NationStates Jolt Archive

As an anarchist, my ideal world would be inhabited by a society that is based on individual human freedom. Other socialists seem to think that freedom is dispensable as long as there is a more equitable distribution of wealth (and look where that got the Bolsheviks). For anarchists the two issues can't be separated, you can't have one without the other. But what exactly is this "democracy" politicians say we have?

I don't have much time for so-called 'parliamentary democracy'. Politicians, be they in Europe, national parliaments, or local councils, regularly ignore the wishes of their constituents to pursue their own agendas, which is usually to further the interests of their financial backers. We get a vote in elections, but only to choose between rulers. Our main participation in the government of the country is to mark a ballot paper every few years. What chance do we have to set policy?

Occasionally we do get a greater say in the government, when we get to vote directly on policy, as with the Nice referendum. This is a little closer to real democracy, which is why the WSM has taken part in referendum campaigns in the past. In an election campaign politicians can promise one thing, and then vote for another, but that's not a possibility in a referendum. If all of the major political parties support policy, but they still can't ignore the referendum result. They'll certainly hold another referendum next year should the result not suit, but in the meantime there's nothing they can do.

But even referenda don't offer much chance to participate. We have a vote, but only on the question that's put to us. We can't frame the question, and we can't force a referendum to be held on a particular question. So we had a referendum on the International Criminal Court, but not on the World Bank. Referenda may be better than elections, but they still offer only a very limited way to participate in decision making. Real democracy would mean that we get to propose decisions to vote on and have an equal chance to debate those issues.

So I just want to know; are you happy with the lack of liberty you have?

Power to the People. Thank you.

The US has a Fascist government now, and England and Canada are socialist. I'm fine with fascism, stricter government never hurt anybody. Except the Jews, but the US isn't anti-semetic. Israel has a good government too. They don't take shit from anyone. If you're looking for a truly democratic nation, go to Australia. If you want Anarchy, try Afghanistan or some other wasteland.

The US has a Fascist government now, and England and Canada are socialist. I'm fine with fascism, stricter government never hurt anybody. Except the Jews, but the US isn't anti-semetic. Israel has a good government too. They don't take shit from anyone. If you're looking for a truly democratic nation, go to Australia. If you want Anarchy, try Afghanistan or some other wasteland.

Stricter government never hurt anyone.... riiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:
We are not yet a Fascist system, we are more of a 'conensual two-party Republic,' in which those chosen to represent the wishes of the people don't care what the people say, so it is not really a representative government anymore at all. So it does not matter which of the two parties is in power, because the maintain the corporate status quo instead of shaking anything up for real social betterment.

Specifically, the US does not have a, "democracy."
I'm referring demoracy as a pure democracy, where the majority rules.
Democracy is actually a really horrible government, because it is basically mob rule.

However, the US is a liberal democracy. The difference between a pure democracy, and a liberal democracy, is that the liberal democracy has laws protecting the minority. In a pure democracy, the republicans could have all the democrats executed. In a liberal democracy, the democrats can bitch about the election.

technically, we're not a democracy; we're a republic (USA).

i'll let someone else handle the details of that answer.

technically, we're not a democracy; we're a republic (USA).

i'll let someone else handle the details of that answer.Here goes:
Democracies allow a direct vote by the people on governing issues.

Republics let the citizens elect representatives to do what they think is best.

We are not yet a Fascist system,.....

I disagree.
The recent U.S. behaviour (recent being the last 30 years) shares an affinity for the Hegellian ideas of a historical dialectic, which dictates the use of controlled conflict (thesis versus anti-thesis) to create a pre-determined synthesis. A synthesis of making and design, where the the state is absolute and individuals are granted their "freedoms" based on their obedience to the state.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was the Nazi's philosopher and both fascism and communism are rooted in Hegellian ideals.

So I just want to know; are you happy with the lack of liberty you have?


Short answer: no.

Longer answer...I support direct democracy, but have yet to resolve how this could function on a larger, national level.

