NationStates Jolt Archive

I know it's probably a majority, but I'm curious as to how many of you believe in democracy and how many don't, and the reasons why.

Edit: Democracy includes both participatory and representative democracy.

To paraphrase the great George Carlin:

Imagine how stupid the average person is. Now, realize half are even dumber.

Democracy is little more than mob rule, and we know how just angry mobs are.

Yes, I do, it's by no means perfect but it's the best of a bad set of alternatives.

Yes, I do, it's by no means perfect but it's the best of a bad set of alternatives.

Bah, stole my reasoning

I kinda do... except that there are so many incredibly dumb people who probably shouldn't get a say in what goes on. I've just been rather negative about humanity has a whole lately.

Democracy is just organised stupidity. I propose intelligence-based meritocracy.

What we need is an advanced semi-benevolent artificial intelligence to do the ruling.

And I like pudding. In the sense of "dessert"; I've not tried American "Pudding". If it's like Instant Whip I'll like it.

I want representative democracy. It should be stable enough to resist policy based on the whims of opinion polls, but should also serve the people. The people of a country have a right to self-determination.

I don't like Democracy because it is ran by the people. A lot of those people are dumb and stupid and don't know jack about government, or about the choices they make or who they vote for to come into office. Just like Herbert Hoover. We were too dumb to realize that he would help lead us into the Great Depression when he failed to help the people and said it "was the wealthy people's job to help them."

A Democracy is more an advanced form of Communism, and we are blinded by the government to see that. We all know that in Communism, everything is owned by the state rather than the people. So let me ask you this...if Democracy isn't Communism, then why is it that the government can easily take your belongings away? If we truly owned our belongings, it's safe to say that the government has no right to take them, regardless if we pay our bills, or taxes (which in case is the government borrowing money without asking for it).

I prefer Islam

Democracy is the best we have, the options are anarchy or dictatorship.

I don't like Democracy because it is ran by the people. A lot of those people are dumb and stupid and don't know jack about government, or about the choices they make or who they vote for to come into office. Just like Herbert Hoover. We were too dumb to realize that he would help lead us into the Great Depression when he failed to help the people and said it "was the wealthy people's job to help them."

A Democracy is more an advanced form of Communism, and we are blinded by the government to see that. We all know that in Communism, everything is owned by the state rather than the people. So let me ask you this...if Democracy isn't Communism, then why is it that the government can easily take your belongings away? If we truly owned our belongings, it's safe to say that the government has no right to take them, regardless if we pay our bills, or taxes (which in case is the government borrowing money without asking for it).

Are you being ironic?

Or do you just not realise that communism is an economic model whilst democracy is merely a system to elect rulers.

I prefer Islam

Right because Islam is a form of government and not a religion. I've seen you post twice today, both times it was a sentence of less than four words praising Islam.


You got religion, good for you. You're hardly the first, and we don't care. As bad as the fuckin born again christians.

Right because Islam is a form of government and not a religion. I've seen you post twice today, both times it was a sentence of less than four words praising Islam.


You got religion, good for you. You're hardly the first, and we don't care. As bad as the fuckin born again christians.

Islam is both is both a religion and a form of government. Everyone knows that.

Bah, stole my reasoning

hey it's a democracy, we can both vote for the same candiate :)

A Democracy is more an advanced form of Communism, and we are blinded by the government to see that. We all know that in Communism, everything is owned by the state rather than the people. So let me ask you this...if Democracy isn't Communism, then why is it that the government can easily take your belongings away? If we truly owned our belongings, it's safe to say that the government has no right to take them, regardless if we pay our bills, or taxes (which in case is the government borrowing money without asking for it).
Yes. The people of a nation have a right to collectively share the benefits of its wealth production. That doesn't necessarily mean communism... this principle can be observed in many capitalist countries.

Islam is both is both a religion and a form of government. Everyone knows that.

A government founded on religion is a Theocracy, or for a muslim specific one a Caliphate, not an Islam. Use the correct terms.

I prefer Islam
What kind? There is no one interpretation of the Koran, thus there are a myriad of Islamic theocratic styles available.

A government founded on religion is a Theocracy, or for a muslim specific one a Caliphate, not an Islam. Use the correct terms.

and a Caliphate is the superior form of government, which was my original point.

I know it's probably a majority, but I'm curious as to how many of you believe in democracy and how many don't, and the reasons why.

What do you mean by "believe in democracy"?

I believe in a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. Is that believing in democracy?

and a Caliphate is the superior form of government, which was my original point.

Yes and it took only half the thread to come to your point because you typed a three word mother-fucking sentence praising Islam rather than answering the question. At this point I have to question your intellect and your sincerity since you apparently didn't know the word for the religious nutter rule you claim to want to institute.

What do you mean by "believe in democracy"?

I believe in a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. Is that believing in democracy?

Yes, it is.

Like most things you don't appreciate it until it's gone.

Government is far too complicated a business for the moronic masses to rule it. However, the other option is to have the greedy and power-hungry rule it.

Democracy is just organised stupidity. I propose intelligence-based meritocracy.

and smart people are incapable of using a system that puts them in charge for their own benefit/to fuck everyone else over?

I know it's probably a majority, but I'm curious as to how many of you believe in democracy and how many don't, and the reasons why.

Depends on what democracy you talk about. Representative or participatory?

Depends on what democracy you talk about. Representative or participatory?

Both.

The overall ruling by the mob mentality doesn't work, not only that but the people that are elected tend to forget that they are serving the people and start to work and further there own wants instead of the country

To paraphrase the great George Carlin:

Imagine how stupid the average person is. Now, realize half are even dumber.

Democracy is little more than mob rule, and we know how just angry mobs are.

Thank you.

