NationStates Jolt Archive

Rant Mode On

This has really been getting on my nerves lately. This forum (and indeed society) seems to have this foolish concept laser etched into everyone's head.

Democracy is just mob rule. It is the tyranny of the majority, 51% of people get together and vote to make the other 49% slave labor is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and voting for free speech is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and deciding that men can only wear shorts and women can only wear skirts and any violation of this is to be meet with instant death is a democracy.

Rather I keep on seeing blatantly wrong statements kicked around like

"Free speech is a fundamental part of democracy"

"Democracy is the foundation of freedom"

"Civil Rights is the foundation of a Democracy"

"You can only have a democracy in a country with civil rights"

etc... etc... etc...

Rant Mode Off

Then how do you propose the world is run?

Then how do you propose the world is run?

I'm not arguing that democracy is bad. (though it is). I'm just ranting about the fact that so many things get heaped onto "Democracy" that have nothing to do with Democracy.

As far as how a world is run, the way it is currently being run. Via Republics with constitutions.

How about socialism? Real socialism - marxism in its purest form? Why has this ideology been abandoned as archaic? People say it has never worked in practice - don't people realise that it was precisely this system that many ancient societies (before Democracy emerged in Greece of course) were based?

How about socialism? Real socialism - marxism in its purest form? Why has this ideology been abandoned as archaic? People say it has never worked in practice - don't people realise that it was precisely this system that many ancient societies (before Democracy emerged in Greece of course) were based?

Democracy in Greece was more like the rule of the elite. Many societies before the Greeks, and after, were Dictatorships, Theocracies, Monarchies etc...

You're thinking of hunter-gatherer civilizations where basically they practiced perfect socialism. Why? Because it was necessary to survive. As soon as pure socialism was no longer necessary for people to survive it became archaic. If you'd like to go back to that pure form of socialism you'd better be happy living like pre-historic man.

Free speech is a fundamental part of democracy, though, isn't it?
Because everyone has a "say" (for want of a better word).
No? Oh well.

Rant Mode On

This has really been getting on my nerves lately. This forum (and indeed society) seems to have this foolish concept laser etched into everyone's head.

Democracy is just mob rule. It is the tyranny of the majority, 51% of people get together and vote to make the other 49% slave labor is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and voting for free speech is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and deciding that men can only wear shorts and women can only wear skirts and any violation of this is to be meet with instant death is a democracy.

Rant Mode Off
this is an issue concerning the sovereignty of people under democracy, as i see it. as it happens i touched on this in a recent essay:

...However, in the modern, Western, democracy, ideas have crystallised in political parties and the popular vote goes to the party with greatest appeal over a wide range of issues rather than issue by issue discussion. Should ‘the people’ mean ‘all the people’ and, if so, is the proxy power of voting for political parties sufficient to suggest sovereignty? The majority voting system, for the most part, produces a minority who are not being governed as they would choose. They do not have the power to make their opinions law as they must concede to majority rule, even if it contradicts their opinion – thus negating their power and proving them to be under the rule of the sovereign majority – a condition that is not-sovereign according to the original definition. Thus, for the people to be sovereign, there can be no majority rule, as only the majority (of the people) are sovereign – this not all the people.

However, such a direct democracy is at the least, improbable. By this definition, popular sovereignty would require consensus and unanimity of agreement across all debates. This is a practical impossibility – whether dealing with a population of 40,000 in the Athenian polis or 60 million in the modern United Kingdom. The inactivity resulting from votes in which there was not 100 per cent agreement for new law would be crippling for any kind of government.

Despite its shortcomings the Athenian model of direct democracy is the closest to popular sovereignty possible; other forms of democracy are a compromise, with only a majority excersising their sovereignty at a general election for a new national government (only every 4 or 5 years), a referendum on a specific issue, or local elections for a local council. With the advent of modern technology, such as the internet, it could be possible to subscribe to a similar Athenian vision whereby each decision taken by government is decided, effectively by referendum. Whether this would be desirable or not is a subject for debate: it would not only make government inefficient and slow, but also lead to the problem of ‘mob rule’ as discussed by Plato.

dunno if that's particularily relavent to this, but seems to be to me (just woken up ;) )

Free speech is a fundamental part of democracy, though, isn't it?
Because everyone has a "say" (for want of a better word).
No? Oh well.

No its not.

Everyone gets together and votes, 51% decide that you can no longer criticism the government under pain of death. Bye-bye freedom of speech.

If we accept the dictum that power corrupts, how on earth is democracy a good idea? After all, in a dictatorship EVERYONE knows who the 'corrupt' dude is and where to find them if you have a grievance and a pitchfork. Whereas democracy gives power to the people....

Y'all see where this is going?

ah well, true freedom is where you can go kill a person because you can.

opression is bad of course, but none of us are truly free.

even without goverment if you were the last human being on earth, you would be slave to the laws of nature, needing to eat, dispose of your waste, etc or die. you could just not do it, but then you would die, so it forces you to obey the laws of survival.

so forget the idea of freedom and worry about dignity and comfort.

"Democracy is not freedom"?

I completely agree. True "freedom" would be anarchy...defined as "order without control".

A rather lofty ideal which, in all likelihood, will never be achieved. Most human beings are too base and stupid to not f*** with others without the threat of a policeman stopping by for a visit.

know what? freedom is anarchy, that is gonna be my countries motto!

How about socialism? Real socialism - marxism in its purest form? Why has this ideology been abandoned as archaic? People say it has never worked in practice - don't people realise that it was precisely this system that many ancient societies (before Democracy emerged in Greece of course) were based?
Holy change of subject!
Start your own thread comrade.

ah well, true freedom is where you can go kill a person because you can.

opression is bad of course, but none of us are truly free.

even without goverment if you were the last human being on earth, you would be slave to the laws of nature, needing to eat, dispose of your waste, etc or die. you could just not do it, but then you would die, so it forces you to obey the laws of survival.

so forget the idea of freedom and worry about dignity and comfort.

This attitude is a recipe for "soft" despotism and tyranny. Someone earlier mentioned Plato and Mob rule so you will most likely know what I am talking about. When the people decide that limited freedoms (those that don't interfere or infringe on the rights of others) can be sacrificied for "Dignity and Comfort" and are willing to exchange this with the government (hmm, hmm the Netherlands?) then the begin the process of enslaving themselves and willfully handing over their rights for "cradle to the grave" security and insured comforts. The philosopher and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville wrote extensively on this subject and explained the process by which mob rule and the sedation of the people through complacency and apathy can result in slavery just as poignant as despotism.

It is true that you never can truely be free, you are always subjected to the laws of physics and the laws of nature. And in societies and civilizations (which are social contracts to protect human beings from nature both human and environmental) an agreement is met not to infringe on the rights of others and to insure each other certain unalienable rights. It is true in a democracy that you cannot just go and kill your neighbor, but it is also true that your neighbor cannot just go and kill you....

And about anarchy, I often hear people bring this up and speak of it as some kind of lost Utopia. The idea is infantile and unrealistic, one way or another we need a system to protect ourselves form each other and or human flaws and tendency. Humans are inherently flawed, and the reason governments are established is to protect ourselves form ourselves, other men, and the forces of nature and biology. For anarchy to exist then all these governing constraints would have to be lifted. This would result in chaos and despotism where might makes right and the strong survive. There will be nothing to keep my neighbor form taking my wife if he is bigger and stronger then me. To alleviate this problem you need some kind of overhead authority, or governement. One this is established this is no longer anarchy.

Also the idea that 51% of the people can oppress the other 49% disregards the checks and balances instilled in the system. In the American Governement there are 3 branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. No two branches can do something if the other branch says no. Also, the branches are so diversified in time of appointment etc.. that a prevailing attitude of the time cannot grasp firm hold in the course of a decade or even 2. If you examine the system you will see these balances that insure that no one branch or faction, including the majority of the people, can abuse its power. Also, everyone has neglected to mention that countries have constitutions, that must be followed.

Gotta go, think................

Rant Mode On

This has really been getting on my nerves lately. This forum (and indeed society) seems to have this foolish concept laser etched into everyone's head.

Democracy is just mob rule. It is the tyranny of the majority, 51% of people get together and vote to make the other 49% slave labor is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and voting for free speech is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and deciding that men can only wear shorts and women can only wear skirts and any violation of this is to be meet with instant death is a democracy.

Rather I keep on seeing blatantly wrong statements kicked around like

"Free speech is a fundamental part of democracy"

"Democracy is the foundation of freedom"

"Civil Rights is the foundation of a Democracy"

"You can only have a democracy in a country with civil rights"

etc... etc... etc...

Rant Mode Off

National constitutions contain clauses which safguard the rights of minorities and ensure that a tyranny of the majority never arises. The United States is by definition, a liberal democracy, as the principles of limited government and checks and balances are enshrined in it's constitution.