Short answer: no.

Longer answer...I support direct democracy, but have yet to resolve how this could function on a larger, national level.

Agreed. As much as I'd love Athenian Democracy, applying it to such a large landmass and population would be damn near impossible.

Politicians, be they in Europe, national parliaments, or local councils, regularly ignore the wishes of their constituents to pursue their own agendas, which is usually to further the interests of their financial backers. We get a vote in elections, but only to choose between rulers. Our main participation in the government of the country is to mark a ballot paper every few years. What chance do we have to set policy?

You could run yourself, and listen to the people, if that suited you. For that matter, most any capable person can - in theory - eventually run for President.

Agreed. As much as I'd love Athenian Democracy, applying it to such a large landmass and population would be damn near impossible.
I would even be happy with a representative democracy where candidates actually obeyed the wishes of their constituents. I'd like to see communities getting together and forming consensus, or at least voting on what position they want their representative to take...rather than have that person adhere mindlessly to party platform.

Of course, then you'd have people who hate gay marriage messing things up...but I'd rather that possibility than the total lack of say we currently have.

You could run yourself, and listen to the people, if that suited you. For that matter, most any capable person can - in theory - eventually run for President.
Any rich person.

The kind of funds needed to run any kind of successful campaign, even on a small level, is beyond most independents. Only when you have the backing (financial and otherwise) of a major political party do you actually stand a chance. And then you've sold your soul to the party line. The best you could do is run as a party candidate, be elected, then ditch the party, do what your contituents want and pray that they'll get to know you well enough to re-elect you as an independent.

As an anarchist, my ideal world would be inhabited by a society that is based on individual human freedom. Other socialists seem to think that freedom is dispensable as long as there is a more equitable distribution of wealth (and look where that got the Bolsheviks). For anarchists the two issues can't be separated, you can't have one without the other. But what exactly is this "democracy" politicians say we have?

I don't have much time for so-called 'parliamentary democracy'. Politicians, be they in Europe, national parliaments, or local councils, regularly ignore the wishes of their constituents to pursue their own agendas, which is usually to further the interests of their financial backers. We get a vote in elections, but only to choose between rulers. Our main participation in the government of the country is to mark a ballot paper every few years. What chance do we have to set policy?

Occasionally we do get a greater say in the government, when we get to vote directly on policy, as with the Nice referendum. This is a little closer to real democracy, which is why the WSM has taken part in referendum campaigns in the past. In an election campaign politicians can promise one thing, and then vote for another, but that's not a possibility in a referendum. If all of the major political parties support policy, but they still can't ignore the referendum result. They'll certainly hold another referendum next year should the result not suit, but in the meantime there's nothing they can do.

But even referenda don't offer much chance to participate. We have a vote, but only on the question that's put to us. We can't frame the question, and we can't force a referendum to be held on a particular question. So we had a referendum on the International Criminal Court, but not on the World Bank. Referenda may be better than elections, but they still offer only a very limited way to participate in decision making. Real democracy would mean that we get to propose decisions to vote on and have an equal chance to debate those issues.

So I just want to know; are you happy with the lack of liberty you have?

Power to the People. Thank you.

Why are you an anarchist?

Any rich person.

The kind of funds needed to run any kind of successful campaign, even on a small level, is beyond most independents. Only when you have the backing (financial and otherwise) of a major political party do you actually stand a chance. And then you've sold your soul to the party line. The best you could do is run as a party candidate, be elected, then ditch the party, do what your contituents want and pray that they'll get to know you well enough to re-elect you as an independent.

I would note the use of "in theory". :p

Furthermore, given the age restriction on being President - you have to be at least 35 - I don't see why someone couldn't earn their cash over a few decades. Donations from supporters and like-minded individuals can supplement it.

Finally, and call me ignorant if you will, I don't believe anyone can 'buy' an election. If your platform is "Let's all be Nazis!!!", I doubt any amount of money is going to get you into power.

Just my two cents.

