NationStates Jolt Archive

Iran is a popular republic within the framework of what is known as the model of the Islamic State, so while election happens for parliament and the presidency, they must be approved by the council of experts and the supreme leader to ensure that he is not taking the country away from Islamism, which is what the Revolution fought for. So while elections happen it is only a nominative 'democracy' but each candidate having alternate policy within Islamism, it sure wouldn't make sense if a candidate popped up saying his policy was to abolish Islam and enforce Christianity. This is similar to Cuba in that they have a de-facto permanent head of state, but the civil government is made up of representatives elected by the people directly, but within the framework of alternate socialism, which is what the Cuban Revolution fought for. All this talk of 'democracy' is frankly ludicrous coming from you Americans, the US is NOT a democracy, never has been, they turned from that path after they dumped the articles of confederation. Essentially the US is capitalist state, in which each candidate works within the framework of capitalism to be elected to office, so in a way the franchise in the US is more restricted than Cuba, Iran or another nominative democracy, mainly because political success in the US depends of monetary means, for example a candidate running for President would need over 50 million dollars, the political elite of the US essentially make up an aristocracy. In Cuba political or civil life is not on the principle of the 'richest wins' or 'survival of the richest' it goes on merit and policy, the same as in Iran.

For the most part, slogans such as 'freedom' and 'liberty' in the US are meaningless terms considering in monetary terms how incredibly restricted (even autocratic) the body politic of America is, 'democracy' certainly is not freedom, it is not free, in fact it's quite expensive. So please Bushiviks on this forums, please don't justify the US on the grounds of such slogans, the US has never been a democracy, it is a republic based on property.


http://www.quaylargo.com/Transformation/McCelvey.html

I think it's great that Iran has decided to send an Ambassador to NationStates. :)

I think it's great that Iran has decided to send an Ambassador to NationStates. :)

I like how they reach out. It's nice to see how they're open to options.


Seriously, the UK is a hell of a lot worse then the US in terms of freedom and democracy. You guys don't even directly elect your prime minister, and you have the highest security camera-to-person ratio in the world, as far as I know.

Oh, you're in Australia. Still, no room to talk.

I like how they reach out. It's nice to see how they're open to options.


Seriously, the UK is a hell of a lot worse then the US in terms of freedom and democracy. You guys don't even directly elect your prime minister, and you have the highest security camera-to-person ratio in the world, as far as I know.

Oh, you're in Australia. Still, no room to talk.

However, at least our Prime minister isn't nearly as capable of autocracy as your president. His entire cabinet, as the collective executive, have to agree on proposing policy.

I like how they reach out. It's nice to see how they're open to options.


Seriously, the UK is a hell of a lot worse then the US in terms of freedom and democracy. You guys don't even directly elect your prime minister, and you have the highest security camera-to-person ratio in the world, as far as I know.

Oh, you're in Australia. Still, no room to talk.

Nice way to counter my argument, NO YOURS IS WORST, I never said I liked my country.

However, at least our Prime minister isn't nearly as capable of autocracy as your president. His entire cabinet, as the collective executive, have to agree on proposing policy.

Don't forget President Bush has to sign off on what Blair thinks. Though I understand you're replacing him someone like him, but who looks different.

I like how they reach out. It's nice to see how they're open to options.


Seriously, the UK is a hell of a lot worse then the US in terms of freedom and democracy. You guys don't even directly elect your prime minister, and you have the highest security camera-to-person ratio in the world, as far as I know.

And you guys don't even directly elect your President.

And you guys don't even directly elect your President.

Fair enough. But we do have greater say.

Fair enough. But we do have greater say.

I really don't think you do. How would you?

Andaras, your perceptions of Iranian democracy are wrong for this simple reason- the elected representatives are only figureheads. All power rests with the mullahs and Khomnei.

If Andaras is the ambassador for the current Iranian government, I call the ambassador from the real Iran. No, not under the shah, the Iran for those few glorious years when Mossadegh was the Prime Minister.

I think majoritarian politics, AKA democracy, are a joke. The idea that the majority should direct the country is nothing less than an institutionalized argumentum ad populam. Besides, in any political system, ultimately only a small elite make the decisions to benefit themselves (self-interest.) All they need to do is take advantage of the rational ignorance of the population by tossing them a few scraps while they rent-seek to their hearts' content. It's the same in all of these countries, whether it be Iran, Cuba, or the USA.

Iran is a popular republic within the framework of what is known as the model of the Islamic State, so while election happens for parliament and the presidency, they must be approved by the council of experts and the supreme leader to ensure that he is not taking the country away from Islamism, which is what the Revolution fought for. So while elections happen it is only a nominative 'democracy' but each candidate having alternate policy within Islamism, it sure wouldn't make sense if a candidate popped up saying his policy was to abolish Islam and enforce Christianity. This is similar to Cuba in that they have a de-facto permanent head of state, but the civil government is made up of representatives elected by the people directly, but within the framework of alternate socialism, which is what the Cuban Revolution fought for. All this talk of 'democracy' is frankly ludicrous coming from you Americans, the US is NOT a democracy, never has been, they turned from that path after they dumped the articles of confederation. Essentially the US is capitalist state, in which each candidate works within the framework of capitalism to be elected to office, so in a way the franchise in the US is more restricted than Cuba, Iran or another nominative democracy, mainly because political success in the US depends of monetary means, for example a candidate running for President would need over 50 million dollars, the political elite of the US essentially make up an aristocracy. In Cuba political or civil life is not on the principle of the 'richest wins' or 'survival of the richest' it goes on merit and policy, the same as in Iran.

For the most part, slogans such as 'freedom' and 'liberty' in the US are meaningless terms considering in monetary terms how incredibly restricted (even autocratic) the body politic of America is, 'democracy' certainly is not freedom, it is not free, in fact it's quite expensive. So please Bushiviks on this forums, please don't justify the US on the grounds of such slogans, the US has never been a democracy, it is a republic based on property.


http://www.quaylargo.com/Transformation/McCelvey.html



So having a supreme permanent leader is better than having a changeable leader?
Why'll you have to have money to campaign for the presidency, the amount of money you spend doesn't directly make you win, which is what is implied in your post. A bunch of political ads isn't going to make mo vote for a candidate with different views than mine. You can raise money for a campaign with out being rich, you just need some support. What was so great about the Articles of Confederation? It created more problems than it solved.





For the most part, slogans such as 'freedom' and 'liberty' in the US are meaningless terms considering in monetary terms how incredibly restricted (even autocratic) the body politic of America is,

So not having supreme permanent leader decides the overall idea of policy is autocratic? Also I am quite free in what i am allowed to do, unlike the countries you mentioned.


'democracy' certainly is not freedom, it is not free, in fact it's quite expensive

Something being expensive doesn't make it not free (in the rights
sense of the word)


So please Bushiviks on this forums, please don't justify the US on the grounds of such slogans, the US has never been a democracy, it is a republic based on property.



No government is a true democracy. Democracy means direct vote on everything by the people. Any government that use representatives is a republic. My property doesn't determine the value of my parents vote. Even though we are poor, our vote counts as much as Bill Gates'. One person, One vote.