You confuse elections with democracy I think.
Another man is confusing marxism with tribalism.

National constitutions contain clauses which safguard the rights of minorities and ensure that a tyranny of the majority never arises. The United States is by definition, a liberal democracy, as the principles of limited government and checks and balances are enshrined in it's constitution.
:headbang:

Thank you for verifying exactly my point. A Democracy does not have to have a constitution that keeps and protects the rights of minorities or anyone else. It is not a necessary thing for a democracy to have a constitution.

BTW: The United States is, by definition, a Republic. AKA A Representative Democracy. Whether you wish to acknowledge that fact is your own perorgative. However the United States is not a Democracy. Thank you.

No its not.

Everyone gets together and votes, 51% decide that you can no longer criticism the government under pain of death. Bye-bye freedom of speech.

...
As opposed to a single individual deciding that you can no longer criticize the government under pain of death.
or.
A family deciding that you can no longer criticize the government under pain of death.
or.
A small group of elected officials deciding that you can no longer criticize the government under pain of death.
or...
who decides who gets to decide in socialist and communist governments?

Anyhow...
We are experiencing here, the phenomenon seen time and time again... of how an individual uses a right granted to him (or her), to criticize and be destructive to the sociological model that grants that right to him (or her), without a shred of anything constructive.

in other words... Any moron can destroy. Only the brave and truly intelligent can create.

One person here already asked... what alternative do you offer? Your answer was essentially that the current Constitutional Republic (Democratic Republic) was your preference. Yet you complain, having nothing better to offer. You do not have a replacement, you do not have a repair. You can only complain, as a true member of a Constitutional Republic can complain.

As another has said, the only true freedom is Anarchy. Which would mean that someone would have the freedom to put a bullet in your head, just because they did not like to hear you complain. But that is not going to happen is it?

You say that the freedom of speech can be taken away with a vote of the majority... actually incorrect. Although a referendum can be put directly to the people.. the people elect representatives to make their decisions for them. A safeguard against a fickle populace being swept up in a mob mentality, eliminating that LIMITED freedom of speech we enjoy. I say limited, because you do not have the freedom to libel or slander, nor lie under oath, nor testify a falsehood.

You do not wish total freedom. You could not handle, nor even conceive what life would be like living in total freedom. Here is a hint. Anarchy is ruled by strength. The Law of the Jungle. The law of claw and fang. If you are not strong and fast enough to keep what you have, and take what you want, you either serve, or die.

That is Freedom.

Democracy and Freedom are two different things, but Democracy is the political system that grants the largest freedoms to it's citizens.

:headbang:

Thank you for verifying exactly my point. A Democracy does not have to have a constitution that keeps and protects the rights of minorities or anyone else. It is not a necessary thing for a democracy to have a constitution.

BTW: The United States is, by definition, a Republic. AKA A Representative Democracy. Whether you wish to acknowledge that fact is your own perorgative. However the United States is not a Democracy. Thank you.
The US is an oligarchy.

...
............................

That is Freedom.
You confuse Freedom with freedom from the government.
You also confuse your country (whatever it is) with democracy, although I think it is due to the fact the original poster confused referendum with democracy.

Preamble: Wow Redundant, way to be a redundant --------- well I'll let your imagination fill in the choice words.

Alrightly then lets deal with your post.


...
As opposed to a single individual deciding that you can no longer criticize the government under pain of death.
or.
A family deciding that you can no longer criticize the government under pain of death.
or.
A small group of elected officials deciding that you can no longer criticize the government under pain of death.
or...
who decides who gets to decide in socialist and communist governments?

And what is the point of this? This thread is not about any other form of government. It is not trying to compare X vs Y vs Z. It is simply a bitch about the misconceptions (which you are demonstrating) about what a democracy is.

Anyhow...
We are experiencing here, the phenomenon seen time and time again... of how an individual uses a right granted to him (or her), to criticize and be destructive to the sociological model that grants that right to him (or her), without a shred of anything constructive.

in other words... Any moron can destroy. Only the brave and truly intelligent can create.

And there you go, off another thing that has *nothing* to do with the topic of discussion. I am not criticizing a democracy. I am not arguing for one government form over another. I am simply bitching about the prevalent misconceptions (which, once again, you are demonstrating) about what a democracy is.

One person here already asked... what alternative do you offer? Your answer was essentially that the current Constitutional Republic (Democratic Republic) was your preference. Yet you complain, having nothing better to offer. You do not have a replacement, you do not have a repair. You can only complain, as a true member of a Constitutional Republic can complain.

I am not even complaining about the current form of government, so I suggest you brush up on your reading and comprehension skills.

As another has said, the only true freedom is Anarchy. Which would mean that someone would have the freedom to put a bullet in your head, just because they did not like to hear you complain. But that is not going to happen is it?

And seeing as this thread is not about what is true freedom. That this thread has *nothing* to do with Anarchy vs X, Y and Z I didn't bother to justify off-topic posts with a reply.

You say that the freedom of speech can be taken away with a vote of the majority... actually incorrect. Although a referendum can be put directly to the people.. the people elect representatives to make their decisions for them. A safeguard against a fickle populace being swept up in a mob mentality, eliminating that LIMITED freedom of speech we enjoy. I say limited, because you do not have the freedom to libel or slander, nor lie under oath, nor testify a falsehood.

Wow, way to be a dumb ass who can't even comprehend the point of this thread. Get this. A democracy does not always have anything safeguarding anything. Indeed in a democracy you do NOT elect any representatives. SO hey, try and brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. Mmkay?

You do not wish total freedom. You could not handle, nor even conceive what life would be like living in total freedom. Here is a hint. Anarchy is ruled by strength. The Law of the Jungle. The law of claw and fang. If you are not strong and fast enough to keep what you have, and take what you want, you either serve, or die.

That is Freedom


No really? Wow, here's a medal for stating the obvious.

Originally posted by Lamoraq

And about anarchy, I often hear people bring this up and speak of it as some kind of lost Utopia. The idea is infantile and unrealistic, one way or another we need a system to protect ourselves form each other and or human flaws and tendency. Humans are inherently flawed, and the reason governments are established is to protect ourselves form ourselves, other men, and the forces of nature and biology. For anarchy to exist then all these governing constraints would have to be lifted. This would result in chaos and despotism where might makes right and the strong survive. There will be nothing to keep my neighbor form taking my wife if he is bigger and stronger then me. To alleviate this problem you need some kind of overhead authority, or governement. One this is established this is no longer anarchy.

My point exactly. In a true anarchy, the bigger and stronger person would not take your wife, simply because he would not view his being bigger and stronger as an excuse to "take" something that wasn't "his"

But as you said, humans are inherently flawed. My post said as much...

That does not mean, however, that true anarchy, ORDER WITHOUT CONTROL, is not the ideal of freedom to which humanity should aspire.

The US is an oligarchy.

Er. If you wouldn't mind explaining that one... The people of the United States elect representatives to vote on matters for them.

An Oligarchy is the rule of the few, usually based on a few powerful Families. There isn't necessarily any form of elections. I'll grant you that often times we get political families that seem to stay in positions of power but that is not the same thing as an Oligarchy.

You confuse Freedom with freedom from the government.
You also confuse your country (whatever it is) with democracy, although I think it is due to the fact the original poster confused referendum with democracy.

Referendum, so far as I know, is merely a word that means submitting a proposed public measure to be decided by a direct popular vote. Referendums would occur as a matter of course under a Democracy, but a Referendum is not a form of government.

Btw, anarchy is per definition the complete lack of a political system.

Er. If you wouldn't mind explaining that one... The people of the United States elect representatives to vote on matters for them.

An Oligarchy is the rule of the few, usually based on a few powerful Families. There isn't necessarily any form of elections. I'll grant you that often times we get political families that seem to stay in positions of power but that is not the same thing as an Oligarchy.
What is the real government of the US? You think Bush is your ruler? Actually, the ruler is the one who controls the resources. Halliburton has more power and more say than Bush. This is capitalism.
Bush only controls some public assets, but they are nothing to the so called "private" assets controlled by the big families. They are called private although they have nothing private. An oil field is certainly not a private asset but it is controlled by the big families.
So when you elect your politicians, you elect puppets who have no real power. The real power is detained by those who control the market.

Referendum, so far as I know, is merely a word that means submitting a proposed public measure to be decided by a direct popular vote. Referendums would occur as a matter of course under a Democracy, but a Referendum is not a form of government.Democracy is a society where the people have the power. It is NOT the dictatorship of the majority.

Btw, anarchy is per definition the complete lack of a political system.
anarchy is also the complete lack of religion, and of any master.

anarchy is also the complete lack of religion, and of any ruler.

What has anarchy to do with religion? You're more thinking about atheism then, and that's something totally different. :eek:

So in otherwords, everything you have said up to this point has been a smoke screen...

Since you don't have issues with freedom.

