in the most difficult talk of society -- framing law-drafts and printing judgments. If the number is just attending meetings, attending speeches of tall leaders, rallying, shouting slogans, wearing caps etc etc , then such number doesnt have strength compared to smaller numbers, where larger % is using brains.
https://www.facebook.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10153045257401922
Is majority or "number of citizens" a real power? OR what are the conditions where "count of citizens" matter and what the conditions when "count of citizens" become irrelevant?
.
In 1936, some 120,000 British, were ruling India + Pak + Bangladesh + Nepal of population 40 crore. And of this, number of British with weapons were only 80000 . The remaining 40000 were pure civilians , like doctors, engineers, administrators etc , who rarely kept any weapons with them.
.
Even if one adds whole population of UK, it was only 5 crore. And that 5 crore population was ruling over several countries , whose population would add up to some 80 crores.
.
Alexander stared with army of 50000 Greeks. And many historians say, that he conquered or subdued Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and came all the way to Yamuna. He went back because his troops were tired, missed family, had enough gold and didnt want to risk their lives anymore, and they had figured out a way to deal with war elephants but not implemented that way. And Alexander had decided to come back with 5 times the Army, with methods to deal with war elephants and better engineers who can make bigger floats to cross rivers. Back tnen population of area he conequered was in several crores,.
.
I can give countless examples
.
So obviously, "majority" isnt always the power.
,.
But then, a country which practices majoritarian rule often becomes stronger that country where educated / apex minority rule. Greece had Jury System , which made it stronger, Ever since UK started using Jury System, elected MPs and then elected PM who has all powers of the King, it has become more powerful than all Monarchies. And USA, which has more majoritarian procedures, like RTR and referendum, became even more powerful. So sometimes, numbers do matter.
.
=======
.
So the question is ----- what are the conditions where "count of citizens" matter and what the conditions when "count of citizens" become irrelevant?
..
=====
.
My answer is
.
1. At the end, the answer "who is relevant" is decided by weapons. But "number of persons" do play important role in quality of weapons, ALONG with other factors
.
2. So what are the OTHER factors?
,
3. Consider country-A and country-B with population PA and PB.. Say country-A has better engineers who can make better weapons. So obviously country-A will win, regardless of how big country-B is
.
4. But all countries are gifted with Engineering talent in population. So % of population with engineering talents in BOTH countries is same
.
5. So say NA persons in country-A are working in engineering and NB persons in country-B are working in engineering.
.
6. NA persons will have disputes amongst themselves as well other PA. And NB persons will have disputes amongst themselves as well as other PB
.
7. Now this is where role of "majority" or "number of citizens" come. The country which (a) involves LARGER number of citizens in framing law-drafts that disputes dont happen and (b) involves larger number of citizens resolve disputes , using FORCE if need be, will be ahead of country which use smaller number of citizens
.
So say country-A uses xa% of citizens to frame laws and resolve disputes. And say country-B uses xb% of citizens to frame laws and resolve disputes. And say xa >> xb, i.e. xa is much much larger than xb.
.
Then engineers of country-A will be LESS INEFFICIENT of engineers of country-B. And so country-A will be able to make more weapons and will get ahead of country-B.
.
IOW, "larger number of citizens" are useful ONLY if and when activists ensure that a larger number of citizens are used and working to frame law-drafts as well as resolve disputes. If the karger number of citizens are used only for slogan shouting , attend meetings, cap wearing, vote gathering, rallying etc , then such headcount has no value.
.
So this is now numbers do matter, and numbers dont matter.
.
When it comes to law-framing and dispute resolution, BRAINS are needed. And 1 crore brains are better than 1 lakh brains which are better than 1000 brians. One can take best brain, but he will also have 24 hours a day. While society need 1000s of laws, 100s of amendments every year and there are lakhs of disputes to be resolved every year. So one brain or even 1000 brains cant do this task, as each brain has only 24 hours a day. So the country which uses higher % of its humans i.e. brains to do the last of law-drafting and dispute resolving will have less bad laws and less bad judgments compared to country which uses lesser number of brains for printing law-drafts and printing judgments.
.
Whereas when it comes to slogan shouting, rallying, cap wearing etc only body is needed , not brains. Even when it comes to voting, brains are needed creating political alternatives. Not much brain is needed to pick one of 10 available parties or persons.
.
So "number of citizens" matter, provides, numbers are using their brains and not just bodies.
.
So here we see a good correlation.between strength of nations, and NUMBER of citizens they used to print law-drafts and print judgments.
.
1. The ancient Greeks used 1000s and 1000s of citizens to give judgments using Jury System. Whereas the then Trukey , Egypt, Iraq, India etc used judge system, where handful of judges used to decide the dispute. The laws were made by TRADITIONS i.e. the series of judgments would make the law , across the world !! So in Greeks used more brains to make laws, while other countries used LESSER number of brains to make laws
.
2. UK was first country to adopt Jury System using Cornor's Jury System in 950 AD and "trial by peers" in 1100 AD in Magna Carta. Later UK also had elected MPs, where % of voters were 2% of adult population and later increased to 100% of adult population in 1900s. And in 1840s, , whole adult population was used to elect School Board members, In India, judgments were given by tiny elite of kings and their officers. The Panch were confined to family and petty commercial disputes. So UK used MUCH larger number of brains to print law-drafts and print judgments.
.
===
.
So question was --- Is majority or "number of citizens" a real power? OR what are the conditions where "count of citizens" matter and what the conditions when "count of citizens" become irrelevant?
.
My answer is --- the "number of citizens" do matter but only if thei number is using BRAINS in the most difficult talk of society -- framing law-drafts and printing judgments. If the number is just attending meetings, attending speeches of tall leaders, rallying, shouting slogans, wearing caps etc etc , then such number doesnt have strength compared to smaller numbers, where larger % is using brains.
No comments:
Post a Comment