America is a representative democracy. I think you are confused on the definition of democracy. Democracy has nothing to do with who has the wherewithal to run for head of state; it has to do with some degree of political power being placed in the citizens who are otherwise uninvolved with politics. We certainly have a good degree of political power, and are given a wide range of possible electees who represent most viewpoints, as well as representation in congress. We are a democracy. A democracy of greedy fat cat materialistic jerks, perhaps, but a democracy nonetheless.

All government systems suck.

Dictatorships rock because there's less indecision, but suck because they've got more room to make the wrong decisions.

Democracy sucks because there's too much indecision, but rocks because there's less room to make the wrong decisions.

Strike a balance.

Either way, theocracies have to go. That's so 1400AD.

America is a representative democracy. I think you are confused on the definition of democracy. Democracy has nothing to do with who has the wherewithal to run for head of state; it has to do with some degree of political power being placed in the citizens who are otherwise uninvolved with politics. We certainly have a good degree of political power, and are given a wide range of possible electees who represent most viewpoints, as well as representation in congress. We are a democracy. A democracy of greedy fat cat materialistic jerks, perhaps, but a democracy nonetheless.
You're more of a Democratic Republic. But still a Republic. The degree of control you have is limited through representation and a lack of constant control of the reins. Not too often the citizens themselves can boot a leader on any level except for elections. In between, you have to trust those who represent your community.

I really don't think you do. How would you?

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over whose government sucks more.

Nice way to counter my argument, NO YOURS IS WORST, I never said I liked my country.

You have an argument? Does not seem like it to me as anyone with a brainstem knows that Iran is NOT A DEMOCRACY!

Capitalism is a red-herring, the real sinner is tradition.

Capitalism is a red-herring, the real sinner is tradition.

Tradition is a red herring; the real sinner, if tradition is a problem, is whatever social system tradition entrenches.

Tradition is a red herring; the real sinner, if tradition is a problem, is whatever social system tradition entrenches.

The root cause of both of these situations the OP described is a mindless adherence to tradition. In all cases, adherence to tradition taken alone is bad.

The root cause of both of these situations the OP described is a mindless adherence to tradition.

It is not "mindless adherence" to anything, but simply the natural tendency in class societies for the privileged to defend their privileges with their power.

It is not "mindless adherence" to anything, but simply the natural tendency in class societies for the privileged to defend their privileges with their power.

And in neither situation is power perpetuated mainly by physical might, rather in the endless ability of younger generations to accept the vacuous moralizing of older generations.

Iran is a popular republic within the framework of what is known as the model of the Islamic State, so while election happens for parliament and the presidency, they must be approved by the council of experts and the supreme leader to ensure that he is not taking the country away from Islamism, which is what the Revolution fought for. So while elections happen it is only a nominative 'democracy' but each candidate having alternate policy within Islamism, it sure wouldn't make sense if a candidate popped up saying his policy was to abolish Islam and enforce Christianity. This is similar to Cuba in that they have a de-facto permanent head of state, but the civil government is made up of representatives elected by the people directly, but within the framework of alternate socialism, which is what the Cuban Revolution fought for. What if the people decide that the revolution was a bad idea and don't want its ideals to be upheld anymore?

What if the people decide that the revolution was a bad idea and don't want its ideals to be upheld anymore?

They made a social contract and have to live up to it. :D

They made a social contract and have to live up to it. :DLol. Nah, not if most of the parties in the contract don't want to. They can make a new one.

Iran is a popular republic within the framework of what is known as the model of the Islamic State, so while election happens for parliament and the presidency, they must be approved by the council of experts and the supreme leader to ensure that he is not taking the country away from Islamism, which is what the Revolution fought for. So while elections happen it is only a nominative 'democracy' but each candidate having alternate policy within Islamism, it sure wouldn't make sense if a candidate popped up saying his policy was to abolish Islam and enforce Christianity. This is similar to Cuba in that they have a de-facto permanent head of state, but the civil government is made up of representatives elected by the people directly, but within the framework of alternate socialism, which is what the Cuban Revolution fought for. All this talk of 'democracy' is frankly ludicrous coming from you Americans, the US is NOT a democracy, never has been, they turned from that path after they dumped the articles of confederation. Essentially the US is capitalist state, in which each candidate works within the framework of capitalism to be elected to office, so in a way the franchise in the US is more restricted than Cuba, Iran or another nominative democracy, mainly because political success in the US depends of monetary means, for example a candidate running for President would need over 50 million dollars, the political elite of the US essentially make up an aristocracy. In Cuba political or civil life is not on the principle of the 'richest wins' or 'survival of the richest' it goes on merit and policy, the same as in Iran.

For the most part, slogans such as 'freedom' and 'liberty' in the US are meaningless terms considering in monetary terms how incredibly restricted (even autocratic) the body politic of America is, 'democracy' certainly is not freedom, it is not free, in fact it's quite expensive. So please Bushiviks on this forums, please don't justify the US on the grounds of such slogans, the US has never been a democracy, it is a republic based on property.


http://www.quaylargo.com/Transformation/McCelvey.html

Hmmm...I see someone here does not fully understand how elections work in Iran!

Andaras, your perceptions of Iranian democracy are wrong for this simple reason- the elected representatives are only figureheads. All power rests with the mullahs and Khomnei.

I could not have said it better myself.

If Andaras is the ambassador for the current Iranian government, I call the ambassador from the real Iran. No, not under the shah, the Iran for those few glorious years when Mossadegh was the Prime Minister.

I agree entirely.

Andaras Prime will bend over backwards to support Iran's theocracy because it is opposed to the ebil J00 pigz.

Strangely enough, I don't believe Andaras Prime defended the Iranian political system anywhere.

Indeed, he said that its "democracy" was purely nominal, not substantive.

While Iran has an interesting political system, I don't see how its nominal use of democracy somehow diminishes democracy in the US. Both are republics, and frankly all 'democratic' nations are. The degree of democratization is the key here, and the US is far more open and user-friendly than Iran.

Granted, the US is a capitalist nation, and the mechanics of campaign finance require large sums of money to play politician. The two major political parties are riddled with corporate interests, and this does indeed limit the ability of the individual to make changes to the system. However, taking the system as it is (without campaign finance reform), it's a system that endorses the 'most capable' to run for office (most capable being that they can amass the most capital... either through personal endeavour, or corporate support.) Whether or not one believes that is a noble pursuit or not, it has left the US as the world's leading economic power, one where everyone has a say in the system, and in fact can say pretty much anything they want about the people in power. Not so with Iran's 'Supreme Leader'.

In the US, any person with ambition, and the ability to succeed in the capitalist world, can be the Chief Executive if they can persuade their fellow citizens to support them. In Iran, The Supreme Leader is nominally elected and censored by the 'experts' (who have never voiced dissent against the Supreme Leader, not to mention the candidates for Supreme Leader are chosen by a panel selected by the previous Supreme Leader.)

Yes, the US could use campaign finance reform, a less archaic form of electing the executive, and more than 2 options at the polls. However, to claim that it's not democratic is just wrong. The 'freedom' implied is a way of life, and the ability to have public discourse amongst the general populace without fear of secret police slipping into your home at night. Iran and Cuba would not let the populace demonize their leaders, as much as the US public does with theirs. That is part and parcel of democracy, which neither Cuba nor Iran really have.

Lol. Nah, not if most of the parties in the contract don't want to. They can make a new one.