You have issues with people living in a Constitutional Republic calling it a Democracy.

You have earned the medal for stating the obvious, in the title of the thread "Democracy is not freedom"

You just used the whole freedom thing to create the platform to be able to rant about the foolish Americans who live under their misconceptions.

I notice you did not quote me once, where I said or implied that Democracy was in any way, shape or form, actually freedom. That is because I did not. Nor did I confuse anything.

You may continue to rant, and labor under the misconception that YOU are educating anyone here, because you have the freedom to do so. Regardless of the fact that there is no current active true Democratic model in use at the moment on the planet. But please. Cease the obfuscations. If you want to complain about how no one uses the word "Democracy" correctly, stick to that.

No one can be truly Free. Just as no one can be truly enslaved. If you examine both ends of the spectrum, Total Freedom for an individual would mean that the individual in question would be free to make any choice, and have that choice empowered. To live forever without food or water, for example. But the laws of nature say that isn't going to happen. And the enslaved, always have the choice to die, or give up their sanity. Those might not be choices to be appreciated, but they are still choices none the less.

So of no one actually exists at either end of the scale, that means that everyone is somewhere inbetween enslavement and freedom. So what if Democracy is not freedom. It is a model that offers the MOST freedom. And if you cannot have TOTAL freedom, then you must settle for the MOST freedom you can get. If that is what you want.

What has anarchy to do with religion? You're more thinking about atheism then, and that's something totally different. :eek:
god and anarchism are in direct conflict.

This attitude is a recipe for "soft" despotism and tyranny. Someone earlier mentioned Plato and Mob rule so you will most likely know what I am talking about. When the people decide that limited freedoms (those that don't interfere or infringe on the rights of others) can be sacrificied for "Dignity and Comfort" and are willing to exchange this with the government (hmm, hmm the Netherlands?) then the begin the process of enslaving themselves and willfully handing over their rights for "cradle to the grave" security and insured comforts. The philosopher and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville wrote extensively on this subject and explained the process by which mob rule and the sedation of the people through complacency and apathy can result in slavery just as poignant as despotism.



okay, now i think im a bit more smart than the average person,but im not familiar with these political terms and stuff, someone wanna translate what he said?

Communism and Socialism cannot happen, human nature would not allow it. We are greedy. The strength of constitution you possess doesn't matter, greed will pull through.

god and anarchism are in direct conflict.

Huh? What? :confused:

Democracy in Greece was more like the rule of the elite. Many societies before the Greeks, and after, were Dictatorships, Theocracies, Monarchies etc...

You're thinking of hunter-gatherer civilizations where basically they practiced perfect socialism. Why? Because it was necessary to survive. As soon as pure socialism was no longer necessary for people to survive it became archaic. If you'd like to go back to that pure form of socialism you'd better be happy living like pre-historic man.


So what you are saying is that it is inconceivable that you could form a group of like minded adults with buddhist style philosophies on possessions and material gains who could live together in a purely socialist/communist form? You are mistaken. Such societies do exist, and they do not all live like pre-historic man. It tends not to work in practice on a larger scale because people, at their core, are basically stupid and even though they know how stupid and meaningless the chasing of wealth and possessions are, they still buy into it, even with the power to opt out of it to a large degree. Hey, I'm not counting myself out of the stupid group. But I am sure I could live in a primitive commune with the right sort of like minded people.

organised religions have rules and codes of conduct inherent in them... that's what goes against "anarchy"

Does anyone know the name of the political system (and if there are any real world examples), where, in the 51/49% split mentioned in the original post was dealt with by simply having 2 different rules/systems, each one governing and ruling each section. I realise that without a geographical divide that would be difficult.

Huh? What? :confused:
Anarchy is lawlessness. You can describe a government as anarchic, but if you describe a society, it can't be anarchic when there is a religion.

Does anyone know the name of the political system (and if there are any real world examples), where, in the 51/49% split mentioned in the original post was dealt with by simply having 2 different rules/systems, each one governing and ruling each section. I realise that without a geographical divide that would be difficult.

Never heard about such a system. And i agree, it would be almost impossible to make that work in reality. Really. :rolleyes:

In any group of human beings, there must be a mechanism for taking the decisions that affect the entire group. This is what we call a "political system". Democracy is one such political system. And, although it is far from perfect, it is the BEST possible political system.

"Rule of law" is not a political system. "The law" is not a self-aware, intelligent entity. It has to be written by someone. And whoever has the power to write laws has the power to make decisions that affect the group of human beings known as "society".

If a democratically elected body (or the people themselves) can write laws, you have a democracy. If not, you have one of several forms of tyranny. And, historically speaking, non-democratic states always had FAR LESS freedom than democratic ones.

As far as how a world is run, the way it is currently being run. Via Republics with constitutions.
So who gets to write all those constitutions? A constitution could say anything. It could endorse slavery. It could protect free speech. It could declare that men can only wear shorts and women can only wear skirts.

The Soviet Union had a constitution. The United States has a constitution. Nazi Germany had a constitution. The mere fact that you have a constitution doesn't mean anything. It may grant you freedom, or it may not.

Democracy and freedom are not necessarily interrelated. However, where the rulers of the state have power concentrated on one individual, there is much tyranny. Democracy in its purest sense is not a desireable form of government. However, a constitutional republic which emphasizes separation of powers, protection for minorities (not necessarily racial), and a healthy voting process is the form of government that is the most desireable. States which have this form of government generally do better than autocracies and democracies. We should always remember that democracy in Athens condemned Socrates. We should also remember that the autocracies tend to oppress their citizens to no end. Naziism, Fascism, Communism and Socialism have all proven to be utter failures in helping their citizens. A limited government embodied in a constitutional republic is the only true government that provides for the liberty of its people.

So in otherwords, everything you have said up to this point has been a smoke screen...

Since you don't have issues with freedom.

Uh no. Seeing as if you do a search of my OP you will not even find the word “freedom” mention. But you are apparently to dumb to comprehend that what constitutes freedom is not the topic of this thread. The "Freedom" in question in the title is the "freedom" from the common usage of the term "In Germany/Canada/America/France/UK/etc… We're Free" or "We're bringing Freedom to Iraq" or any other such usage.

You have issues with people living in a Constitutional Republic calling it a Democracy.

Uh no. I have a problem with the constant mis-use of the term democracy.

You have earned the medal for stating the obvious, in the title of the thread "Democracy is not freedom"

No really? Seeing as the idea behind any title is to draw attention. It apparently drew yours so obviously it was successful.

You just used the whole freedom thing to create the platform to be able to rant about the foolish Americans who live under their misconceptions.

Actually I targeted no one in particular. Indeed I targeted everyone who mis-uses the term Democracy, such as yourself.

I notice you did not quote me once, where I said or implied that Democracy was in any way, shape or form, actually freedom. That is because I did not. Nor did I confuse anything.

Yeah you did confuse things... seeing as you said this

You say that the freedom of speech can be taken away with a vote of the majority... actually incorrect. Although a referendum can be put directly to the people.. the people elect representatives to make their decisions for them. A safeguard against a fickle populace being swept up in a mob mentality, eliminating that LIMITED freedom of speech we enjoy. I say limited, because you do not have the freedom to libel or slander, nor lie under oath, nor testify a falsehood.

Which is patently untrue because a Democracy does not elect representatives and a Democracy does not necessarily have any guarding document. It is *not* a given that a Democracy will having any document protecting any rights.

You may continue to rant, and labor under the misconception that YOU are educating anyone here, because you have the freedom to do so. Regardless of the fact that there is no current active true Democratic model in use at the moment on the planet. But please. Cease the obfuscations. If you want to complain about how no one uses the word "Democracy" correctly, stick to that.

Obfuscations? Find me one. Please do. Try and quote anything in the OP where I addressed anything other than the common misuse of the term democracy? Or maybe you didn't even bother to read the OP? Hmmm.

No one can be truly Free. Just as no one can be truly enslaved. If you examine both ends of the spectrum, Total Freedom for an individual would mean that the individual in question would be free to make any choice, and have that choice empowered. To live forever without food or water, for example. But the laws of nature say that isn't going to happen. And the enslaved, always have the choice to die, or give up their sanity. Those might not be choices to be appreciated, but they are still choices none the less.

No fucking shit. But then again seeing as I said nothing about freedom outside of a catchy title your "freedom" is "X or Y" argument doesn't belong in this thread.

So of no one actually exists at either end of the scale, that means that everyone is somewhere inbetween enslavement and freedom. So what if Democracy is not freedom. It is a model that offers the MOST freedom. And if you cannot have TOTAL freedom, then you must settle for the MOST freedom you can get. If that is what you want.

Jesus fucking Christ. Are you that damn stupid? This thread has NOTHING to do with a discussion of what constitutes freedom and what does not.

And just for one more clarification for you, very simple even. This thread’s topic has nothing to do with true freedom. Got that? Ok then.