I would even be happy with a representative democracy where candidates actually obeyed the wishes of their constituents. I'd like to see communities getting together and forming consensus, or at least voting on what position they want their representative to take...rather than have that person adhere mindlessly to party platform.

Might this have anything to do with the fact the Senate and House have a 95% incumbacy rate...?

*sigh*...Idiots...

Yes and no. We do vote for candidates, but often the people we elect for president or prime minster have massive busness backing.

Democracy requires people to partake in the politics of their country, if the majority of a population does not take part in this process then it's not so much a democracy as an oligarchy.

In a democracy you don't only have the ability to vote for a party you also have the ability to contact your local representative on matters you believe are important. Thats why you vote for them because you believe they will represent your interests in the larger government. You also have the choice to become a politicain yourself and do your best to listen to your constituents and work for their benefit.

The biggest problem is that not a great deal of people either know or care about the way the political system works to actually participate, with dropping voting rates in many countries we are seeing more extreme politicians becoming voted in by a small but loyal following of supporters who do vote, which leads to an increase, in exposure for such ideas and a general acceptance by many of them. It's time as these when there is a a lot of voter apathy people with extreme views can come into power, and problems can arise.

I would note the use of "in theory". :p

Furthermore, given the age restriction on being President - you have to be at least 35 - I don't see why someone couldn't earn their cash over a few decades. Donations from supporters and like-minded individuals can supplement it.

Finally, and call me ignorant if you will, I don't believe anyone can 'buy' an election. If your platform is "Let's all be Nazis!!!", I doubt any amount of money is going to get you into power.

Just my two cents.
It's not about buying the election straight out. There are certain financial restrictions to running for certain positions that must be met. If you don't meet those restrictions, you can't run. Period.

What you are 'buying' is publicity. No one is going to vote for a name they don't recognise. You can be as well intentioned as you like, but you simply are not going to make it without a good ad campaign, and that means big bucks. And people are not going to donate to you very often if you don't come with a party stamp of approval.

You can not just expect to raise money over many decades and run for president. It'll be a phenomenal waste of money. You need to build up support by holding smaller political offices first.

Yes and no. We do vote for candidates, but often the people we elect for president or prime minster have massive busness backing.
Often? How about ALWAYS? Name one Canadian or American leader that didn't. I can't think of any...

(though because of the differing natures of our two systems, it's more that the particular party who's leader becomes Prime Minister is backed, rather than just the individual him (and once, her) self.)

Democracy requires people to partake in the politics of their country, if the majority of a population does not take part in this process then it's not so much a democracy as an oligarchy.

In a democracy you don't only have the ability to vote for a party you also have the ability to contact your local representative on matters you believe are important. Thats why you vote for them because you believe they will represent your interests in the larger government. You also have the choice to become a politicain yourself and do your best to listen to your constituents and work for their benefit.
Lobbying has limited use. Huge funds are raised, and extensive organisations created to lobby for specific issues...but that isn't necessarily reflecting the will of the actual consituents. How can a group of poor dirt farmers compete with a huge, glossy, and well-funded shopping-mall lobby? The answer is, not well.

The biggest problem is that not a great deal of people either know or care about the way the political system works to actually participate, with dropping voting rates in many countries we are seeing more extreme politicians becoming voted in by a small but loyal following of supporters who do vote, which leads to an increase, in exposure for such ideas and a general acceptance by many of them. It's time as these when there is a a lot of voter apathy people with extreme views can come into power, and problems can arise.
Voting is the smallest political power. Were more people to actively organise themselves, and work a bit outside of the current structure, THAT would be real participation. Working within the 'system' hasn't made any significant changes. Not when representatives have to do as the party, not the people, say.

Agreed. As much as I'd love Athenian Democracy, applying it to such a large landmass and population would be damn near impossible.

Maybe, but have you considered that if we were to vote on every decision that needed to be made in our own society, in reality we would probably be mostly voting on events and circumstances that have nothing to do with you at all (which is how governing bodies usually grade your effectability to a ruling).