At least with fascism you get a leader with the intellect to acquire power.

democracy sucks... i mean take the classic example: germany was more democratic than britain and they got the nazis, while britain remained with their lesser form of democracy and won the war.

meritocratic oligarchy would be an ideal form of government (that pops into mind right now). of course you can't really implement it (who is to decide who deserves to rule?).

At least with fascism you get a leader with the intellect to acquire power.

Acquiring power doesn't take intellect. It only takes cruelty.

Both.

I'm not a big fan of representative democracy. I don't like the concept of delegating authority to a group of people only periodically accountable to public opinion. But it beats the heck out of a military dictatorship or post-communist kleptocracy.

I feel that truly participatory direct democracy, provided that it is decentralized, and decision making authority is limited to only things that directly affect the group, is the best form of governance.

Acquiring power doesn't take intellect. It only takes cruelty.

Really? So a cruel hippo could rise to control the UK?

meritocratic oligarchy would be an ideal form of government (that pops into mind right now). of course you can't really implement it (who is to decide who deserves to rule?).

You could solve this problem through freedom of association- follow who you want, don't listen to those who you disagree with, and no one can aggress against another person.

You could solve this problem through freedom of association- follow who you want, don't listen to those who you disagree with, and no one can aggress against another person.

So it wouldn't even be a real "oligarchy" but rather just voluntary associations of people following someone for their own personal reasons?

Puddingocracy FTW!! It's nearly as popular as the alternative to democracy

Puddingocracy FTW!

Really? So a cruel hippo could rise to control the UK?

You telling me you wouldn't vote for a hippo? Seriously?!

Come on, think about it. We'd be the awesomest nation ever.

Really? So a cruel hippo could rise to control the UK?

If a cruel hippo told me what to do, I'm not sure I'd argue with it.

and a Caliphate is the superior form of government, which was my original point.

Why?
Why is rule of a single man Caliph, controled only by clerics, who are not monitored in any way by normal people, preferable to democraty?
Give me reasons beyond "Its how Koran says" because I read it, and it don't says so.

So it wouldn't even be a real "oligarchy" but rather just voluntary associations of people following someone for their own personal reasons?

It's a voluntary oligarchy; they follow people who they believe are good leaders.

It's a voluntary oligarchy; they follow people who they believe are good leaders.

So in reality it would actually be freer than democracy? If you don't like that leader, you can just disassociate yourself from them?

That's better than a representative democracy where you're stuck with whoever 50.1% of the population chose for a set amount of time, and you can't change leaders until the next election.

I believe in a system of a heavily balanced,convuluted Federal system with limited responsiveness to the people.On the other hand,it needs to be have little power aside from managing the military.Sort of what most of us conservatives have always believed in.

no one can aggress against another person.

Who enforces this?

Who enforces this?

A network of judges and police forces working upon common law.

So in reality it would actually be freer than democracy? If you don't like that leader, you can just disassociate yourself from them?

That's better than a representative democracy where you're stuck with whoever 50.1% of the population chose for a set amount of time, and you can't change leaders until the next election.

Yep, that's right. :)

Personaly I belive in meritocraty.
I belive that things people get for free they don't value.
If we had to earn right to vote, we'd vote. If we had to earn right to vote we'd be more careful who we vote for. But more to the point, if we had to earn right to be voted FOR and could easily lose that right politicians would be more careful.
Ofcorse what I truly belive is far more complex, but this is short version

A network of judges and police forces working upon common law.

Who we just trust to be benevolent rulers?

Remind me again how this solves the problem?

I believe in democracy, for innumerable reasons.

None of the alternatives even approach being capable of governing a modern society justly.

I know it's probably a majority, but I'm curious as to how many of you believe in democracy and how many don't, and the reasons why.

Edit: Democracy includes both participatory and representative democracy.

I'm pretty sure someone has said this, but I'm absolutely positive democracy exists. It's pretty hard to not believe in it.

Now, if you meant how many people support the idea of democracy as a good system or the best system of government, well, that's a different question. I agree with representative democracy provided the power of those representatives is limited. Very limited.

Personaly I belive in meritocraty.
I belive that things people get for free they don't value.
If we had to earn right to vote, we'd vote. If we had to earn right to vote we'd be more careful who we vote for. But more to the point, if we had to earn right to be voted FOR and could easily lose that right politicians would be more careful.
Ofcorse what I truly belive is far more complex, but this is short version

How do you objectively determine merit? Even more important, who determiens merit?

Who we just trust to be benevolent rulers?

Remind me again how this solves the problem?

Because the people will automatically work amongst each other to protect against injustice. If a police force tries to bully a group of people, they will have to battle against an armed populace, but if they are getting just restitution or retribution they will have a free hand to promote the law. Same for the judges. It solves the problem because we have freedom for people to choose their government, but in doing so people must respect one another or face the consequences.

Because the people will automatically work amongst each other to protect against injustice. If a police force tries to bully a group of people, they will have to battle against an armed populace, but if they are getting just restitution or retribution they will have a free hand to promote the law.

Ah, so what is just is what the people will not resist.

Sounds awfully democratic to me. Why not dispense with the need for violence, and instead go with a directly democratic government?

So long as the violent shallow passions of the masses are held in check by iron shackles of a constitution that protects liberty, and that the government itself is restrained from overstepping its bounds through decentralization...Then yes I believe in democracy.

Why not dispense with the need for violence, and instead go with a directly democratic government?

Because most people are too stupid to handle such a thing.

Ah, so what is just is what the people will not resist.

Sounds awfully democratic to me. Why not dispense with the need for violence, and instead go with a directly democratic government?

I suppose it might be democratic, in a sense, in that each individual by virtue of his equal human essence has power to be respected. But it is also oligarchical in that some people are better endowed than others in form and are thus better at performing certain jobs. This would include leadership skills. Thus, this system would be the best for putting power in the hands of those who are best at leading.