PS. A Democracy does not offer the most freedom seeing as we both already understand that anarchy would be the most freedom. Likewise a Democracy offers or guarantees nothing unless it has things specially set out in stone at its formation that protect freedoms. And that is NOT a given.

Communism and Socialism cannot happen, human nature would not allow it. We are greedy.
Communism and Socialism do not contradict or oppose human greed. On the contrary. The purpose of both those systems is to bring the greatest possible satisfaction and happiness to the greatest possible number of people. A greedy person should favour the economic system that gives him/her the greatest personal benefit, correct? Therefore, if (a) communism or socialism give greater benefits to the majority of people than capitalism does, and if (b) people are greedy, then the majority of people should and would support communism or socialism, because these systems give them greater benefits than capitalism does.

Democracy and freedom are not necessarily interrelated. However, where the rulers of the state have power concentrated on one individual, there is much tyranny. Democracy in its purest sense is not a desireable form of government. However, a constitutional republic which emphasizes separation of powers, protection for minorities (not necessarily racial), and a healthy voting process is the form of government that is the most desireable. States which have this form of government generally do better than autocracies and democracies. We should always remember that democracy in Athens condemned Socrates. We should also remember that the autocracies tend to oppress their citizens to no end. Naziism, Fascism, Communism and Socialism have all proven to be utter failures in helping their citizens. A limited government embodied in a constitutional republic is the only true government that provides for the liberty of its people.
And this is different from capitalism as well.

We should always remember that democracy in Athens condemned Socrates.
One miscarriage of justice is hardly enough to make a whole political system "evil"! Plenty of innocent people have been executed in the USA as well.

Iran has a constitutional republic. It doesn not mean it is an aristocracy.

Democracy is a society where the people have the power. It is NOT the dictatorship of the majority.

Note: I'm not going to get into the oligarchy vs Republic argument right now because it would deserve its own thread, I do however disagree with you.

A democracy is mob rule. Period. It is there the dictatorship of the Majority. Even if it has guarantees on its rights, freedoms etc... those were determined by the dictatorship of the majority at its founding who decided what those protected rights and freedoms were.

...Communism and Socialism have all proven to be...
Which "communism" and "socialism" are you talking about, exactly? For your information, the majority of socialists do not (and never did) support the Soviet Union or other similar stalinist regimes. The same applies to the majority of communists who live today.

Don't forget about the Constitutionnal Moanchy, like UK, Canada, Australia, all the countries of the Commonwealth (except Mozambic)!

A democracy is mob rule. Period. It is there the dictatorship of the Majority. Even if it has guarantees on its rights, freedoms etc... those were determined by the dictatorship of the majority at its founding who decided what those protected rights and freedoms were.
And that is somehow worse than if those rights and freedoms were determined by a minority?

After all, SOMEONE has to determine them, and it can be either a majority or a minority.

So what you are saying is that it is inconceivable that you could form a group of like minded adults with buddhist style philosophies on possessions and material gains who could live together in a purely socialist/communist form?

No. I am saying for any truly large group of people, ie, all of Humanity, or millions of people, to live under that system it would take the loss of technology and the splitting off into small tribal groups.

Don't confuse socialism with communism, please. Socialism involves representative economic democracy (the people elect a government, and the government manages the economy). Communism involves direct economic democracy (the people collectively manage the economy by themselves).

Democracy was implemented in the USA to prevent one person from inacting their will on the rest of the nation. They also put in checks and balances to further limit the power of one person or group of people.

The problem we have now in America is the 2 party system is becoming too much like a 1 party system. Republicans are softening their values and Democrats are trying to be more like Republicans. It is all about winning the people's opinion and not about which set of values and ideals are best for the country, which is wrong.

Democracy can take away people's rights but that is why we have a constitution and checks and balances so no person or party can go through with those plans.

Just my thoughts on the issue,
Brandon Penner
Midlesia

Note: I'm not going to get into the oligarchy vs Republic argument right now because it would deserve its own thread, I do however disagree with you.There is no oligarchy vs republic argument.
A republic can be oligarchic or democratic or aristocratic or whatever. There is a democracy vs oligarchy argument.

And that is somehow worse than if those rights and freedoms were determined by a minority?

After all, SOMEONE has to determine them, and it can be either a majority or a minority.

You people really need to figure out that I'm not going to run around debating any political system vs another or any economic system vs another in this thread. I am not making any point about what is right or wrong, what is good or bad, what is better and what is worse. I am merely bitching about the constant misuse of the term democracy. Anything else you make out of my comments is being read into it by you.

You people really need to figure out that I'm not going to run around debating any political system vs another or any economic system vs another in this thread. I am not making any point about what is right or wrong, what is good or bad, what is better and what is worse. I am merely bitching about the constant misuse of the term democracy. Anything else you make out of my comments is being read into it by you.£The Argument is which society offers the most freedom.
People argue that democracy is the most free at the individual level.

Then how do you propose the world is run?

Oh... there are many forms, especially many of which the world has not seen yet with the combination of certain elements of all sorts of governments.

But yes, democracy is not a good form in itself. It allows the people to be free, which in turns allows either intellectuals and ignorants to run the country, which in turn (as history has shown us) ends up locking the freedom and liberty out of our lives. What you people call America and it being free is an illusion. Yes it is free to the extent a woman can get a job; it is NOT free when that job happens to be unjust to her. Or yes it is free than many nations in the world, but it is not as free as our forefathers ever meant it to be.
A free system corrupts itself unless fair minded people run the gig again.

Don't forget about the Constitutionnal Moanchy, like UK, Canada, Australia, all the countries of the Commonwealth (except Mozambic)!

A constitutional monarchy technically is a democracy where a Monarch is the official head of the state.

£The Argument is which society offers the most freedom.
People argue that democracy is the most free at the individual level.

Well that argument is weak. Democracy is a government, and like all governments, it RULES the people. Say what you must... it's for "the protection of the people" - I think it's not free. Too much corruption already. It's getting to the point laws are made merely for retaining power.

If anything, anarachy is actually the most free at the individual level.

No. I am saying for any truly large group of people, ie, all of Humanity, or millions of people, to live under that system it would take the loss of technology and the splitting off into small tribal groups.

Loss of technology? Not at all relevant. Socialism requires everyone in society to work towards that goal, and it only takes one idiot to ruin this system. Socialism would be the perfect solution if mankind was a perfect being. But humans are flawed, and so must every government also be flawed in order to function. Socialism is an utopia, because we all know that there will always be at least one greedy bastard to destroy the dream.

But this doesn't mean that the thoughts of socialism should be abandoned. It will never exist in its purest form, but we should still strive to move closer to that dream, even though we know we will never achieve it.

On a different note, in the US, the leaders are chosen by a minority not a majority, so the conclusion must be that the US is not a democracy. Not that i blame the american voters who didn't vote though. When you are presented with two choices, and it is impossible to tell the difference, why should you then make a decision?

Oh... there are many forms, especially many of which the world has not seen yet with the combination of certain elements of all sorts of governments.

But yes, democracy is not a good form in itself. It allows the people to be free, which in turns allows either intellectuals and ignorants to run the country, which in turn (as history has shown us) ends up locking the freedom and liberty out of our lives. What you people call America and it being free is an illusion. Yes it is free to the extent a woman can get a job; it is NOT free when that job happens to be unjust to her. Or yes it is free than many nations in the world, but it is not as free as our forefathers ever meant it to be.
A free system corrupts itself unless fair minded people run the gig again.
You should read the republic from plato, it is an excellent book which explains how a democracy naturally corrupts itself with time. It is very interesting when you look at history because you see he was right at all levels.

£The Argument is which society offers the most freedom.
People argue that democracy is the most free at the individual level.

I'm the friggin OP. If someone here knows what the idea of the thread is its me. The argument, which there wasn't one seeing as the OP doesn't actually argue anything, would be what is a democracy. Not what society offers the most freedom.

£The Argument is which society offers the most freedom.
People argue that democracy is the most free at the individual level.

You are missing the point a little.
What is being commented by Salvondia is not whether democracy is god or bad or provides freedoms or whatever. It is the incessant association here on NS general of Democracy with civil liberties, freedom of speech, capitalism, human rights etc.

Democracy does not depend on any of these, nor do any of these depend upon democracy.

Democracy is just a method of choosing the leadership of a social grouping, be it a country or a political party or a school council. That is all. It is nothing more and nothing less.

£The Argument is which society offers the most freedom.
People argue that democracy is the most free at the individual level.

It's not arguable, it's fact. If you don't believe me, take a look at all the dictatorships of past and present.

You should read the republic from plato, it is an excellent book which explains how a democracy naturally corrupts itself with time. It is very interesting when you look at history because you see he was right at all levels.

Ah, Plato. Certainly on my list of books to read.