For example, if government was deciding what improvements should made to schools in your local area, a survey carried out in a town 50 miles away won't be used as a template for what should be improved (which happens in my area).
Though you could create a "web-system" of governence and if it doesn't directly effect, then you don't directly effect it.

You could run yourself, and listen to the people, if that suited you. For that matter, most any capable person can - in theory - eventually run for President.

To be capable of such a thing requires almost unlimited funds, and even if that wasn't the case, your point becomes mute as soon as you emphasize the point that your current president is the son of the president you had the time before last, who was in power but 10 years before.

If you actually want to find out about the internal connections it takes to make it in the political world - it's quite easy to find out, but please don't so naive to think that it's an open door for anyone to walk through. Even Kerry needed to have close connections to Bush and several of his cronies to even run against him (obviously as a back-up just in case little George lost).

It's not about buying the election straight out. There are certain financial restrictions to running for certain positions that must be met. If you don't meet those restrictions, you can't run. Period.

What you are 'buying' is publicity. No one is going to vote for a name they don't recognise. You can be as well intentioned as you like, but you simply are not going to make it without a good ad campaign, and that means big bucks. And people are not going to donate to you very often if you don't come with a party stamp of approval.

You can not just expect to raise money over many decades and run for president. It'll be a phenomenal waste of money. You need to build up support by holding smaller political offices first.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never suggested you could just earn money and magically become President. There are obviously countless other variables, much as one cannot just "earn money"; it was a simplification for purpose of example.

The average human will live to be over 70, at this point. Get a job at 18. Work. Save money, as much as you can. Put it in the bank where it will get interest.

Stay active in the local political scene, even if you aren't going to run for anything. At around, say... 30. Run for your local office. You should already be somewhat known, and you can use the 12 years of saved money to supplement your campaign.

If you win, you now have political experience, people who know you - locally at least - some money possibly left over, and more coming in from your new job. Stick around for another decade, and you have more money, more experience, more public awareness, and you can shoot for a bigger office.

You're only 40 yet. What's the hurry?

Spend another 10 years working larger political roles. Earn and save more money. Get more recognition. Finally, if you're ready at 50 - with an easy 2 decades still left - you can begin your task of heading for the biggest office of them all.

Hardly a comprehensive review, but hardly impossible either. You do not need to be born rich to run a country. Hard work can get you there, if you start early and keep your eyes on the goal at hand.

To be capable of such a thing requires almost unlimited funds, and even if that wasn't the case, your point becomes mute as soon as you emphasize the point that your current president is the son of the president you had the time before last, who was in power but 10 years before.

If you actually want to find out about the internal connections it takes to make it in the political world - it's quite easy to find out, but please don't so naive to think that it's an open door for anyone to walk through. Even Kerry needed to have close connections to Bush and several of his cronies to even run against him (obviously as a back-up just in case little George lost).

First of all, I disagree entirely with your unlimited funds argument. I've already explained that I believe hard work and policies people agree with is vastly more important than billions of dollars to blow on advertising. What are you going to advertise?

"I have no solid principles or policies!"
"I'm really stupid!"
"Elect me! ...just because! I have money!"

Second of all, as pertains to connections, I've already explained you need to start at the very bottom, and work your way up. That's what smaller, local offices and several decades of working in politics will help you earn.

Why are you an anarchist?

We all are, only some of us are so lazy we negate our responsibility onto the state (everyone else). It's an easy cop-out to say that the state (everyone else) should sort out my problems and it's very rare for the state (everyone else) to care about my problems. So I say I will sort out my own problems but now and again I could use some help from the state (everyone else) without that necessarily meaning that I've signed my civil liberties away. I'm prepared to help the state (everyone else) for mutual gain, but will not become a non-entity in so much that my actions are merely an extension of the state, working as it's appendage.

But I much prefer not to deal with the state (everyone else) at all and reach a comprimise with veryone individually.