But isn't that silly? Why should the 51 have the power to tell the 49 what they should do? Shouldn't the 49 have determination of their own?

The OP is laughable.

I'm sorry, Americans don't fall in line with your fringe economic beliefs? That doesn't make us undemocratic by any stretch of the imagination. It just means you're a left-wing whackjob.

But isn't that silly? Why should the 51 have the power to tell the 49 what they should do? Shouldn't the 49 have determination of their own?

Because the 51 and 49 agreeing to the 51 winning this one point, is better than the 51 and 49 killing each other to see who takes the spoils. Letting people slug it out is sillier than agreeing to disagree.

But isn't that silly? Why should the 51 have the power to tell the 49 what they should do? Shouldn't the 49 have determination of their own?

Social contract, as a method to deliver a degree of harmony and the possibility of coexistence with those of other political viewpoints. We're better off together even if we can't agree on anything.

The OP is laughable.

I'm sorry, Americans don't fall in line with your fringe economic beliefs? That doesn't make us undemocratic by any stretch of the imagination. It just means you're a left-wing whackjob.

Well, the US isn't exactly the paragon of democracy. It's more of a capitalist federal republic.

Well, the US isn't exactly the paragon of democracy. It's more of a capitalist federal republic.

A liberal federal republic, rather. Our economy operates relatively independently of our government.

There hasn't been a pure democracy since...well...since Athens.
Further, we have constraints on democracy to protect minorities from aggressive majorities. Things like the Presidential veto, Senatorial filibuster, Judicial review, federal governmental structures are all limits on democracy. Our overriding concern is liberalism, of which democracy is merely a portion. There's a lot more to a just and free system than merely majority rules.

Imperfect as we are, we are leagues better than Cuba, the PRC, Iran or Syria.

A liberal federal republic, rather. Our economy operates relatively independently of our government.

I should have put 'mixed-Keynesian' or something of the sort to be more accurate, but our government is comparatively conservative considering our pan-European counterparts.

There hasn't been a pure democracy since...well...since Athens.

Which isn't exactly a good example of the intent of democracy, given that very few people were citizens.

Further, we have constraints on democracy to protect minorities from aggressive majorities. Things like the Presidential veto, Senatorial filibuster, Judicial review, federal governmental structures are all limits on democracy. Our overriding concern is liberalism, of which democracy is merely a portion. There's a lot more to a just and free system than merely majority rules.

All of the above is true. But also add in the lax corruption laws, the federalist organization, the extensive superiority of the Executive Branch over the Legislative and Judicial (which we don't even elect, though for the better), and all sorts of stuff I could list until next Tuesday, and the US looks more akin to Rome than Athens (republic vs democracy)

Imperfect as we are, we are leagues better than Cuba, the PRC, Iran or Syria.

The first one the US sorta caused... Oops, I suppose.

But, I cannot disagree, especially with the PRC's latest attempts to be a world power: namely, by going suicide capitalist... just ask our dogs.

*gibberish*

Wow, you're a troll. :rolleyes:

The ballots taste good.:p

Social contract, as a method to deliver a degree of harmony and the possibility of coexistence with those of other political viewpoints. We're better off together even if we can't agree on anything.

I disagree, the 1 person represents an elite who wishes to oppress the majority through economic or political means because they do not have the ability in numbers to do so. The nations of the world belong to the common people, it is their resources and assets, any cryptic or the like arguments are simply intended to distract the audience from that fact. The US in essence is such a system, when politics is controlled by a rich corporate elite at the behest of marginal opinions, who having not the numbers must find economic means (of which they control the means of production) through the media or the like to make up that ground to oppress the lower class majority. While the one vote one value system the founding fathers envisaged is admirable, they themselves knew it would not bring egalitarian politics. Universal suffrage is after all a profoundly socialist ideal, and reactionaries fear that it produces an inflation that greatly reduces the value of a vote, thus expanding the franchise and reducing their elite influence. Through said economic means they have regained their position as minority oppressor.

...All this talk of 'democracy' is frankly ludicrous coming from you Americans, the US is NOT a democracy...

Old story. Most of us already know that. Beware, though, that the aggressive style of the OP isn't going to win much simpathy for your ideas.

But isn't that silly? Why should the 51 have the power to tell the 49 what they should do? Shouldn't the 49 have determination of their own?Ideally, yes.
Realistically, no.

Ideally, yes.
Realistically, no.

So it is more pragmatic to leave the 51 with power over the 49? How does it at all benefit the 49 to be in such a perilous arrangement? How would it be probable to think they would ever agree to such a scheme?

Social contract, as a method to deliver a degree of harmony and the possibility of coexistence with those of other political viewpoints. We're better off together even if we can't agree on anything.

Hardly. If the 51 are given all the power, then it is in their interest to abuse the 49 for their own gain. The 49 are better off separate from the 51.

Because the 51 and 49 agreeing to the 51 winning this one point, is better than the 51 and 49 killing each other to see who takes the spoils. Letting people slug it out is sillier than agreeing to disagree.

I don't see why the necessary recourse is violence. Why can't the 51 do their own thing, and the 49 do their own thing? Why is it necessary that the 51 be given all power to maintain peace, when it is obvious that it is in their interest to abuse it?

I disagree, the 1 person represents an elite who wishes to oppress the majority through economic or political means because they do not have the ability in numbers to do so. The nations of the world belong to the common people, it is their resources and assets, any cryptic or the like arguments are simply intended to distract the audience from that fact. The US in essence is such a system, when politics is controlled by a rich corporate elite at the behest of marginal opinions, who having not the numbers must find economic means (of which they control the means of production) through the media or the like to make up that ground to oppress the lower class majority. While the one vote one value system the founding fathers envisaged is admirable, they themselves knew it would not bring egalitarian politics. Universal suffrage is after all a profoundly socialist ideal, and reactionaries fear that it produces an inflation that greatly reduces the value of a vote, thus expanding the franchise and reducing their elite influence. Through said economic means they have regained their position as minority oppressor.

I do not concur, and I feel that your sentiments are misplaced, your understanding of liberalism is poor, and your understanding of the history of universal suffrage is also exceedingly poor. Your post is so inaccurate that it does not warrant a point-for-point rebuttal, merely to be dismissed for the rubbish that it is.

Hardly. If the 51 are given all the power, then it is in their interest to abuse the 49 for their own gain. The 49 are better off separate from the 51.


Which is why I advocate liberal democracy, where the ability for action of the majority is restrained.

You have an argument? Does not seem like it to me as anyone with a brainstem knows that Iran is NOT A DEMOCRACY!

Of course its not...Its a republic...hence "The Islamic Republic of Iran"


The OP is laughable.

I'm sorry, Americans don't fall in line with your fringe economic beliefs? That doesn't make us undemocratic by any stretch of the imagination. It just means you're a left-wing whackjob.

The US is undemocratic. We only choose some of our leaders, and they choose our overall leader. Therefore, the US is a republic as well.

Of course its not...Its a republic...hence "The Islamic Republic of Iran"

No one is disputing the title. What is in dispute is that they are a democracy with legitament voting. The answer to that is no.

The US is undemocratic.

Prove it.

We only choose some of our leaders, and they choose our overall leader. Therefore, the US is a republic as well.