Well that argument is weak. Democracy is a government, and like all governments, it RULES the people. Say what you must... it's for "the protection of the people" - I think it's not free. Too much corruption already. It's getting to the point laws are made merely for retaining of power.

If anything, anarachy is actually the most free at the individual level.
I don't agree. Domecracy is a society, not a government. A government can be democratic, but not a democracy.

Socialism requires everyone in society to work towards that goal...
No it doesn't. Socialism simply means public property over the means of production - in other words, it simply means that the people of a country control that country's economy in a democratic fashion. How does that require anyone to work towards any specific goal?

...there will always be at least one greedy bastard...
As I said before:

Communism and Socialism do not contradict or oppose human greed. On the contrary. The purpose of both those systems is to bring the greatest possible satisfaction and happiness to the greatest possible number of people. A greedy person should favour the economic system that gives him/her the greatest personal benefit, correct? Therefore, if (a) communism or socialism give greater benefits to the majority of people than capitalism does, and if (b) people are greedy, then the majority of people should and would support communism or socialism, because these systems give them greater benefits than capitalism does.

It's not arguable, it's fact. If you don't believe me, take a look at all the dictatorships of past and present.

It IS an arguement when there are OTHER forms of governments out there.

Obviously you've been drowned with America's mainstream nationalism. I'd even guess you believe Democracy is the ONLY good government.

I don't agree. Domecracy is a society, not a government. A government can be democratic, but not a democracy.

No it is not. It is a method of choosing a government. Nothing more nothing less.

Democracy is just a method of choosing the leadership of a social grouping, be it a country or a political party or a school council. That is all. It is nothing more and nothing less.
That is entirely correct.

I don't agree. Domecracy is a society, not a government. A government can be democratic, but not a democracy.

This may be your individual way of seeing democracy, but it's not the official definition. As already stated, democracy simply means that every person gets a vote, and the majority of votes decides. It's true that democratic societies usually have more freedom than other types of government, but it really doesn't have to be this way. You could have a democracy, where all industries where owned by the state, and where any statements made against the government was punishable by death. It would only require that the majority of voters had voted for these laws.

I don't agree. Domecracy is a society, not a government. A government can be democratic, but not a democracy.

Not at all! If it was a society, we wouldn't have all this bureaucratic red tape. We wouldn't have legislatures and laws. Call it anything, democracy is a government.

gov·ern·ment n.
The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
A governing body or organization, as:
The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
The persons who make up a governing body.
A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
Political science.

You are missing the point a little.
What is being commented by Salvondia is not whether democracy is god or bad or provides freedoms or whatever. It is the incessant association here on NS general of Democracy with civil liberties, freedom of speech, capitalism, human rights etc.

Democracy does not depend on any of these, nor do any of these depend upon democracy.

Democracy is just a method of choosing the leadership of a social grouping, be it a country or a political party or a school council. That is all. It is nothing more and nothing less.

If you were a woman I'd kiss you.

-snip-

He asked how the world is run, I told him. I excluded the numerous dictatorships and other forms of governments, but really right now Republics with Constitutions run the world.

He asked how the world is run, I told him. I excluded the numerous dictatorships and other forms of governments, but really right now Republics with Constitutions run the world.

Just out of curiosity. Would you care to explain the difference between a democracy, and a republic with a constitution. And preferably both theoretically and with examples. Just to avoid confusion.

It IS an arguement when there are OTHER forms of governments out there.

Obviously you've been drowned with America's mainstream nationalism. I'd even guess you believe Democracy is the ONLY good government.

Well, yeah, i'd say so, democracy is the only good form of government. But i disagree 'American mainstream nationalism'. There are many other democracies around the world, not just the US. Don't forget that :)

He asked how the world is run, I told him. I excluded the numerous dictatorships and other forms of governments, but really right now Republics with Constitutions run the world.

And unfortunately many ignorants believe this is "the one"

He asked how the world is run, I told him. I excluded the numerous dictatorships and other forms of governments, but really right now Republics with Constitutions run the world.
Of course. But the same would have been true of a world ruled by Nazi Germany, for example. That was my point. Having a constitution doesn't mean much. A constitution could say just about anything.

Ah just damn it all to hell. I'll just go and debate now.

Loss of technology? Not at all relevant. Socialism requires everyone in society to work towards that goal, and it only takes one idiot to ruin this system. Socialism would be the perfect solution if mankind was a perfect being. But humans are flawed, and so must every government also be flawed in order to function. Socialism is an utopia, because we all know that there will always be at least one greedy bastard to destroy the dream.

Which is why I said that the only time it worked is when we as a people were forced into it because if we didn't do it we likely would not survive.

But this doesn't mean that the thoughts of socialism should be abandoned. It will never exist in its purest form, but we should still strive to move closer to that dream, even though we know we will never achieve it.

No we shouldn't. As you noted it only takes 1 person to destroy it. Seeing as we both admit that Humanity is a bunch of greedy backing stabbers we know that socialism would be bad as it would allow a bunch of greedy back stabbers to screw everyone else over.

On a different note, in the US, the leaders are chosen by a minority not a majority, so the conclusion must be that the US is not a democracy. Not that i blame the american voters who didn't vote though. When you are presented with two choices, and it is impossible to tell the difference, why should you then make a decision?

Well we're not a Democracy seeing as we CHOOSE leaders instead of VOTING on every individual policy.

I'm starting to get really frustrated with people not reading my posts...

Socialism requires everyone in society to work towards that goal...
No it doesn't. Socialism simply means public property over the means of production - in other words, it simply means that the people of a country control that country's economy in a democratic fashion. How does that require anyone to work towards any specific goal?

...there will always be at least one greedy bastard...
As I said before:

Communism and Socialism do not contradict or oppose human greed. On the contrary. The purpose of both those systems is to bring the greatest possible satisfaction and happiness to the greatest possible number of people. A greedy person should favour the economic system that gives him/her the greatest personal benefit, correct? Therefore, if (a) communism or socialism give greater benefits to the majority of people than capitalism does, and if (b) people are greedy, then the majority of people should and would support communism or socialism, because these systems give them greater benefits than capitalism does.

Well we're not a Democracy seeing as we CHOOSE leaders instead of VOTING on every individual policy.
Choosing leaders is called representative democracy. Voting on actual policy means direct democracy.

Just out of curiosity. Would you care to explain the difference between a democracy, and a republic with a constitution. And preferably both theoretically and with examples. Just to avoid confusion.

Under a pure democracy it is simply the whims of the mob that rules.

Under a Republic the people elect people to represent them, ie senators and congressmen, who then become the mob that makes the rules. The virtue of a Constitution is that you can make sure certain some things can not be changed or removed by the whims of that mob that you elected.

As far as examples the US makes a nice example of a Republic with a Constitution. And I personally know of no democracies.

Well we're not a Democracy seeing as we CHOOSE leaders instead of VOTING on every individual policy.

It is sad that precisely because of the people's new era in lack of time and heavy word that democracy is failing. Such delicate a form government requires time from its people.

As you noted it only takes 1 person to destroy it.
One word: How? How exactly could 1 person destroy it? Think before you make unfounded claims.

Communism and Socialism do not contradict or oppose human greed. On the contrary. The purpose of both those systems is to bring the greatest possible satisfaction and happiness to the greatest possible number of people. A greedy person should favour the economic system that gives him/her the greatest personal benefit, correct? Therefore, if (a) communism or socialism give greater benefits to the majority of people than capitalism does, and if (b) people are greedy, then the majority of people should and would support communism or socialism, because these systems give them greater benefits than capitalism does.

The problem. Socialism and Communism does not give greater benefits than Capitalism.

Choosing leaders is called representative democracy. Voting on actual policy means direct democracy.

A representative democracy is not a democracy.

Choosing leaders is called representative democracy. Voting on actual policy means direct democracy.

That's another thing that's killing democracy. If Representatives exists, that means the people or government musn't have enough time on their hand to deal with issues. Plus it corrupts the people's voice. It's hardly pure.

The problem. Socialism and Communism does not give greater benefits than Capitalism.
In your opinion, perhaps. But that's a different argument than the one about greed. My point was that greed itself is not an obstacle to socialism or communism.

One word: How? How exactly could 1 person destroy it? Think before you make unfounded claims.
The same reason why when all the people who have ever tried to create communism has failed. A leader gains power, the one person, who then never lets go.

A representative democracy is not a democracy.
Call it whatever you want - it's pointless to argue semantics.

If you were a woman I'd kiss you.

I'm glad you're not as my wife gets jelous, but you're welcome.

The same reason why when all the people who have ever tried to create communism has failed. A leader gains power, the one person, who then never lets go.

But if it was just that one person, the people would have overthrown him. The reason such leaders were not overthrown is because the members (or his buddies in the government) liked what he was doing. Only then do you have oppression and a gap of the ruling against the ruled, which would eventually turn to a revolt.