Also, I do not see how direct democracy is any cure for violence. There will always be a need for violence as a defense against tyrants and those who would wish to do us harm, unless we wish to surrender ourselves to them. In a direct democracy, the slightly greater mass of people forces their will on the slightly lesser mass of people, through violence, whether insinuated or actual. Thus, the direct democratic system is unnecessarily violent.

Trilby63;12118014']Are you being ironic?

Or do you just not realise that communism is an economic model whilst democracy is merely a system to elect rulers.

Communism is a form of totalitarian government based on an economic model we call socialism. Democracy, in its purest form, is a government system founded on the principle of popular rule. Elected rulers come in a representative democracy, or republic.

How do you objectively determine merit? Even more important, who determiens merit?

Thats simple.
System of social credit. (not that whacko social credit idiocity from 40ies) People who put in work and time into something that benefits society and not them, get awarded social credits. Harder work more credits. Work has to be hard and rather unappealing, so it takes determination to do it. Also everyone gets work. If blind man in wheelchair wants it, he gets work, something suited for him, but something that still takes hard work on his part per his abilities.
Everyone COULD earn the right, but it would take work and determination to earn it.
You can also lose social credit by commiting crimes or fellonies.
It would take alot more credits to be voted for then to vote. IT would clear politics of lazy people without any capabilities. Also abuse of priviledge would mean losing all your credits.

Because most people are too stupid to handle such a thing.

*blink*

Seig heil, mein fuhrer! :rolleyes:

Thats simple.
System of social credit. (not that whacko social credit idiocity from 40ies) People who put in work and time into something that benefits society and not them, get awarded social credits. Harder work more credits. Work has to be hard and rather unappealing, so it takes determination to do it. Also everyone gets work. If blind man in wheelchair wants it, he gets work, something suited for him, but something that still takes hard work on his part per his abilities.
Everyone COULD earn the right, but it would take work and determination to earn it.
You can also lose social credit by commiting crimes or fellonies.
It would take alot more credits to be voted for then to vote. IT would clear politics of lazy people without any capabilities. Also abuse of priviledge would mean losing all your credits.

That is not simple and it is open to abuse. Someone has to oversee this system, and whoever that is will be de factor ruler. This idea will lead to dictatorship.

Because most people are too stupid to handle such a thing.

Yeah, and who decides who isn't?

If the people are smart enough to decide who should rule them, why aren't they smart enough to rule for themselves?

If the people aren't smart enough to decide who should rule them, who else should decide that?

I suppose it might be democratic, in a sense, in that each individual by virtue of his equal human essence has power to be respected.

No, it is democratic in that the rulers are kept in check by the will of the people.

What I don't understand is why, if the guarantee of the justness of rule is the will of the people, you wish to mediate democracy through the vehicle of the armed populace rather than merely using more traditional means, like elections.

Also, I do not see how direct democracy is any cure for violence. There will always be a need for violence as a defense against tyrants and those who would wish to do us harm, unless we wish to surrender ourselves to them.

You misunderstand. It permits democracy to function non-violently; it doesn't remove the need for violence if the democracy becomes oppressive.

Of course, your system has no capability to deal with the excesses of democracy either.

Yeah, and who decides who isn't?

No one. No one's smart enough to decide that, either. :(

Thats simple.
System of social credit. (not that whacko social credit idiocity from 40ies) People who put in work and time into something that benefits society and not them, get awarded social credits. Harder work more credits. Work has to be hard and rather unappealing, so it takes determination to do it. Also everyone gets work. If blind man in wheelchair wants it, he gets work, something suited for him, but something that still takes hard work on his part per his abilities.
Everyone COULD earn the right, but it would take work and determination to earn it.
You can also lose social credit by commiting crimes or fellonies.
It would take alot more credits to be voted for then to vote. IT would clear politics of lazy people without any capabilities. Also abuse of priviledge would mean losing all your credits.

Great. And who--not to mention how--would keep track of these credits? I'm thinking a tremendous supercomputer that tags into individual chipsets in each person. And then we're looking at a Big Brother that would undermine the system...

No one. No one's smart enough to decide that, either. :(

Then give them the benefit of the doubt, and let everyone live their lives and leave them the f*** alone.

No, it is democratic in that the rulers are kept in check by the will of the people.

What I don't understand is why, if the guarantee of the justness of rule is the will of the people, you wish to mediate democracy through the vehicle of the armed populace rather than merely using more traditional means, like elections.

Because elections, as well as other traditional methods, are meaningless without a means of resisting exploitation by the political class. With an armed populace, the individual can resist a tyrannical majority, whereas with elections the individual is a slave to the tyrannical majority.

You misunderstand. It permits democracy to function non-violently; it doesn't remove the need for violence if the democracy becomes oppressive.

Of course, your system has no capability to deal with the excesses of democracy either.

Yes, it does. An armed populace is both a deterrent against and a means to resist exploitation by tyrants, whether democratic, oligarchical, or monarchical. This is the only truly effective method to deal with any kind of tyranny. To deny the individual his right to self-determination is no less than tyranny, no matter how it is dressed up.

That is not simple and it is open to abuse. Someone has to oversee this system, and whoever that is will be de factor ruler. This idea will lead to dictatorship.

I never said it was simple. Or that it wasnt open to abuse. But lets be honest to ourselves right now, democraty is even more open to abuse.
There are ways to insure people who control it stay clean. They have to be elected. They get only one 2 year mandate every 20 years. They have to be volonteers who agree on complete lack of privacy during their tenure their money and all papers are open to public and all their conversations available for law enforcement.
I don't say this is perfect, because there is no such thing as perfect, But I honestly belive its better then what we have.

Great. And who--not to mention how--would keep track of these credits? I'm thinking a tremendous supercomputer that tags into individual chipsets in each person. And then we're looking at a Big Brother that would undermine the system...

Umm if its public work, and it would have to be, it would be same as getting salary from your employer, only more public.
You could check on it like you check your bank account.