Thanks. Not like anyone of us knew this to begin with :rolleyes:

Of course its not...Its a republic...hence "The Islamic Republic of Iran"




The US is undemocratic. We only choose some of our leaders, and they choose our overall leader. Therefore, the US is a republic as well.

United Soviet Socialist Republic. The Iranian government can make claims of democracy all it wants, it's a lie.

I can't respond to your comments, so I'll just flame.

Thanks for that.

The OP is laughable.

I'm sorry, Americans don't fall in line with your fringe economic beliefs? That doesn't make us undemocratic by any stretch of the imagination. It just means you're a left-wing whackjob.
Yes but you just proved my point, capitalism in effect is a means of minority control of the means of production, so the only people whose interests it is to keep it up is of course that minority, through the media and news this minority can use their means of production to make up their numbers in this way and stay on top. You yourself must be part of this minority or for some reason you believe in an ideology which is not in your own interest, one being class antagonistic and moral reprehensible and the other proof of ignorance and receptivity of propaganda. Majority Americans have been brainwashed into an ideology which is not in their own economic interests.

You see by calling me a left-wing whackjob' your proving my point that you are just a drone to the endless 'evil pinko' propaganda that the minority class saturates your media and society with. You see I wasn't taught Marxism in the media, I read it myself, but you 'learnt' anti-Marxism in the media without even knowing what it is.

How does it at all benefit the 49 to be in such a perilous arrangement?

Because the 49 know that next vote, they might win.

And if there's ever a close vote along different lines, parts of the 49 can secure support for their position by making a deal with one of the sides.

The minority is very far from powerless in a democracy... especially when there are equal protection clauses in the Constitution.

Thanks for that.


Yes but you just proved my point, capitalism in effect is a means of minority control of the means of production, so the only people whose interests it is to keep it up is of course that minority, through the media and news this minority can use their means of production to make up their numbers in this way and stay on top.

Nice circular reasoning.

You yourself must be part of this minority or for some reason you believe in an ideology which is not in your own interest, one being class antagonistic and moral reprehensible and the other proof of ignorance and receptivity of propaganda. Majority Americans have been brainwashed into an ideology which is not in their own economic interests.

You see by calling me a left-wing whackjob' your proving my point that you are just a drone to the endless 'evil pinko' propaganda that the minority class saturates your media and society with. You see I wasn't taught Marxism in the media, I read it myself, but you 'learnt' anti-Marxism in the media without even knowing what it is.

And now we return to useless rants.

I don't see why the necessary recourse is violence. Why can't the 51 do their own thing, and the 49 do their own thing? Why is it necessary that the 51 be given all power to maintain peace, when it is obvious that it is in their interest to abuse it?

A brief look at the course of human affairs should really illustrate the answer to that. When there are no non-violent means of conflict resolution, people turn to violence to get what they want. Democracy is a means of non-violent conflict resolution (amongst citizens.)

And who said anything about 'all power'? We don't live in nations without constitutional protections.

Because the 49 know that next vote, they might win.

And if there's ever a close vote along different lines, parts of the 49 can secure support for their position by making a deal with one of the sides.

The minority is very far from powerless in a democracy... especially when there are equal protection clauses in the Constitution.

But then we just end up with a system of various oppressions from various groups. One can be in the 51 in one case, and get benefits, while being one of the 49 in another case, and being looted. This is why we see so much enmity in democracies; blacks vs. whites, natives vs. foreigners, men vs. women, old vs. young, heterosexuals vs. homosexuals etc., as groups compete with various other groups to grab the reins of power and put themselves on the top of the heap. And really, Constitutions are just worthless pieces of paper to be worked around by those in power; they can only do anything if the ones in power really want to follow them, which, out of self-interest, they won't.

Which is why I advocate liberal democracy, where the ability for action of the majority is restrained.

Except who are the ones that create, enforce, and interpret the laws? The 51, not the 49. So any liberal safeguards are really just speedbumps for the 51 to eventually work through.

brief look at the course of human affairs should really illustrate the answer to that. When there are no non-violent means of conflict resolution, people turn to violence to get what they want. Democracy is a means of non-violent conflict resolution (amongst citizens.)

And who said anything about 'all power'? We don't live in nations without constitutional protections.

You're being absurd. Democracy isn't the only non-violent method of conflict resolution. If they don't want to live with each other, then they shouldn't have to. Democracy ruins this by forcing the 49 to obey the commands of the 51. Also, as I said before, Constitutions are really just worthless pieces of paper.

But then we just end up with a system of various oppressions from various groups. One can be in the 51 in one case, and get benefits, while being one of the 49 in another case, and being looted.

The public good, in total, is still served.

Edit: Yes, there are winners and there are losers, but as long as no one is consistently a winner or loser... so what? More people are served by majority control than by minority control, and without a set majority-minority split, there is no real tyranny.

Furthermore, minorities can always form coalitions with other minorities if they are concerned enough over their issue to subordinate other questions to it.

This is why we see so much enmity in democracies; blacks vs. whites, natives vs. foreigners, men vs. women, old vs. young, heterosexuals vs. homosexuals etc., as groups compete with various other groups to grab the reins of power and put themselves on the top of the heap.

That's in the nature of power. It has nothing to do with democracy specifically.

which, out of self-interest, they won't.

Out of self-interest, they will. Because if they permit themselves the power to deprive others of their rights, they permit those others the power to deprive them of their rights, too.

So it is more pragmatic to leave the 51 with power over the 49? How does it at all benefit the 49 to be in such a perilous arrangement? How would it be probable to think they would ever agree to such a scheme?If they try to secede, they'll be branded seditionists and be killed.

I don't see why the necessary recourse is violence. Why can't the 51 do their own thing, and the 49 do their own thing? Why is it necessary that the 51 be given all power to maintain peace, when it is obvious that it is in their interest to abuse it?It isn't necessary, it simply is the case that in Iran and Cuba, the majority has the power and would use violence against the minority if they felt it necessary.

If there were no states, then I could see what you propose happening. Now all we need to do is smash the state.

You're being absurd. Democracy isn't the only non-violent method of conflict resolution. If they don't want to live with each other, then they shouldn't have to. Democracy ruins this by forcing the 49 to obey the commands of the 51. Also, as I said before, Constitutions are really just worthless pieces of paper.

I'm being absurd... okay. :rolleyes:

One of these days, you may actually have to rely on the legal protections provided by a constitution. A constitution is just as valid, if not moreso, than any other legal construct. Your ideal alternative is what exactly?

So, in your abstract scenario, if the 49 decide not to live with the 51, where do they go? Is there empty land where they can just pick up and start over? Should they divide up the land between them, and if so, how do you decide how to divy it up? Odds are, the larger group will fight to hold on to that territory. Here we are again at history...

Yes but you just proved my point, capitalism in effect is a means of minority control of the means of production, so the only people whose interests it is to keep it up is of course that minority, through the media and news this minority can use their means of production to make up their numbers in this way and stay on top. You yourself must be part of this minority or for some reason you believe in an ideology which is not in your own interest, one being class antagonistic and moral reprehensible and the other proof of ignorance and receptivity of propaganda. Majority Americans have been brainwashed into an ideology which is not in their own economic interests.

I'm sorry, Americans don't fall in line with your fringe economic beliefs? That doesn't make us undemocratic by any stretch of the imagination. It just means you're a left-wing whackjob.