I'm glad you're not as my wife gets jelous, but you're welcome.

Er yeah. The original name didn't end with "dia" but "dax" doesn't sound like a country name so I went ahead and changed it to "dia" and suddenly it sounded like a country to me. Never even considered the gender implications of “dia” at the time.

But if it was just that one person, the people would have overthrown him. The reason such leaders were not overthrown is because the members ( or his buddies in the government) liked was he was doing. Only then do you have oppression which would then turn to a revolt.

Well I suppose I should say then, "there are enough greedy bastards out there who would horde the power that it wouldn't work".

The same reason why when all the people who have ever tried to create communism has failed.
Perhaps you mean all people who have ever tried to use the Soviet model. If you use the same method over and over again, it's no wonder you keep reaching the same result.

Meanwhile, there are (and have been) plenty of communistic communes around the world.

A leader gains power, the one person, who then never lets go.
First of all, communism is a system with no government, so there is nothing for any would-be dictator to take over. Second of all, no man ever gained power without the help of lots of other people. Stalin did not single-handedly take over the Soviet Union. He had plenty of help.

Well I suppose I should say then, "there are enough greedy bastards out there who would horde the power that it wouldn't work".
That can only happen if the rest of the people in this society just sit by and do nothing.

Better tyranny by majority than tyranny by minority (i.e. a dictatorship).

At least in tyranny by majority, it is what the most people want.

Better tyranny by majority than tyranny by minority (i.e. a dictatorship).

At least in tyranny by majority, it is what the most people want.
Exactly.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
- Winston Churchill

Perhaps you mean all people who have ever tried to use the Soviet model. If you use the same method over and over again, it's no wonder you keep reaching the same result.

:shrug: sure

Meanwhile, there are (and have been) plenty of communistic communes around the world.

Small communities do not scale up to countrys. Andorra etc... excepted.


First of all, communism is a system with no government, so there is nothing for any would-be dictator to take over. Second of all, no man ever gained power without the help of lots of other people. Stalin did not single-handedly take over the Soviet Union. He had plenty of help.

See above post:

If you could magically make communism appear out of no where, then you'd ahve a case. Trouble is you'd have to go from *now* to communism. And you'd have to have a leader to do it. So far every leader has proven corrupt.

I'm starting to get really frustrated with people not reading my posts...

Why should your posts be any different to the rest of them. Unfortunately most people here skim read and miss the point almost every time.



No it doesn't. Socialism simply means public property over the means of production - in other words, it simply means that the people of a country control that country's economy in a democratic fashion. How does that require anyone to work towards any specific goal?

Democratic socialism means this. There are forms of socialism that do not work in anything like a democratic fashion.

Communism and Socialism do not contradict or oppose human greed. On the contrary. The purpose of both those systems is to bring the greatest possible satisfaction and happiness to the greatest possible number of people. A greedy person should favour the economic system that gives him/her the greatest personal benefit, correct? Therefore, if (a) communism or socialism give greater benefits to the majority of people than capitalism does, and if (b) people are greedy, then the majority of people should and would support communism or socialism, because these systems give them greater benefits than capitalism does.

You are assuming greed to mean "I want more", rather than "I want more than other people". An intelligent greedy person would agree with your position assuming that the system in use has no effect on the total size of the economy. This is where your argument fails. If you are in a society of 100 people, is it better to have 1% of a total of 200 units or 0.5% of a total of 500 units? The latter is clearly better. The intelligent person, not knowing their position in society, should, as Rawls pointed out, choose the system that gives the best return for the worst off. In the example above the 0.5% of 500.

If you could magically make communism appear out of no where, then you'd ahve a case. Trouble is you'd have to go from *now* to communism. And you'd have to have a leader to do it. So far every leader has proven corrupt.
And that is precisely why it is absolutely vital to have a representative democracy (or a "republic", as you call it) during the transition period from capitalism to communism. That way, even if the leader IS corrupt, the people can keep him in check.

And that is precisely why it is absolutely vital to have a representative democracy (or a "republic", as you call it) during the transition period from capitalism to communism. That way, even if the leader IS corrupt, the people can keep him in check.

We're not doing a very good job of keeping our leaders in check as it stands, I doubt we'd be able to pull off a switch from Capitalism to Communism and manage to keep them in check either.

I've not read all of this thread, being as it is already seven pages long and I have chips in the fryer, but in the likely even that I never bother to catch up with the whole thread, I'd just like to chip in with something like, "I'm glad that somebody else can be bothered to say that" in regards to the initial post.

I'd go further and say that party politics is not democracy, the plebescite is none-democratic, and that, more generally, democracy as commonly understood and (supposedly) practiced is a fallacy. Democracy is popular rule, parliaments and their spin-offs are (at the best of their theory, from which practice is usually far removed) popular representation.

But this is probably far removed from where the thread has got to, so back to hurrah for the original statement.

Clearly a fascinating argument I'd love to catch on, but I must leave soon.

I've not read all of this thread, being as it is already seven pages long and I have chips in the fryer, but in the likely even that I never bother to catch up with the whole thread, I'd just like to chip in with something like, "I'm glad that somebody else can be bothered to say that" in regards to the initial post.

I'd go further and say that party politics is not democracy, the plebescite is none-democratic, and that, more generally, democracy as commonly understood and (supposedly) practiced is a fallacy. Democracy is popular rule, parliaments and their spin-offs are (at the best of their theory, from which practice is usually far removed) popular representation.

But this is probably far removed from where the thread has got to, so back to hurrah for the original statement.

I must completely agree. It's all like Hollywood.

Democratic socialism means this. There are forms of socialism that do not work in anything like a democratic fashion.
I would argue that those "forms of socialism" are not socialistic at all. But that's another discussion.

You are assuming greed to mean "I want more", rather than "I want more than other people".
Greed does normally mean "I want more".

"I want more than other people" is jealousy, and, in a highly egalitarian society such as a socialist or communist one, there isn't much to be jealous of (because even if you're poor, the difference between you and "rich people" is quite small).

An intelligent greedy person would agree with your position assuming that the system in use has no effect on the total size of the economy. This is where your argument fails. If you are in a society of 100 people, is it better to have 1% of a total of 200 units or 0.5% of a total of 500 units? The latter is clearly better.
I am comparing socialism with capitalism under similar conditions. You are comparing socialism under one set of conditions with capitalism under another set of conditions. That leads to warped results. (or, to put it another way, a person would have no way of knowing which economy produces 200 units and which produces 500 units)

The intelligent person, not knowing their position in society, should, as Rawls pointed out, choose the system that gives the best return for the worst off. In the example above the 0.5% of 500.
Well, the system that gives the best return for the worst off certainly isn't capitalism, is it? As a matter of fact, this system is socialism...

We're not doing a very good job of keeping our leaders in check as it stands, I doubt we'd be able to pull off a switch from Capitalism to Communism and manage to keep them in check either.
You simply don't have enough democracy - in the sense that the people are not given enough power over their leaders.

democracy, does not give freedom to anyone, because democracy in the sense that it exists in the west today, is nothing but bourgeous democracy, meaning that the rich really get what they want and that the poorer classes are just given the ability to think they are free.

democracy, does not give freedom to anyone, because democracy in the sense that it exists in the west today, is nothing but bourgeous democracy, meaning that the rich really get what they want and that the poorer classes are just given the ability to think they are free.


...and so history repeats itself once more.

[quote]Greed does normally mean "I want more".

"I want more than other people" is jealousy, and, in a highly egalitarian society such as a socialist or communist one, there isn't much to be jealous of (because even if you're poor, the difference between you and "rich people" is quite small).

Jealousy is wanting what someone else has. Greed is wanting more, generaly with a qualifer. Normaly greed means you want more than what you have. For most people our inner greed means we want more than others.

You simply don't have enough democracy - in the sense that the people are not given enough power over their leaders.

Good point there. Besides, is there an alternative to a democratic system? Would you rather prefer a fascist police state or a religious police state, or whatever. What bright perspectives, eh?

On that capitalism/communism thing:

Capitalism per se isn't bad. (After all, money rulez! :D). However, unlimited capitalism is VERY bad.

Oh, and concerning communism, i'd say true communism never existed (and i don't think it would work, either, at least not with humans). The way things were handled in the Eastern Bloc should more appropriately called "State Capitalism".

Greed does normally mean "I want more".

"I want more than other people" is jealousy, and, in a highly egalitarian society such as a socialist or communist one, there isn't much to be jealous of (because even if you're poor, the difference between you and "rich people" is quite small).


I am comparing socialism with capitalism under similar conditions. You are comparing socialism under one set of conditions with capitalism under another set of conditions. That leads to warped results. (or, to put it another way, a person would have no way of knowing which economy produces 200 units and which produces 500 units)


Well, the system that gives the best return for the worst off certainly isn't capitalism, is it? As a matter of fact, this system is socialism...