With an armed populace, the individual can resist a tyrannical majority

Um, no, she can't. The majority still wins. It just does so violently.

I won't deny that it exists but i don't believe it has ever really been used in a nations government.

Um, no, she can't. The majority still wins. It just does so violently.

The individual wins, because the majority is A.) Far more hesitant to impose, seeing as they face a personal risk through their actions, and B.) Actually face a personal risk if they go on through with their intentions. This is how supposedly less strong groups of people were able to resist their oppressors, such as the Haitians against the French, Americans against the British, Swiss against the Austrians, etc.

I never said it was simple. Or that it wasnt open to abuse. But lets be honest to ourselves right now, democraty is even more open to abuse.
There are ways to insure people who control it stay clean. They have to be elected. They get only one 2 year mandate every 20 years. They have to be volonteers who agree on complete lack of privacy during their tenure their money and all papers are open to public and all their conversations available for law enforcement.
I don't say this is perfect, because there is no such thing as perfect, But I honestly belive its better then what we have.

The only solution to the problem is to get rid of positions of authority and have direct democracy. Any other system is prone to huge abuses of power and the ever present possibility of dictatorship.

Really? So a cruel hippo could rise to control the UK?

Animals cannot be creul. Creulty is a human quality.

Umm if its public work, and it would have to be, it would be same as getting salary from your employer, only more public.
You could check on it like you check your bank account.

Right. And the nature of the employer, as is the nature of all humans, would be to issue credit without prejudice?

The individual wins, because the majority is A.) Far more hesitant to impose, seeing as they face a personal risk through their actions, and B.) Actually face a personal risk if they go on through with their intentions.

And the individual is in exactly the same boat.

Only if the loss to the individual is greater than the benefit to others will this logic work, and in the case of many of the individual rights you seek to protect, like property rights, this would not at all be the case.

The only solution to the problem is to get rid of positions of authority and have direct democracy. Any other system is prone to huge abuses of power and the ever present possibility of dictatorship.

Thats true I guess. But then again same goes for Democraty. It was made for small city-states not superstates.

Animals cannot be creul. Creulty is a human quality.

Cruelty is a human quality. Animals are instinctive, thus they cannot be cruel.

Thats true I guess. But then again same goes for Democraty. It was made for small city-states not superstates.

All that is required is a decentralization of authority.

The individual wins, because the majority is A.) Far more hesitant to impose, seeing as they face a personal risk through their actions, and B.) Actually face a personal risk if they go on through with their intentions. This is how supposedly less strong groups of people were able to resist their oppressors, such as the Haitians against the French, Americans against the British, Swiss against the Austrians, etc.

Acctually no. Lets remember hungarians against russians.
Admitedly it worked in the past. But this days majority has heatseeking missiles, tanks, f-14s and Navy SEALS. Individual loses by dafult.
Sadly age of Heroes when 300 could stand against Persian superpower are gone. If modern spartans defied modern Persia they wouldn't get a fair fight. They would be bomebed from stealth bombers and then attacked with better trained and better armed troops. And if all else failed Deprived Uranium bombs.

All that is required is a decentralization of authority.

And we all know how easily politicians give up authority.

And we all know how easily politicians give up authority.

We abolish them. Power to the people, workers of the world unite, or whatever rallying slogan you like. :)

And the individual is in exactly the same boat.

Only if the loss to the individual is greater than the benefit to others will this logic work, and in the case of many of the individual rights you seek to protect, like property rights, this would not at all be the case.

But people would naturally want to remain secure from being plundered by others; minimizing risk is an important part of purposeful action (this is why we have insurance.) The individual would not be completely oblivious of the dangers to his security, and then one day be abruptly attacked and simply capitulate. The individual would work to insure his security. He could also work with other individuals who also want to insure their security, and thus increase their security as a whole. They will form better and better networks of security so as to provide both deterrents and actual resistance to the initiations of force. Thus, the individual will be secure with all of his rights, including property.

We abolish them. Power to the people, workers of the world unite, or whatever rallying slogan you like. :)

I don't like rallying slogans. They are usually shouted by the guy wearing only booletproof vest, only helmet and sitting in the safe house while people who belive them charge guns.

Acctually no. Lets remember hungarians against russians.

The same Russians who were beaten in Afghanistan?

But people would naturally want to remain secure from being plundered by others; minimizing risk is an important part of purposeful action (this is why we have insurance.) The individual would not be completely oblivious of the dangers to his security, and then one day be abruptly attacked and simply capitulate. The individual would work to insure his security. He could also work with other individuals who also want to insure their security, and thus increase their security as a whole. They will form better and better networks of security so as to provide both deterrents and actual resistance to the initiations of force.

Sounds like governments to me.

Thus, the individual will be secure with all of his rights, including property.

Why do you think that the result of this kind of structure will care much about property rights?

Perhaps one of the aims of the associations of individuals will be expropriating the capitalists, for instance.

Sounds like governments to me.

I never said government is bad. I do think the state is bad, but there is such a thing as good administration.

Why do you think that the result of this kind of structure will care much about capitalist property rights?

Perhaps one of the aims of the associations of individuals will be expropriating the capitalists, for instance.

Well, I don't think entrepeneurs would take kindly to people robbing them, so they'd try to get security like anyone else. So most likely people will stay away from bothering them. But I don't see any problem in people forming communes where everyone shares what they have, since this would be a contractual relationship between individuals. I'm not sure how efficient it would be, but I wouldn't begrudge people their ability to form such a contract. But neither should those who wish to maintain private property be begrudged of such a capacity.

The same Russians who were beaten in Afghanistan?

Because they didn't apply their full power in fear of pissing americans off.
And tell me, what would have afgani did if Russians had no americans to fear and said "Screw that" nuked two cities and then said "Surrender or we nuke five more"
which WAS proposed but fear of USA retaliation stopped it.

I never said government is bad. I do think the state is bad, but there is such a thing as good administration.