What's funny is that the first post replied to the second... rather than the second to the first. You could not have walked more into his characterization if you had tried.

The fact of the matter is that people disagreeing with you does not mean that they are brainwashed, and the maintenance of a system that is against majority interest does not mean that the political system is undemocratic. It may merely mean that the majority does not view the system as counter to their interest... for reasons that may have nothing to do with capitalist control of media.

Capitalist democracies are undemocratic not because the people would never democratically choose capitalism, but because statism and massive economic inequality severely undermine political equality.

But then we just end up with a system of various oppressions from various groups. One can be in the 51 in one case, and get benefits, while being one of the 49 in another case, and being looted. This is why we see so much enmity in democracies; blacks vs. whites, natives vs. foreigners, men vs. women, old vs. young, heterosexuals vs. homosexuals etc., as groups compete with various other groups to grab the reins of power and put themselves on the top of the heap.

Primarily only in silly democracies with too few major political powers: When there are a bunch of major political parties, instead of 1 or 2, there's rarely a way to ram through a monopolic agenda instead of a healthy debate and ultimate compromise.

Coincidentally, in USA this can only happen if the prez is from a different party than the majority of representatives (ie. no rubber stamping).

Though ultimately better would be a culture where there would be much less party discipline.

I'm also in favour of representative democracy over direct democracy as common layman usually isn't in anyway qualified to assess or able to decide, for example, whether a certain tax - like say, fuel tax - is at the correct level: I don't want common people to make important decisions that affect the lives of, well, the common people - They're too...impulsive...for such things (NO to nuclear power, YES to no speedlimits, NO to taxes...), especially as in such a situation there would really be only a majority & a minority (or 2/3rds majority, etc...) instead of reasonable debate and acknowledgement of the facts.

Too bad politics today seem to be too much attentionwhoring, vote fishing, egoism & kleptocracy instead of doing, legislating and respecting what's good for the people of the country.

Capitalist democracies are undemocratic not because the people would never democratically choose capitalism...

You do not know that and you cannot prove that. You are making an assumption off of your own political beliefs.

I have every reason to believe that society will and has chosen liberal capitalism because that is how society has developed. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to argue your point.

You do not know that and you cannot prove that.

You really should read the posts you reply to.

I have every reason to believe that society will and has chosen liberal capitalism because that is how society has developed.

That is a useless observation.

The fact that societies have developed capitalism does not prove anything whatsoever about the character of capitalist societies with regard to democracy.

You do not know that and you cannot prove that. You are making an assumption off of your own political beliefs.

I have every reason to believe that society will and has chosen liberal capitalism because that is how society has developed. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to argue your point.

People would never choose capitalism if they truly knew what it entailed, instead they are brainwashed by the minority class themselves through the media news (means of production) into liking their own oppression. Liberalism/capitalism are the antithesis of democracy, one implies individual concentration of wealth, the other a common public good, they will be in constant antagonism to each other until the inevitable crisis of over production and the collapse of capital. In a democracy the guiding principle is 1 man 1 value (vote), liberalism/capitalism on the other hands perpetuates a concentration of political and economic power into the hands of a tiny elite.

The public good, in total, is still served.

Edit: Yes, there are winners and there are losers, but as long as no one is consistently a winner or loser... so what? More people are served by majority control than by minority control, and without a set majority-minority split, there is no real tyranny.

Furthermore, minorities can always form coalitions with other minorities if they are concerned enough over their issue to subordinate other questions to it.

No, the public good is not served, because it eventually becomes a race to steal more from everybody else than they can steal from you. The public good is not stealing more from everybody else than they can steal from you. It is no stealing at all, period.

That's in the nature of power. It has nothing to do with democracy specifically.

Then why uphold democracy as anything worth protecting, if it is just another method of power?

Out of self-interest, they will. Because if they permit themselves the power to deprive others of their rights, they permit those others the power to deprive them of their rights, too.

If they can maintain their power, they have nothing to worry about. That's why we've seen civil rights steadily trampled all across the world by the national security state, especially in the United States. It is in the interest of those in power to deprive others of their rights if they can gain more power, and it's exactly what they've done.

If they try to secede, they'll be branded seditionists and be killed.

So it really isn't in their interest, and they're really just little better than servants of the 51.

It isn't necessary, it simply is the case that in Iran and Cuba, the majority has the power and would use violence against the minority if they felt it necessary.

If there were no states, then I could see what you propose happening. Now all we need to do is smash the state.

So, then, the best modus operandi really isn't democracy, it's letting people do as they will so long as they don't violate one another's rights.

I'm being absurd... okay. :rolleyes:

Glad we agree!

One of these days, you may actually have to rely on the legal protections provided by a constitution. A constitution is just as valid, if not moreso, than any other legal construct. Your ideal alternative is what exactly?

A constitution really is just a piece of paper because the ones who enforce it are also the ones who write and interpret it. It's like if my cell phone company decided that the arbiter in any dispute would be themselves. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whose side they would be on, no matter what the agreement says... just like it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the 51 who control the government will rule in favor of themselves, no matter what the constitution says. A constitution is just a piece of paper, and is just as useful as that object in defending oneself.

So, in your abstract scenario, if the 49 decide not to live with the 51, where do they go? Is there empty land where they can just pick up and start over? Should they divide up the land between them, and if so, how do you decide how to divy it up? Odds are, the larger group will fight to hold on to that territory. Here we are again at history...

The 49 keep their property, and the 51 keep theirs. Likely, this would be followed by the sale of property between the two groups so that the two could live contiguously and not sprinkled all over. From that point on, they would be separate from one another and would be free to do as they wish, rather than the 49 accepting bludgeoning from 51. Of course, the 51 might engage in violence against the 49, but the threat of that is really what keeps the 49 subjugated to the 51 and obeying the edicts of democracy, isn't it?

Personally, I think democracy is evil. Tyranny by majority is still tyranny. As an anarchist, I strongly oppose 'democracy,' which is different from autocracy only in that you supposedly get to choose which crook coerces and fleeces you.

People would never choose capitalism if they truly knew what it entailed.

No, you mean you wouldn't. You speak of others being "brainwashed." Well, look who's talking.

No, the public good is not served, because it eventually becomes a race to steal more from everybody else than they can steal from you.

No more than society is so inherently, as a collection of people who are more or less self-interested and battle over scarce goods.

(Or, at least, no more than a certain kind of society is so inherently... and the way to get another kind of society is not to abandon democracy.)

In that context, the best you can do is to give people a more or less equal playing field, and with political equality, democracy accomplishes this.

Then why uphold democracy as anything worth protecting, if it is just another method of power?

Because every political system is a method of power.

If they can maintain their power, they have nothing to worry about.

Yes, this is one reason class societies are evil: there are people whose privilege permits them exemption from the rules everybody else has to follow.

But that's not democracy. It is the rejection of political equality through various means of gaining an unequal share of political power.

Democracy itself as an ideology is never about minority rights, it's an ideology based on one human one value, a truly egalitarian and dare I say socialist ideal, any representation or power given to minorities which is out of proportion to the amount of people that group represents is itself an elitist tyranny, or certainly on the road to one. Democracy in Greek literally translates as 'the common people rule' that is exactly majority rule.