Please try and avoid contradicting yourself. You say there is no way of knowing which system produces more, and then say that socialism gives the best return for the worst off. As the best return for the worst off actually depends upon which system produces more, you have to choose between your statements, or accept that you are inconsistant.

OK greed does technically just mean "I want more", but we normally use it to criticise someone who wants more at the expense of others.
Someone who wants more for everyone is not normally called greedy.

For most people our inner greed means we want more than others.
Not really. We just want more for ourselves. You can see this by putting a man on a desert island - he won't suddenly stop wanting things just because there are no others to compare himself with.

Not really. We just want more for ourselves. You can see this by putting a man on a desert island - he won't suddenly stop wanting things just because there are no others to compare himself with.

But he will not be described as greedy. Just because there is no-one to compare him with.

Not really. We just want more for ourselves. You can see this by putting a man on a desert island - he won't suddenly stop wanting things just because there are no others to compare himself with.

I contest that. I say Human's normal nature under "normal" society circumstances is to want more than his peers.

Please try and avoid contradicting yourself. You say there is no way of knowing which system produces more, and then say that socialism gives the best return for the worst off. As the best return for the worst off actually depends upon which system produces more, you have to choose between your statements, or accept that you are inconsistant.
The best return for the worst off also depends very much on the distribution of the units that are produced. Consider the following example:

In System A, 50 people produce 500 units. Each of them gets 10 units.
In System B, 50 people produce 500 units. One of them gets 451 units, and the other 49 people get 1 unit each.

As you can see, although the same number of people produce the same quantity of goods, the return for the worst off is vastly different. System A is more egalitarian, and therefore it gives the best return for the worst off.

Even if the 50 people in System A produced only 400 units, or only 300 units, that system would still give the best return for the worst off. Thus, it is possible to produce less but achieve a better final result.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others."

Sir Winston Churchill.

I contest that. I say Human's normal nature under "normal" society circumstances is to want more than his peers.
By that logic, rich people shouldn't want any more than they already have, because they're ALREADY richer than the vast majority of their peers. Bill Gates, the richest man of all, shouldn't want anything any more (since there's no one richer than him).

Yet we know that is not the case. Therefore, your theory is incorrect.

The best return for the worst off also depends very much on the distribution of the units that are produced. Consider the following example:

In System A, 50 people produce 500 units. Each of them gets 10 units.
In System B, 50 people produce 500 units. One of them gets 451 units, and the other 49 people get 1 unit each.

As you can see, although the same number of people produce the same quantity of goods, the return for the worst off is vastly different. System A is more egalitarian, and therefore it gives the best return for the worst off.

Even if the 50 people in System A produced only 400 units, or only 300 units, that system would still give the best return for the worst off. Thus, it is possible to produce less but achieve a better final result.

Let me propose my own system.

System A: 30 people produce 400 units, 20 people produce 100 units. 500 units total. Everyone gets 10 units.
System B: 30 people produce 400 units, 20 people produce 100 units. The first 30 get 13.33 a piece and the remaining 20 get 5 apiece.

System B is far more equitable and IMO achieves a better final result.

The best return for the worst off also depends very much on the distribution of the units that are produced. Consider the following example:

In System A, 50 people produce 500 units. Each of them gets 10 units.
In System B, 50 people produce 500 units. One of them gets 451 units, and the other 49 people get 1 unit each.

As you can see, although the same number of people produce the same quantity of goods, the return for the worst off is vastly different. System A is more egalitarian, and therefore it gives the best return for the worst off.

Even if the 50 people in System A produced only 400 units, or only 300 units, that system would still give the best return for the worst off. Thus, it is possible to produce less but achieve a better final result.

I too can stack the figures to favour any system I want.

System A, 50 people produce 500 units. Each of them get 10 units.
System B, 50 people produce 600 units. One person gets 61 units, 49 get 11 units.

System B is better for the worst off. It is not egalitarian, but that is irrelevant, The worst off does better.

If you assume that it is only possible to produce less. That the system is already at maximum productive efficiency, then your argument works. I challenge you to show that socialism is a more efficient system in terms of productivity.

If you assume that the productivity can increase if the system is less egalitarian, then everyone can benefit, as I have shown above.

By that logic, rich people shouldn't want any more than they already have, because they're ALREADY richer than the vast majority of their peers. Bill Gates, the richest man of all, shouldn't want anything any more (since there's no one richer than him).

Yet we know that is not the case. Therefore, your theory is incorrect.

You are confusing the definition of peers. Peers is not "every human" it is your peers, your economic peers included.

Bill Gates meanwhile isn't a very good example seeing as his wealth depends on the continued success of Microsoft because if it fails he will no longer be the richest person.

By that logic, rich people shouldn't want any more than they already have, because they're ALREADY richer than the vast majority of their peers. Bill Gates, the richest man of all, shouldn't want anything any more (since there's no one richer than him).

Yet we know that is not the case. Therefore, your theory is incorrect.

By saying that it is human nature to want more than the other, Salvonia is not eliminating the flat wanting of more. Also it may be the case that Bill Gates does not want any more money. You would have to ask him about that.

One point though. It is human nature to strive for something, to have a goal a target, something to attain. This is nearly always something material, but it can be transferred to spiritual achievement as occurs with monks and nuns. How does socialism deal with this nature?

This has really been getting on my nerves lately. This forum (and indeed society) seems to have this foolish concept [that democracy involves "freedom"] laser etched into everyone's head.

There are two answers here.

1. We are just following on ancient usage. Long before "freedom" meant "absence of constraint" it meant "absence of a minority ruling class." Granted, philosophers like Plato did not think very much of freedom -- it was not high on their list of social priorities -- but they tended to grudgingly admit that, all things being equal, it is a pretty good thing to have. (Read carefully Plato suggests that only in the democracy is philosophy possible... he just thinks the democracy is in need of serious reform.

2. We are not talking about an abstract notion of democracy as "majority rule," which is what you have elected to do. Rather, most of us speak a language in which democracy developed as a part of liberal Enlightenment movements. Thus, while we say "democracy" it is rather clear from the way we use the term that we inherently mean liberal democracy that includes a space for civil society and debate.

Indeed, we create a right to free speech not out of respect for some "natural law," but because we believe it is necessary to the functioning of democracy.

51% of people getting together and voting for free speech is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and deciding that men can only wear shorts and women can only wear skirts and any violation of this is to be meet with instant death is a democracy.

Close. The latter situation might be democratic in the modern sense, but only if the society also has free speech, free assembly, due process and so on.

Rather I keep on seeing blatantly wrong statements kicked around like

"Free speech is a fundamental part of democracy"

But it is. It is just that the rest of the world chooses to use the word democracy to mean one thing, and you choose to abstract it from its actual historical practice. You are arguing about an abstraction, not a real movement.

"Democracy is the foundation of freedom"

This is the ancient definition. (It sometimes slips in, especially lately since Bush has managed to get everything confused. It is not exactly clear what he means anymore by democracy or freedom.) Moderns would be more likely to say "freedom is the foundation of democracy."

"Civil Rights is the foundation of a Democracy"

You are correct to criticize this claim, although I rarely see it. Civil rights are not the foundation of a democracy, no matter how much I may like civil rights. Political rights are the foundation of a democracy.

-snip-

You are correct in that I am arguing the "abstract" because that "abstract" is democracy. The "movement" that has occurred is not democracy, indeed it wasn't even called democracy. The term democracy has been perverted in much more recent years and I find that perversion wrong. Hence the rant.

Besides which, you've got the historical context screwed up. Historicaly we've termed what is now being called democracy a Republic. Recently we have adopted democracy as "the United States method of government" when indeed historical we didn't do that.

As far as how a world is run, the way it is currently being run. Via Republics with constitutions.

Personally, I am getting quite annoyed with the rampant misuse of the word "republic" on this forum.

A republic, technically speaking, is not a form of government, although for reasons that I explain below in the late eighteenth century it became conflated with one.

"Republic" from "res publica," means the "things of the public." The Latin is just as often translated "commonwealth."

To say that one has "republican government" is only to say that the government acts more or less like a trustee of the public property or the public good: government is not in itself a partisan force, but rules "on behalf of all," or in the name of the general good.

In the eighteenth century, the Western world was caught up in movements against absolute monarchy in favor of popularly elected legislatures. (Citizenship requirements varied, but the basic impulse was "citizens should control government.") It was an essentially democratic movement, and its advocates were generally happy to say so.

However, their basic criticism of kings and nobles is that they ruled for their own benefit, i.e. they undermined the basic notion of the republic. As Cicero pointed out almost a thousand years ago, any form of government can be republican, so long as the rulers do what is best for all. The Enlightenment criticism of monarchy was that it was not republican which people had previously believed it to be!!