But these governments will necessarily violate free association to a degree - at least if they are supposed to resolve conflicts.

Well, I don't think entrepeneurs would take kindly to people robbing them, so they'd try to get security like anyone else.

Yeah, but so what? How do you know that they would win? They can say "you're violating my property rights!" all day, but what if their opponents don't care?

If they're capable of defending their factory from their enemies, aren't their enemies capable of defending it from them as well?

This is one of the things I don't understand about anarcho-capitalists... perhaps order will result from privatizing the government, but I see no reason to expect that the kind of order resulting will be the kind of order you desire.

Because they didn't apply their full power in fear of pissing americans off.
And tell me, what would have afgani did if Russians had no americans to fear and said "Screw that" nuked two cities and then said "Surrender or we nuke five more"
which WAS proposed but fear of USA retaliation stopped it.

I doubt they'd seriously nuke a place that they wished to conquer; that's like smashing something you wish to have. (And both sides on the Cold War were always considering nuking things; it was like a hobby.) But the Afghans were able to hold off a much more powerful, larger force than they. This also happened in Vietnam, and in Kosovo (The Serbs used a variety of techniques to throw off NATO bombs, resulting in far lower casualties than NATO announced.) So, with enough tenacity, a weaker force can hold off a stronger one, with time.

I don't like democracy.

I prefer liberty.

You can have one or the other, but not both. They're mutually exclusive.

But these governments will necessarily violate free association to a degree - at least if they are supposed to resolve conflicts.

How would they violate free association? By making people follow through on their words? Absolute freedom is not possible, because it is a contradiction. Thus, there is no violation of freedom of association if people agree to use certain people to resolve conflict.

Yeah, but so what? How do you know that they would win? They can say "you're violating my property rights!" all day, but what if their opponents don't care?

Well, they'd do the same, natural thing that all people do when they feel their rights are being violated- they resist. That's why arms are so important to preserving freedom, because if you don't have any methods to counteract force then you're just a slave waiting for a master.

If they're capable of defending their factory from their enemies, aren't their enemies capable of defending it from them as well?

I don't understand what you mean by "defending it from them as well."

This is one of the things I don't understand about anarcho-capitalists... perhaps order will result from privatizing the government, but I see no reason to expect that the kind of order resulting will be the kind of order you desire.

I just want to say I never said I was an anarcho-capitalist. I'm more of an individualist, really, who believes in freedom of action, one of which's manifestations are freedom of association- something that the state necessarily violates through its monopoly on force. While I think a stateless society may have insurance protection companies, I'm more inclined to think that a civic, pro-liberty spirit will draw people to defend themselves and one another from tyrants, through mechanisms such as neighborhood militias etc. Hence the voluntary oligarchs. With an armed populace ready to enforce rights and not merely relegate them to ivory-tower dreaming, I think that such a society will be far closer to my individualist ideals than any other type of government.

I doubt they'd seriously nuke a place that they wished to conquer; that's like smashing something you wish to have. (And both sides on the Cold War were always considering nuking things; it was like a hobby.) But the Afghans were able to hold off a much more powerful, larger force than they. This also happened in Vietnam, and in Kosovo (The Serbs used a variety of techniques to throw off NATO bombs, resulting in far lower casualties than NATO announced.) So, with enough tenacity, a weaker force can hold off a stronger one, with time.

Dude for one every single thing you are describing is NATION fighting NATION. Not nation fighting individuals.
Its not same even when stronger nation fights weaker one.
And second Serbs were completly crushed by NATO. Their goverment collapsed, their leader ended in war crimes tribunal where he died and their military is still recovering. And lets talk about NATO casulties... oh yeah one plane and no men.
Bad example

Democracy is just organised stupidity. I propose intelligence-based meritocracy.

How does that work?

I suggested to someone once that, in order for your vote to be counted, you should have to match the parties in your constituency to their main policies.
Only problem is, Labour and the Conservatives are so similar now, even their leaders wouldn't know which was which!

Correction: they would at the moment; Tories don't have many policies yet

How would they violate free association? By making people follow through on their words?

Sure, that's one way.

And by preventing people from killing each other, and stealing each other's property, and so on.

if people agree to use certain people to resolve conflict.

And if I don't agree, and then go up and shoot someone?

Well, they'd do the same, natural thing that all people do when they feel their rights are being violated- they resist. That's why arms are so important to preserving freedom, because if you don't have any methods to counteract force then you're just a slave waiting for a master.

Of course. And you'll note that plenty of people have felt that their rights were violated, even when they weren't, by your conception of rights.

I don't understand what you mean by "defending it from them as well."

They seize it and defend it against reconquest.

Let's assume for the moment that they're the actual workers in the factory. I think they have a better chance if that's the case.

I just want to say I never said I was an anarcho-capitalist. I'm more of an individualist, really, who believes in freedom of action, one of which's manifestations are freedom of association- something that the state necessarily violates through its monopoly on force. While I think a stateless society may have insurance protection companies, I'm more inclined to think that a civic, pro-liberty spirit will draw people to defend themselves and one another from tyrants, through mechanisms such as neighborhood militias etc. Hence the voluntary oligarchs. With an armed populace ready to enforce rights and not merely relegate them to ivory-tower dreaming, I think that such a society will be far closer to my individualist ideals than any other type of government.

The same objection applies, however.

The neighborhood militia might object, for instance, to layoffs from the neighborhood factory, seize it, and put it under the control of the neighborhood soviet.