So it really isn't in their interest, and they're really just little better than servants of the 51.Where there is a state, yes.
I'm not defending the state, though.

So, then, the best modus operandi really isn't democracy, it's letting people do as they will so long as they don't violate one another's rights.How do we determine what people's rights are without democracy?

Personally, I think democracy is evil. Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.You'd prefer tyranny by minority?

People would never choose capitalism if they truly knew what it entailed, instead they are brainwashed by the minority class themselves through the media news (means of production) into liking their own oppression.
Oppression? Last I checked I, as well as you are, am free to voice whatever opinions I may have. I am free to retain the justly agreed fruits of my labor, with no man having a greater claim over it than myself, I am prosperous and happy, far more so than my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and ancestors all down the line. My life is better than they could have ever imagined because of liberal capitalism.

And at that, so what if I'm oppressed from your deluded point of view. I'm comfortable and happy, and that's what matters.

Further, the brainwashing argument doesn't work as it is unscientific. It is non-falsifiable. There is no mechanism by which I can refute your claims, and you will recognize my refutation. Rather, you would fall into the circular logic of saying that I, too, am brainwashed. Your argument is made of phail.

Further, you have provided me with no evidence that the people would choose another system over capitalism, if they wanted to found a democracy.

they will be in constant antagonism to each other until the inevitable crisis of over production and the collapse of capital.
Market systems guarantee that this crisis will never emerge. The forces of supply and demand will correct for imbalances. Economics tells us that this is the case.

In a democracy the guiding principle is 1 man 1 value (vote), liberalism/capitalism on the other hands perpetuates a concentration of political and economic power into the hands of a tiny elite.

Political and economic power is diffuse in liberal democracies with capitalism as their economic system of choice, not concentrated. Administration is concentrated, but that administration is beholden to the diffuse whims of the people.

so while election happens for parliament and the presidency, they must be approved by the council of experts

You mean, a bunch of religious authorities. Sorry, but any state that places its military might in a religious leader automatically loses in my book.

All this talk of 'democracy' is frankly ludicrous coming from you Americans, the US is NOT a democracy, never has been, they turned from that path after they dumped the articles of confederation.

First thing off, find someone in NSG that claims that the US is a pure democracy, and then I'll owe you a cookie. Secondly, the Articles of Confederation was full of lose. The government would have flown to pieces if it lasted just a few years. Any high schooler could have told you that. If you can find someone who can sincerely say that the Articles were a decent system, I owe him a slap through the internet.

Oh, and the Articles STILL wasn't a democracy. Considering that every member in the legislation had an equal vote, regardless of their state's population, I wouldn't quite say that's "one person, one vote".

Essentially the US is capitalist state, in which each candidate works within the framework of capitalism to be elected to office, so in a way the franchise in the US is more restricted than Cuba, Iran or another nominative democracy, mainly because political success in the US depends of monetary means, for example a candidate running for President would need over 50 million dollars

Because, after all, the only elected office in the US is the Presidency. Everything else is run by military personnel, who rule with an iron fist and a really, really cool whip.:rolleyes:

For the most part, slogans such as 'freedom' and 'liberty' in the US are meaningless terms considering in monetary terms how incredibly restricted (even autocratic)

I'm sorry, I'm currently looking at our Bill of Rights. Even though it has taken some blows under the Bush administration, it's still pretty damn good.

the body politic of America is, 'democracy' certainly is not freedom, it is not free, in fact it's quite expensive. So please Bushiviks on this forums, please don't justify the US on the grounds of such slogans, the US has never been a democracy, it is a republic based on property.

OMG, AP got something right! Considering that Americans had to fight a rather lengthy revolution, and then a horrendously bloody civil war, I would consider our republic to be quite expensive. And considering that it took us about 15 years to get our system of government right, I'd say it's also pretty durned expensive!



Oh, and the Republic based on property? That's France, not the US. Ok, I admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I swear I remember something about their constitution having something about "life, liberty, and property". But like I said, I'm really reaching here.

I'm sorry, I'm currently looking at our Bill of Rights. Even though it has taken some blows under the Bush administration, it's still pretty damn good.

It has taken blows under most administrations. Look at President Lincoln's administration for starters.

OMG, AP got something right! Considering that Americans had to fight a rather lengthy revolution, and then a horrendously bloody civil war, I would consider our republic to be quite expensive. And considering that it took us about 15 years to get our system of government right, I'd say it's also pretty durned expensive!

Let us not also forget World War II in which America was directly attacked by Japan and 1812 as well though that ended in a draw.

Oh, and the Republic based on property? That's France, not the US. Ok, I admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I swear I remember something about their constitution having something about "life, liberty, and property". But like I said, I'm really reaching here.

Yep and in the DoI it states "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Of course, the DoI is not a legal document anyway so the point is rather moot :D

Please, let us not talk about the degree of democracy in the US or western European states. You cannot govern millions by direct voting, you need representants. However, you can laugh about the US system in the president elections where not each vote is counted but the votes of states within the US. In the end Bush won with less votes than the half.
Maybe you and me we are angry about that cause the wrong one won.
More undemocratic is diplomacy. Even if you are the best democracy (the US is not but thats my opinion) you try to save your profit (not only, but often, material) against aother states in very undemocratic way. There the law of the strongest is quite active. That ist - for me - the most unsatisfying point. You are all so democratic in mind and try to get influence by tyranny in foreign affairs. This includes "my" state aswell. Allthough some ideas like the last gulf war my nation did not support.

Democracy is weak and inefficient, and also empowers the very same people who have endorsed and perpetuated celebrity culture and the like.

Please, let us not talk about the degree of democracy in the US or western European states. You cannot govern millions by direct voting, you need representants. However, you can laugh about the US system in the president elections where not each vote is counted but the votes of states within the US. In the end Bush won with less votes than the half.
Maybe you and me we are angry about that cause the wrong one won.

And under the Constitution, the right person won. Then in 2004, Bush won with the College again but this time with the majority of the people as well.

A constitution really is just a piece of paper because the ones who enforce it are also the ones who write and interpret it. It's like if my cell phone company decided that the arbiter in any dispute would be themselves. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whose side they would be on, no matter what the agreement says... just like it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the 51 who control the government will rule in favor of themselves, no matter what the constitution says. A constitution is just a piece of paper, and is just as useful as that object in defending oneself.

Um, no it's not just a piece of paper. It has validity because the majority of poeple living under its protection recognize that they aren't always going to form a government. Constitutions rule against the wishes of governments fairly regularly. One example would be to look at the Canadian constitution and look at how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec could separate from Canada in the presence of a clear majority on a clear question of separation. It certainly wasn't in the government's interest to recognize separation, yet the Supreme Court ruled it so anyway. Further to the point, can you find me an example where a government in majority decided to do the opposite of what a Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional in a truly democratic society (where the rule of law is upheld)?


The 49 keep their property, and the 51 keep theirs. Likely, this would be followed by the sale of property between the two groups so that the two could live contiguously and not sprinkled all over. From that point on, they would be separate from one another and would be free to do as they wish, rather than the 49 accepting bludgeoning from 51. Of course, the 51 might engage in violence against the 49, but the threat of that is really what keeps the 49 subjugated to the 51 and obeying the edicts of democracy, isn't it?