Thus in the modern mind "republican" government came to be conflated with "democratic" government. The movement toward the sort of government seen in the United States was essentially a democratic movement. Of course, there were anti-democratic forces at work as well, and they certainly had their influence on the Constitution. Later, reforms like direct election of senators would push the constitution in an even more democratic direction.

Speaking of constitutions, what makes you think that a more democratic government would give up constitutional protections? The Bill of Rights, after all, was not included in the original document because the anti-democratic representatives to the convention saw no need for it. It was the strongest supporters of democratic rule who insisted upon it.

-snip-

A Republic, note not "republican" which would be a description, a Republic as it stands today when being used as a type of government is a synonym for a Representative Democracy. It can of course still be used as the more classical version you're talking about. However Democracy, stand alone, has not had any change in its definition. It meant in the past and it means now mob rule and nothing more.

Also the modern Republic is democratic yes, of course, but it is not a Democracy. :shrug:

Speaking of constitutions, what makes you think that a more democratic government would give up constitutional protections? The Bill of Rights, after all, was not included in the original document because the anti-democratic representatives to the convention saw no need for it. It was the strongest supporters of democratic rule who insisted upon it.

Where did I ever say I thought one way or another about what a more democratic government would do?

ther's only one answer. Ignore the system. as long as you live in such a way that you don't cause others harm i believe you'll be fine. you may think i am endorsing outright civil disobedience, but rather i am advocating "personal self-determination." freedom is synonimous with responsibility, therefore, if one wishes to be truly free, one must take responsibility for one's own actions and behave according to their own morality with full knowledge of the accompanying consequences. democracy is not freedom.

You are correct in that I am arguing the "abstract" because that "abstract" is democracy.

Political abstractions with no tie to historical movements may be fun for philosophers, but they have no place in genuine political discussion. If you want to have a political discussion of "democracy," you have to be willing to treat the term as it actually exists in real historical movements. But this would mean you would have to recognize that by "democracy" moderns inherently mean "liberal democracy." And you have no argument with that, since it involves constitutional protections of fundamental rights.

So you are arguing against a non-existent strawman. If you find someone who actually wants the unrestrained rule of the majority, argue with him. Otherwise, put away your pretense: you have no profound political argument, only a made up philosophical one.

The term democracy has been perverted in much more recent years and I find that perversion wrong.

That is true, and you get closer to its true perversion when you complain that it is used vaguely as "the American style of government." In actual fact, Bush and his neoconservative advisers use both "freedom" and "democracy" to mean, even more vaguely, something like "pro-American." Certainly this is wrong.

Historicaly we've termed what is now being called democracy a Republic.

I already explained how and why. Apparently you have decided to ignore it.

"Republic" = commonwealth = rule for the general good (as opposed to private good).
"Democracy" = sovereignty of the (usually poor) masses.

In terms of government "form" you are correct in saying that the United States is not really democratic, and was not designed to be. It was actually designed as a "mixed form" very much on Cicero's model. See Cicero's Republic, in which he not only gives the correct definition of the term, but also describes monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic republics. He then argues for a system with elements of all three.

Of course, the United States was still more democratic than had been most previous governments... and it has become still more democratic (at least formally) over time.

The point is that democracy, understood as a historical movement, shifts sovereignty to the general population rather than a class of elites. It is not an abstraction with a precise institutional form (51% or otherwise).

Where did I ever say I thought one way or another about what a more democratic government would do?

"Mobs" do not usually have much concern for "rights." If you admit that democracy is just as likely as any other form of government (if not more likely) to have a liberal constitution, then you cannot simultaneously claim that democracy is "only" "mob rule."

Republic as it stands today when being used as a type of government is a synonym for a Representative Democracy.

Yes, and for very precise historical reasons. What you should find interesting is that at the writing of the Constitution (and certainly the Declaration of Independence), the American founders still understood the real meaning of the term. It was in the process of being corrupted (and they hold some responsibility for this)... but when the Constitution calls the United States a "Republican" government, they do not mean "as opposed to democratic."

They founded a democratic republic. The "democratic" part refers to the form of government. The "republic" part refers to the character of government.

Yes, and for very precise historical reasons. What you should find interesting is that at the writing of the Constitution (and certainly the Declaration of Independence), the American founders still understood the real meaning of the term. It was in the process of being corrupted (and they hold some responsibility for this)... but when the Constitution calls the United States a "Republican" government, they do not mean "as opposed to democratic."

Firstly, I am not talking about America. Period. I do not wish to discuss America and I did not mention America. Others brought it up. So I will say this with no mention to any country.

A Republic can't be opposed to democratic because a Republic *is* democratic.


"Mobs" do not usually have much concern for "rights." If you admit that democracy is just as likely as any other form of government (if not more likely) to have a liberal constitution, then you cannot simultaneously claim that democracy is "only" "mob rule."

You are ascribing meaning to the word Mob that I am not. Democracy is 51% = Woo Hoo lets roll and 49% = We're f'ing screwed. That’s all a Democracy really is and means. It can take on *any* character that the people that make it up want.

Political abstractions with no tie to historical movements may be fun for philosophers, but they have no place in genuine political discussion. If you want to have a political discussion of "democracy," you have to be willing to treat the term as it actually exists in real historical movements. But this would mean you would have to recognize that by "democracy" moderns inherently mean "liberal democracy." And you have no argument with that, since it involves constitutional protections of fundamental rights.

So you are arguing against a non-existent strawman. If you find someone who actually wants the unrestrained rule of the majority, argue with him. Otherwise, put away your pretense: you have no profound political argument, only a made up philosophical one.

I make no pretense of having a profound political or philosophical argument. This is, and was, a rant. Not a dissertation.

I already explained how and why. Apparently you have decided to ignore it.

"Republic" = commonwealth = rule for the general good (as opposed to private good).

As of 100 some BC. As of 1800, not really. So you've explained that something meant something back when the common language was Latin. That’s great, but I have no intention of running that far back in history for the definition of any word.

"Democracy" = sovereignty of the (usually poor) masses.

Masses, Mob, use whatever term you'd like.

The point is that democracy, understood as a historical movement, shifts sovereignty to the general population rather than a class of elites. It is not an abstraction with a precise institutional form (51% or otherwise).

Democracy as a movement yes. Democracy as a government, no.

Well, Democracy is the 'freedom to vote'.

I guess if your not happy that the 49% isn't heard and it's tossed out the window, then the only way everybodies voice can be heard its via Anarchism.

Which then there's no government and you can all live your own life as you please.

A Republic can't be opposed to democratic because a Republic *is* democratic.

Then what, exactly, are we arguing about?

Democracy is 51% = Woo Hoo lets roll and 49% = We're f'ing screwed. That’s all a Democracy really is and means.

No, that is your bizarre prejudice. That presumes that the democracy in question has no constitution, and virtually every society in recorded history has had some form of constitution (written or otherwise).

It can take on *any* character that the people that make it up want.

Yes, that is exactly the point. Thus, your argument is not against democracy, but against a particular character of government. You should really check out the ancients, they said the same thing: There is no perfect form of government, although some are more likely to have a republican character than others. For procedural reasons monarchy was preferable, but it was dangerous because it could so easily slip into its non-republican character: tyranny. Republican aristocracy good, anti-republican oligarchy bad. Republican democracy good, anti-republican mob bad.

I make no pretense of having a profound political or philosophical argument. This is, and was, a rant.

The problem with rants is that they usually don't care much about reasonable discussion.

As of 100 some BC. As of 1800, not really.

Yes, really. Those guys in 1800 were all reading guys from the first century B.C.

That’s great, but I have no intention of running that far back in history for the definition of any word.

Then you have little hope of understanding the intellectual world of the "Age of Revolutions."

Communism and Socialism do not contradict or oppose human greed. On the contrary. The purpose of both those systems is to bring the greatest possible satisfaction and happiness to the greatest possible number of people. A greedy person should favour the economic system that gives him/her the greatest personal benefit, correct? Therefore, if (a) communism or socialism give greater benefits to the majority of people than capitalism does, and if (b) people are greedy, then the majority of people should and would support communism or socialism, because these systems give them greater benefits than capitalism does.
Repeating this won't make it true.

Repeating this won't make it true.

Yet this seems to be a very widespread belief...

ever consider that democracy may be a stage in the evolution of freedom?
that it will eventually develop into "political anarchy" (freedom) but not "moral anarchy" (chaos).

Democracy is just mob rule. It is the tyranny of the majority, 51% of people get together and vote to make the other 49% slave labor is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and voting for free speech is a democracy. 51% of people getting together and deciding that men can only wear shorts and women can only wear skirts and any violation of this is to be meet with instant death is a democracy.

no, that is some form of simple majoritarianism. that is but a single possible form of democracy. there are others. democracy only means rule by the people. how that rule is formulated is not part of the definition.

and democracy is a vital aspect of freedom. because if the people in general do not rule, then some elite minority rules over them.