@greill: your replacement for democracy sounds more like a corporatist system emerging from anarchy. it may be adequate for a while but it will eventually end up in imperial authoritarianism...

what i was saying earlier about oligarchy was intended more like a meritocratic caste system, but i did not say it because it will automatically mean it would be abused by the upper caste, and right of birth would replace meritocracy... also modern society is a bit too complex to be divided into castes (hell... everyone calls me a postmodernist so yeah... it's all too complicated for anything as simple of this but it's a nice thought)

Dude for one every single thing you are describing is NATION fighting NATION. Not nation fighting individuals.
Its not same even when stronger nation fights weaker one.
And second Serbs were completly crushed by NATO. Their goverment collapsed, their leader ended in war crimes tribunal where he died and their military is still recovering. And lets talk about NATO casulties... oh yeah one plane and no men.
Bad example

But they're still valid examples of weaker forces (minority or individual) fighting off a stronger nation (majority). Also, the Serbs were not crushed. They only lost a handful of tanks and other vehicles, and used a variety of cunning decoys to trick Nato into wasting their bombs. Most of the "kills" that NATO scored were decoys being destroyed. The collapse of their government only came much later in an election, and the Serbs captured Milosevic themselves after said election. NATO had to call off the war with the impending winter and did not achieve its desired aims (namely positioning of NATO troops in Serbia and freedom of access through the country, basically an occupation), but rather had to go to terms that Milosevic had previously agreed to. Sure, they did not inflict significant harm on NATO, but they were able to resist it quite effectively

Sure, that's one way.

Then you believe in absolute freedom, which is a logical contradiction.

And by preventing people from killing each other, and stealing each other's property, and so on.

Is this objectionable to you that people cannot go around and murder?

And if I don't agree, and then go up and shoot someone?

You're violating another person's freedom of action, which you do not own. Ergo, it is proper to stop and punish you from acting in such a manner.

Of course. And you'll note that plenty of people have felt that their rights were violated, even when they weren't, by your conception of rights.

OK, but if their rights don't impose on others, then there's no problem, and they're welcome to it. See, I don't ethically object to anarcho-communism, so long as it doesn't involve violence and is completely contractual. I might not be so sure about their efficiency, but if the individuals are happy to do it, then let them.

They seize it and defend it against reconquest.

Then they take it back, with more aid; who's to say that they will just stop at one factory, when they can take more? People's liberty is not separate, but rather intertwined with everyone else's.

Let's assume for the moment that they're the actual workers in the factory. I think they have a better chance if that's the case.

Again, see above.

The same objection applies, however.

The neighborhood militia might object, for instance, to layoffs from the neighborhood factory, seize it, and put it under the control of the neighborhood soviet.

Then they're forcing their will onto others, because they have no right to force someone to take their labor in exchange for money. They might try and seize it, but they would be looked upon suspiciously for not having gone to arbitration but rather simply initiating an invasion, and the factory owner will likely have some kind of protective arrangement. Even if this protective arrangement fails, others will punish the aggressive soviet for their own security and in solidarity with those who had their assets stolen.

Democracy has limits that lower its effectiveness significantly. The largest problem being the fact that most people are stupid, too stupid to know whats good for them when other individuals who are more qualified are left in a minority too small to influence change.

Its not that other systems that see practice ae that great, but democracy is too 'the people' oriented.

I believe in a system of a heavily balanced,convuluted Federal system with limited responsiveness to the people.On the other hand,it needs to be have little power aside from managing the military.Sort of what most of us conservatives have always believed in.
and never practiced.

I don't like rallying slogans. They are usually shouted by the guy wearing only booletproof vest, only helmet and sitting in the safe house while people who belive them charge guns.

Come on, don't you want just yell it once at the top of your lungs? :p

*blink*

Seig heil, mein fuhrer! :rolleyes:

Nice flamebait there. Show me where I endorsed Nazism. Oh, wait - you can't.

Then give them the benefit of the doubt, and let everyone live their lives and leave them the f*** alone.

As long as they grant me the same courtesy, then yes.

Nice flamebait there. Show me where I endorsed Nazism. Oh, wait - you can't.

It has been my experience that anytime someone says that "The people are too stupid to manage," they are ususally just justifying dictatorships. I didn't call you a Nazi. I just did what I do everytime someone endorses hierarchy. Sorry if the urge to be sarcastic was misinterpreted.

I don't favor democracy as it has been tried everywhere so far. Giving a genius person the same amount of political power as a redneck will never work.

It has been my experience that anytime someone says that "The people are too stupid to manage," they are ususally just justifying dictatorships. I didn't call you a Nazi. I just did what I do everytime someone endorses hierarchy. Sorry if the urge to be sarcastic was misinterpreted.

No problem. I apologize, too.

Personally, I favor a "let people do whatever the hell they want as long as they're not hurting, exploiting, abusing, or violating the rights of, anyone else-ocracy"

You know, for all the people aping the "people are stupid" sentiment in this thread, it is astounding that none of you include yourselves with that sentiment. Just imagine how many of those "people" feel the exact same way about other "people" - yourselves included. That should clear some things up. :rolleyes:

“People” are not stupid, they are mediocre. There is a difference. A person can be brilliant, an imbecile, or anything in between. It really is depressing how a person runs into a moron and reinforces the sentiment that people are stupid, but runs into a genius without altering the same sentiment. The real kicker though, is that your average person defines intelligence as something that he possesses and the “masses” lack while countless highly educated and intelligent individuals argue endlessly and unsuccessfully about the actual definition of intelligence.

The truth is that there are many different types of intellect. An idiot savant like Kim Peek can read a page of text in 10 seconds, finish a book in a matter of hours, remember every single word of it, but he still can’t function on a day to day basis without the help of his father. Compare him with da Vinci, Sigmund Freud, Shakespeare, and Bede, the Venerable. On the contrary, consider a barely educated gangster who nevertheless demonstrates all the cunning of an ancient warlord. There are nearly as many types of intellect as there are intellectuals, and they absolutely can not be measured uniformly. An architect can not be measured against the same standard as an author. An orator that could influence thousands with words alone may very well suck at mathematics. You do not judge Einstein in the same light as Gandhi. Isaac Asimov once wrote an essay of sorts on this, “What is intelligence, anyway?” and echoed the same sentiment when be compared himself with his mechanic.

