Piracy and soft democracy

Art - Irvine, California
Entered on April 12, 2009

Piracy and soft democracy

Prepared by Art-in-Mind

According to various reports tough pirates and soft democrats might become negotiating partners. Democracy as the governance of the people, by the people, for the people, might have a soft or a tough attitude toward piracy, the rule of the pirates, by the pirates, for the pirates. When tough democrats use aggression to fight the pirates and do not win, soft democrats try to negotiate with them. The purpose of this essay is to argue in 1001 words that despite the mistakes of the tough democrats, soft democrats should not negotiate with lawless pirates.

As competitors of different schools of thought democracy and piracy both have a racy characteristic. While followers of democracy might have a taste for life, the worshipers of piracy enjoy the taste of death. Tough pirates are generally reluctant to earn wealth through work and development and rather steal it form others by forcing them into a miserable life. In order to save life, soft democrats are willing to let the wealth of their people end up in the hand of threatening pirates. Aside from similarity in their racy endings, democracy and piracy do not have much in common. To negotiate, democracy presents a demo of its humane values that is as endless as the pi itself, while the irrational piracy considers humanity not more than a $3.14 demo.

According to historical notes, in 1979 few tough pirates mobilized the masses to gain access to the castles of a country that was run by a very wealthy man. The poor, the naïve, and the soft democrats saw the pirates as Robin Hood and assumed the wealth will be distributed to all. As soon as the pirates took over the castles, they felt as comfortable as the pigs in the animal farm and step by step took the lives of everyone who was questioning their values. Soon after their victory they started spreading piracy to some other parts of the world. They began targeting soft and tough democrats, who were left with submission, fight, or flight.

On July 13, 1989 few soft democrats with strong belief in respecting human life and dignity decided to negotiate with representatives of the tough pirates in Vienna, Austria. None of the soft democrats left the negotiation table alive, while the pirates left unharmed without being caught. The pirates were not finished and send few more representatives few years later to take the life of another democrat who was following the footsteps of his predecessors. He too was shot to death in a restaurant in Berlin on September 17, 1992. Many other democrats became the targets of pirates including one who was stabbed in Paris, France on August 7, 1991, one who was beheaded on August 6, 1992 in Bonn, Germany, and one who became the victim of a head injury on July 11, 2003 in the pirate’s prison. These are only few known examples among thousands of unreported cases.

Despite these examples, our soft democrats here in the United Sates believe pirates can change and become civilized negotiating partners. Instead of focusing on what is the root of piracy and how to prevent it from spreading, soft democrats rather focus on how they could convince pirates to value democracy.

Soft democrats do not recognize that the two schools of thought, piracy and democracy, are contradictory. They do not recognize that pirates have a mind set that justifies any inhumane behavior. Soft democrats see that pirates believe in a higher power that is similar to their own and think by confirming their belief system they will soften in the name of virtue. Soft democrats do not recognize that pirates have a tendency to take people’s life in the name of their god.

Instead of limiting their own energy need, soft democrats focus on the danger of pirates’ access to high tech energy. With this argument soft democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. How is it possible to tell someone you don’t need what I have? How could a parent tell a child don’t do what I do, but do what I say. Such an attitude indicates hypocrisy and therefore legitimizes piracy in the eye of the pirates, who often look for excuses to justify their behavior.

Instead of boycotting any commerce with pirates so that they become extinct, some democrats rather make secret and open deals with them so that they become wealthy buyers for their products. Instead of finding out how the pirates became more powerful by their competitors, the tough democrats, soft democrats criticize their competitors for being too aggressive against piracy.

Instead of forcing the pirate to give people all the choices democracy gives them, soft democrats accept the pirates’ single choice for all as a tradition. Instead of preventing any travel to the pirates’ territory of the blind, soft democrats rather cover their eyes and dress in the attire of the pirates when they visit them.

Weather soft or tough, as believers of democracy we need to remember piracy has hurt us over and over. Even if tough democrats failed against tough pirates, this should not mean that soft democrats can turn pirates into worshipers of democracy. Soft democrats need to know it is time for waking up instead of giving up on spreading democracy. Of course the cost of spreading democracy is not cheap, but stopping piracy when it is spread is much more expensive.

By attacking a pirates’ ship a hostage might be rescued, but attacking a country of them could lead to the spread of piracy. Also financial, political, and cultural exchanges with the piracy cannot turn it into democracy. Pirates are intolerant and a true boycott could leads to their extinction. Of course boycotting cost us, but nothing comes for free, and certainly not the most precious achievement of the mankind, the democracy. Instead of negotiating with the pirates and accepting their self acclaimed sacred tradition of piracy, let’s spread the flexible and tolerant tradition of democracy!