Again, WHY would this happen? Because you think it should? Find me the historical context where this took place to show that such an idea is even plausable. If the 51 people decide that a certain kind of hat has to be worn in public, and the 49 decide that it should be illegal to wear hats in public, does that mean that people should know when and wear it should be legal to don one's hat? Not all decisions are major life or death situations, where property needs to be split up.

Democracy: It's only as smart as the biggest retard in it.

You guys don't even directly elect your prime minister, and you have the highest security camera-to-person ratio in the world, as far as I know.

I agree that the U.K's election system is retarded but what is so horrible about the cameras?

Isn't most of the cameras in the london region?

Nice way to counter my argument, NO YOURS IS WORST, I never said I liked my country.

Awww, where's your fiery nationalistic spirit?

*looks to see all the annoyed marxists* I might have to go...

If Andaras is the ambassador for the current Iranian government, I call the ambassador from the real Iran. No, not under the shah, the Iran for those few glorious years when Mossadegh was the Prime Minister.

You really have to wonder how different the region (as well as Iran by itself) would have been had he not been ousted...

No try harder: What if the Shah wasn't a complete bastard and followed a model like with the U.K (almost all monarchy power rests with the government)?

Dictatorships rock because there's less indecision, but suck because they've got more room to make the wrong decisions.

Democracy sucks because there's too much indecision, but rocks because there's less room to make the wrong decisions.

Strike a balance.

I have it!

Make me your King/Queen!

Social contract, as a method to deliver a degree of harmony and the possibility of coexistence with those of other political viewpoints. We're better off together even if we can't agree on anything.

Especially when disenfranchised people have a tendency to try to blow stuff up and kill other people...

but because statism and massive economic inequality severely undermine political equality.

How does statism undermine political equality?

Statism =/= Extreme authoritarianism

How does statism undermine political equality?

Because you have rulers and ruled. And because the ruled are distanced enough from the rulers that their access is very limited.

Because you have rulers and ruled. And because the ruled are distanced enough from the rulers that their access is very limited.

Even under a federalised set up?

Because you have rulers and ruled. And because the ruled are distanced enough from the rulers that their access is very limited.

Exactly. A state is an organisational oppressive apparatus that is the crystallisation of a class society. It's an apparatus where a small minority of society (the capitalists) can oppress the vast majority. Thinking we can take over the state apparatus and use it for our own purposes, is by definition putting yourself into a dangerous position.

Personally, I think democracy is evil. Tyranny by majority is still tyranny. As an anarchist, I strongly oppose 'democracy,' which is different from autocracy only in that you supposedly get to choose which crook coerces and fleeces you.

Democracy: It's only as smart as the biggest retard in it.

QFT.

No more than society is so inherently, as a collection of people who are more or less self-interested and battle over scarce goods.

There's a clear difference between appropriating something out of nature and expropriating something out of someone else. The first is positive sum, as it takes a part of nature and makes it more useful. The second is inherently zero-sum, as one's benefit necessarily comes from the loss of another. If you create a system wherein people merely need to follow the second course to get what they want, rather than the first, you will see less production and more expropriation, creating a stagnant or decaying society.

(Or, at least, no more than a certain kind of society is so inherently... and the way to get another kind of society is not to abandon democracy.)

Actually, democracy should be abandoned, because it is a legitimized form of expropriation.

In that context, the best you can do is to give people a more or less equal playing field, and with political equality, democracy accomplishes this.

No. If there is no mode by which to expropriate, people will have to produce instead of steal, and society will be invigorated by this.

Because every political system is a method of power.

Then why give in to power?

Yes, this is one reason class societies are evil: there are people whose privilege permits them exemption from the rules everybody else has to follow.

But that's not democracy. It is the rejection of political equality through various means of gaining an unequal share of political power.

It IS democracy. Not everyone has equal talents, so there will be people who are particularly cunning, deceptive, and ruthless who will benefit most from a system of trickery and stealing, at the expense of those who are honest and virtuous. It will create more of the former folk and less of the latter.

Where there is a state, yes.
I'm not defending the state, though.

Good.

How do we determine what people's rights are without democracy?

You don't determine what people's rights are with democracy. Democracy is based upon the argumentum ad populum fallacy; that if more people think it's true, it is true. If you try to discover what people's rights are, you have to do it in a rational way. Democracy fails at this, because it is irrational.

Um, no it's not just a piece of paper. It has validity because the majority of poeple living under its protection recognize that they aren't always going to form a government. Constitutions rule against the wishes of governments fairly regularly. One example would be to look at the Canadian constitution and look at how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec could separate from Canada in the presence of a clear majority on a clear question of separation. It certainly wasn't in the government's interest to recognize separation, yet the Supreme Court ruled it so anyway. Further to the point, can you find me an example where a government in majority decided to do the opposite of what a Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional in a truly democratic society (where the rule of law is upheld)?

But most of the time, Constitutions provide little resistance to what the government does- look at Kelo v. New London, as just one example. You conveniently forget that judges do not drop out of the sky onto the bench; they are selected by the ones in power. Sure, you get the occassional bit of resistance, but that's really just a footnote along the long road of oppression. And as for your last question, yes, FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court with his own hand-picked judges, which essentially forced the Supreme Court to bow down to him. Constitutions would serve a greater social purpose being rolled into marijuana cigarettes and smoked... and that's pretty much what governments like to do to them anyway.

Again, WHY would this happen? Because you think it should? Find me the historical context where this took place to show that such an idea is even plausable. If the 51 people decide that a certain kind of hat has to be worn in public, and the 49 decide that it should be illegal to wear hats in public, does that mean that people should know when and wear it should be legal to don one's hat? Not all decisions are major life or death situations, where property needs to be split up.

There's nothing wrong with the idea that everyone would still own their property and transfer it amongst each other before they move to live together. To suggest otherwise is to fall prey to the argumentum ad verecundiam falacy; just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it's impossible. It's also better for the people to be transferring property and living in peace rather than the 51 bludgeoning the 49 to keep them together against their will.

Also, I think that your hatter/non-hatter situation is in fact a situation in which physical separation could be good for the populace, whether or not wearing the hat is legislated. The hatters could live together with other hatters, and non-hatters could live together with non-hatters, with a great deal less social strife between the two groups. So yes, even in this situation the people are better off being separated.

You don't determine what people's rights are with democracy. How could you figure out what rights people are willing to protect without asking them?

Democracy is based upon the argumentum ad populum fallacy; that if more people think it's true, it is true. No. There's a difference between saying something is the most legitimate system and saying something is inherently legitimate. Democracy falls into the former.

If you try to discover what people's rights are, you have to do it in a rational way. Democracy fails at this, because it is irrational.Going about asking people what rights they are willing to protect is rational, as without the protection of rights there are no rights.

Also, I think that your hatter/non-hatter situation is in fact a situation in which physical separation could be good for the populace, whether or not wearing the hat is legislated. The hatters could live together with other hatters, and non-hatters could live together with non-hatters, with a great deal less social strife between the two groups. So yes, even in this situation the people are better off being separated.You do realize that with fewer people, a division of labor is more difficult, right?

Even under a federalised set up?

Yes.

The first is positive sum, as it takes a part of nature and makes it more useful.

To you.

Of course, I'm not really talking about appropriation... I'm talking about exchange.