For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests [Military aptitude test on which Asimov scored 160], could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles–and he always fixed my car.

Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I’d prove myself a moron. And, I’d be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.

So, in that light, let us return to the subject of Democracy. Since its inception in the Greek city-states, democracy has always been plagued by its principle flaw. The people would always find themselves ruled by petty demagogues. The people whose intellect lent itself well to manipulating other people. In short, the best bullshiters among all the other bullshiters. This sort of person is not necessarily the best at actually governing anything, merely getting elected. Or, to quote Douglas Adams, “Anyone who is capable of being elected president should on no account be allowed to do the job.” You will find that there are many morons capable of being elected, many geniuses incapable, and many of the precise opposite. Of course, once you give someone power, it’s only logical that said person will desire to keep it and increase it. Democracies have a tendency to evolve into oligarchies, oligarchies into dictatorships. Yes, checks and balances can be made, but they never last… Certainly not in America, either.

Merit is an interesting concept when it comes to governing. The best rulers of the Roman empire were those actually selected to rule based on their ability to do so, rather then simply being born into the position, or those capable of gaining it by force. How, then, do you judge merit, who does the judging, and to what extend does the power given extend? Democracy? Eh… Houston, we have a problem. It is no surprise that monarchies have given us the best and absolute worst rulers the world has ever seen. It is impossible to truly judge the worth of man sufficiently to simply GIVE him that type of power and no one has the moral authority to place one person in an absolutist position above all others. Of course, neither of those problems ever stopped anyone in the past, but I digress. Perhaps the best judge of merit is the crucible of experience, but that certainly is not without its own problems. “The best man for the job” is still highly subjective.

Meanwhile, while we are here bickering over stupidity and politics, thousands of years of human history has past us by. Try to have a little perspective on the matter. A few hundred years ago nearly every nation on Earth was a monarchy. Today, many still are. Some wear the cloak and speak the language of “democracy” but very few even come close to the ideal. If it even is an ideal. If history tells us anything, it is that humanity is doomed to be ruled the cruelest, the most deceptive, or the luckiest bastards that can be mustered. Meanwhile, anyone intelligent enough to perform the job is ridiculed endlessly, killed, or better yet, would balk at the very idea of having that responsibility over others.

Personally, the best system of government isn’t a system of government at all. It is a cultural mentality. A collection of memes passed from one generation to the next with the intention of holding every man and woman to a single standard. To be brief; respect for your ancestors, humility at the prospect of the future, mutual honor for your peers, responsibility to humanity, and complete devotion to personal excellence in any field. There is no reason why the same system of cultural indoctrination that makes women thrilled at the prospect of genital mutilation in Africa and is used to justify countless other despicable acts of brutality the world over could not be used to create a decent society. If people are raised to revere equality and respect, value education in all its forms, and willingly embrace self-restraint in exchange for prosperity, then government in all but it’s most basic form would be all but unnecessary.

Obviously, that is a pipedream. An impossible and ever elusive ideal that no one gives two shits about and no one would follow because, for no better reason, exploitation and domination is so much more fucking fun!

Do I believe in democracy? I'd say the evidence strongly points towards its existence.:p

Democracy isn't the perfect form of government a lot of people usually claim it is. It is, however, the best way we humans found to avoid internecine wars. So I assume that I support democracy, although I realise that most voters are usually totally clueless about the issues they're voting on. *Sigh*

You cannot be totally supportive of democracy when you've seen voters support Berlusconi and his ilk, you know...

No problem. I apologize, too.

Personally, I favor a "let people do whatever the hell they want as long as they're not hurting, exploiting, abusing, or violating the rights of, anyone else-ocracy"

I think the best way we can get to that is with decentralized direct democracy. Keep decision making as local as possible, and guaruntee free association and the right of secession.

You know, for all the people aping the "people are stupid" sentiment in this thread, it is astounding that none of you include yourselves with that sentiment.

I include myself.

And if most people are too stupid to govern themselves, I don't see how a dictator (who is arguably at least as stupid) would make things any better. But meh, I'd go for puddingocracy.

I think the best way we can get to that is with decentralized direct democracy. Keep decision making as local as possible, and guaruntee free association and the right of secession.

Sounds excellent.

I belive in the republic-democracy combo

democracy is a joke. if it actually existed (it doesn't) it would probably not be any better than any other form of government. as it is, people BEG to give up their power to whoever asks them for it first.

And if most people are too stupid to govern themselves, I don't see how a dictator (who is arguably at least as stupid) would make things any better.

this reply to the 'people are too stupid' argument is so obvious that i'm always amazed it even has to be made. and the weird thing is that nobody seems to build a response to it into their stupid people argument, despite its obviousness and its being pointed out repeatedly.

the best i've heard in response runs along the lines of "well, we'll only let smart people be in charge". yeah, like that's ever worked out.

the best i've heard in response runs along the lines of "well, we'll only let smart people be in charge". yeah, like that's ever worked out.

Something about intelligence without integrity. Not a good combination.

I include myself.

And if most people are too stupid to govern themselves, I don't see how a dictator (who is arguably at least as stupid) would make things any better. But meh, I'd go for puddingocracy.

Eh, it's a start.

Like I said though, the best and worst governments in history have been ruled by a single person. Caligula and Nero were both batshit insane and really couldn't be viewed on the same level of Octavion or Vespasian. Simply saying "people are stupid and so are rulers” doesn't really cut it. I'm not really endorsing democracy or autocracy here. I'm just trying to point out that intelligence is highly subjective and that competent governance is not guaranteed by election, inheritance, selection, or force.

The main problem with democracy is that the person most able to rule is rarely the one that gets chosen to do so. The guy you get is just the one who promices to screw you in the most comfortable way. Meanwhile, the shear luck involved with getting a "good" autocrat is like rolling two dice for the size of cock that is going to rape your ass sans-lube for an indefinite period of time. Sure, democracy may seem more attractive at first glance, but at the end of the day, you're still fucked up the ass.

I think the best way we can get to that is with decentralized direct democracy. Keep decision making as local as possible, and guaruntee free association and the right of secession.

I could live with that, I suppose. I always liked the idea of decentralized local government... Then again, there really isn't a truly effective way to guarantee free association. The Confederate States of America were pimping a similar ideal, but it didn't fly well for anyone slightly less then white.

Still, it’s an interesting idea if the people were actually educated and egalitarian enough to make it work.

You know what always makes me laugh?
saying "Democraty is not very good but its best we have"
Its like having a really damaged bridge people always keep walking over. Being continuosly fixed by people who have little or no knowledge of buidling, with materials that are 100 years too old.
Its better then rope bridge, and definaly better then bridge of fog. Or one made of ice in high summer. But holes in it are still deadly.
And no one is even considering building new bridge because "Its best bridge we have and our fathers sacrificed to build it"

this reply to the 'people are too stupid' argument is so obvious that i'm always amazed it even has to be made. and the weird thing is that nobody seems to build a response to it into their stupid people argument, despite its obviousness and its being pointed out repeatedly.

the best i've heard in response runs along the lines of "well, we'll only let smart people be in charge". yeah, like that's ever worked out.

The smart people are too stupid, too.

I believe in it, I just don't trust it.

Here goes, democracy is better because in democracies people don't starve for the most part. The first level of democracy guarantees the basic needs of the mob, a place to stay, something to eat, a chance to beat up on people you don't like, and some bad entertainment. No other government guarantees this effectively.

Here goes, democracy is better because in democracies people don't starve for the most part. The first level of democracy guarantees the basic needs of the mob, a place to stay, something to eat, a chance to beat up on people you don't like, and some bad entertainment. No other government guarantees this effectively.

Just to be Devils Advocate, but not many people were starving or unemployed in the totalitarian Soviet Union. Not exactly the best value criteria to judge governments.

Democracy is just another system of government in a long line of systems that have together stifled the potential of the human race through incompetence and greed.

No, me as benevolent* dictator FTW.

*is that even spelt correctly?

Democracy is the biggest heap of shit we are forced to consume. Firstly, we don't truly have it anyway (not that it'd be better if we did), even 'reprasentative democracy' is an imaginative description of the system.
Granted it is currently the best of all tested options, that does not mean we should shrug our shoulders and think ourselves lucky.

Representative democracy is the bag of shit which tastes the least bad of all of the other bags of shit we have sampled. Some speak of an alternative known as 'benevolent dictatorship', wherein you are fed shit by a arsehole who can theoretically not feed you shit if he feels like it. Others speak of an altenative known as 'meritocracy', wherein the shit in your bag varies in quality based upon the subjective evaluation of a bunch of cronyistic elitist arseholes.

Others erroneusly assume communism to be an alternative, whereas it is in facxt just the method of eating shit in which everyone mixes and divvies their shit evenly in the hope it'll taste better after the process (understandably, only those who eat bad tasting shit care for this idea). On the other hand you have capitalism, wherein you are left to go and get the best tasting shit you can find. This sounds good, except that it is usually complimented by an overweight bureaucrat who stomps your head into the ground and takes what little good shit you can get (then justifies this behaviour by spooning you some of his rancid shit in return).

All in all, it seems to me, as long as we have a government, we will find ourselves eating shit.

First off, (and it has to have been done) of course I believe in democracy. It exists.

Secondly, democracy is organised (sorta) mob rule. The majority rules the minority. Which is nice and simplistic in a way, but depressing and old-fashioned. Of course, I can't think of a better political system, and the U.S.A is functioning (almost), so I'm not going to go ahead and say we need to trash it as soon as possible. Of course, I'm not 18 so my voice dosn't count for anything according to the government....:rolleyes:

Communism is a form of totalitarian government based on an economic model we call socialism. Democracy, in its purest form, is a government system founded on the principle of popular rule. Elected rulers come in a representative democracy, or republic.

Wrong. We have never, ever seen a true communist state anywhere on the face of the planet. Advance communism as Marx called has no government. The type of country Karl Marx envisioned when he talked about communism never happened. And he is probably kicking in his grave every time he hears someone refer to the USSR, China, and Cuba as communist states.

What we need is meritocracy with a dictator. :)

Wrong. We have never, ever seen a true communist state anywhere on the face of the planet. Advance communism as Marx called has no government. The type of country Karl Marx envisioned when he talked about communism never happened. And he is probably kicking in his grave every time he hears someone refer to the USSR, China, and Cuba as communist states.

All in all, it seems to me, as long as we have a government, we will find ourselves eating shit.

We all know how well anarchy works.

A Democracy is more an advanced form of Communism.

I would say that it is a lesser, more primative form of communism. More acuratley it is facism in disguise. In a democracy you have political parties, you have to choose between two four year dictators, the lesser of two evils. In communism you vote for the person not for the party. You choose the person best for the job, not who will come in the same package as some other guy.

I know it's probably a majority, but I'm curious as to how many of you believe in democracy and how many don't, and the reasons why.

Edit: Democracy includes both participatory and representative democracy.

It's not perfect but way better than some of the other choices on the board.

Democracy doesn't work. Nazi Germany became nazi because people voted hitler in using the democratic system, present day America and the Philipines were democracies but now their what other nations call fascist. The majority of votes always wins, and if a majority gains power over and over it will do what it takes to stay in power, and then the nation's back where it started before democracy, where government could arrest people just for disagreeing with them or speaking out against them. Look at the nations I listed they match the description. If a nation is going to turn into a dictatorship I think that doing it blatantly is better than hiding it under a decade old pil of polls and votes.

Those are just my thoughts.