If you create a system wherein people merely need to follow the second course to get what they want, rather than the first

This will never happen.

The only way you can justify redistribution in a democracy is democratically: you must appeal to people's interests, to the public good. You cannot just take whatever you want from anybody else.

If your wealth is truly beneficial to society, then prove it, and society will not take it away.

If there is no mode by which to expropriate

There is no such society.

Then why give in to power?

Who said anything about giving in to power? Unjust acts by a democracy should be opposed like unjust acts by any other political system.

Not everyone has equal talents, so there will be people who are particularly cunning, deceptive, and ruthless who will benefit most from a system of trickery and stealing, at the expense of those who are honest and virtuous.

Again, this is a product of selfish competition for scarce goods. There are possible solutions ot this problem, but they have nothing to do with abolishing democracy.

Indeed, this exact problem is prominent in the market economy as well as democratic government.

Democracy itself as an ideology is never about minority rights, it's an ideology based on one human one value, a truly egalitarian and dare I say socialist ideal, any representation or power given to minorities which is out of proportion to the amount of people that group represents is itself an elitist tyranny, or certainly on the road to one. Democracy in Greek literally translates as 'the common people rule' that is exactly majority rule.

No, democracy is not one human/one value, it is one society/one value. It is near total undermining of human worth as human worth is only found in human action and thought (man, when no longer exercising his own value and will, becomes little more than a housepet). Democracy takes a man and his actions and makes them contingent on the opinions of everyone within the voting population. Where democracy rules, a man has no will of his own, and then the purpose of life itself is lost.

Democracy takes a man and his actions and makes them contingent on the opinions of everyone within the voting population.

And the actions of others are contingent on the opinions of everyone else, too.

That is why democracies are far more respectful of individual rights than the political forms that preceded them... and why the constitutions of democratic countries are honored as more than pieces of paper. Because every voter recognizes that in taking away the individual rights of others, her own become threatened.

How could you figure out what rights people are willing to protect without asking them?

That's silly. Reality isn't dependent on people's perceptions; it exists exclusive of them. If there's any real substance to rights, then they would be apparent from reality and not from subective perceptions. If rights are just a matter of subjective perception, i.e. what certain people want them to be, then, if they conflict with your subjective perception, you don't have to obey them, since their subjective perceptions are not superior to yours. But then we fall into a dilemma that while those people are unable to enforce their perception of rights on you, you are not able to enforce your own perception on them either, which makes it so that people are made completely unable to act. This state would be irrational, since the purpose of being human is to act like a human (to attain happiness), just like a cat should act like a cat or an oxygen molecule act like an oxygen molecule. So, there has to be a system of ethics based upon human nature, which is universal (applying to all people), uniform (applicable to all acts), accessible, and fixed (unchanging). While a system of rights is based upon subjective perceptions, which are not necessarily rational, a system of ethics based upon human nature would inherently be rational by its connection to reality.

No. There's a difference between saying something is the most legitimate system and saying something is inherently legitimate. Democracy falls into the former.

Democracy falls into neither. It is a product of a primitive animalistic pleasure/pain system of ethics on a large scale, as well as being an institutionalized argumentum ad populam (not to mention an argumentum ad verecundiam, since people love to bludgeon each other into submission with the almighty "will of the people.")

Going about asking people what rights they are willing to protect is rational, as without the protection of rights there are no rights.

Silly. If rights depend on subjective perceptions, then you are giving carte blanche to criminals to do whatever they want. And since these rights are only as good as people's subjective perceptions, you cannot truly resolve this situation, as neither the criminal nor the victim can ethically enforce their perceptions of rights.

You do realize that with fewer people, a division of labor is more difficult, right?

Some people may prefer to have less wealth and not associate with people they find distasteful rather than associate with them and become more wealthy. Besides, they could always trade at a distance; the hatters and non-hatters could congregate in homogenous areas, produce what they wish, and then send it to intermediaries to make exchanges. This would accomplish a broader division of labor without taking away the happiness that the hatters and non-hatters would find in staying closely-knit to one another.

To you.

Of course, I'm not really talking about appropriation... I'm talking about exchange.

No, it IS positive sum, because no one loses property from the homesteading, but rather property is created. Also, democracy is not a system of exchange, seeing as how democracy is majoritarian while voluntary exchange is agreed upon by all parties, and all parties benefit ex ante.

This will never happen.

The only way you can justify redistribution in a democracy is democratically: you must appeal to people's interests, to the public good. You cannot just take whatever you want from anybody else.

If your wealth is truly beneficial to society, then prove it, and society will not take it away.

The public good is merely the smoke screen of bullies and murderers, nothing less. Just because the majority of people think that an idea is good does not make it good; to suggest otherwise is to fall prey to the argumentum ad populum fallacy. By extension, making people think that redistribution is just does not make it just, and therefore the will of the majority in and of itself can be ignored. Such a system of government is ultimately nothing more than an animalistic pleasure/pain system of ethics based upon what idea pleases the greatest number of people. Pleasure and pain being irrational, such decisions have no correlation to whether such an act is right.

There is no such society.

Not in our imperfect world, no. But a better society is one in which such expropriation is minimized.

Who said anything about giving in to power? Unjust acts by a democracy should be opposed like unjust acts by any other political system.

But democracy is inherently unjust due to its irrational nature. That is why it must be stomped out.

Again, this is a product of selfish competition for scarce goods. There are possible solutions ot this problem, but they have nothing to do with abolishing democracy.

Indeed, this exact problem is prominent in the market economy as well as democratic government.

No, the market economy and democratic government are entirely dissimilar; indeed, antagonistic. The market is based upon original production and mutually beneficial exchange, justifiable by the fact that both parties are free to pursue their own happiness and thus in line with human nature, while democracy is based upon expropriation, justified only by the fact that a numerically superior number of people support an idea.

Seriously, the UK is a hell of a lot worse then the US in terms of freedom and democracy. You guys don't even directly elect your prime minister, and you have the highest security camera-to-person ratio in the world, as far as I know.


Don't be silly, the Queen is required by law to elect the man with the most votes anyway. And you're not arguing that the USA's democracy is the least bit fair are you? Especially in the face of evidence showing it was fixed. Oh and what does security cameras have to do with human rights anyway?

And the actions of others are contingent on the opinions of everyone else, too.

So everyone is fucked by the deal (except those who are lucky enough to be socially priveleged).

That is why democracies are far more respectful of political rights than the political forms that preceded them

Fixed it for you.

... and why the constitutions of democratic countries are honored as more than pieces of paper.

Just like all authoritative documents they are only held in reverence when they agree with one's own views.

Because every voter recognizes that in taking away the individual rights of others, her own become threatened.

I have not noticed this social forethought amongst the democracies I have been witness to.

Don't be silly, the Queen is required by law to elect the man with the most votes anyway. And you're not arguing that the USA's democracy is the least bit fair are you? Especially in the face of evidence showing it was fixed. Oh and what does security cameras have to do with human rights anyway?

And what's wrong with having Elizabeth Windsor as the Head of State, anyway? She's a wonderful person, and I wish she was still Canada's Head of State as well.

No, it IS positive sum

Again, for you.

Compare democracy. Your wealth is contingent on the public good. Your usurpation of the commons is not an automatic right, but something that you can only justify by appealing to the interests of others: to the common good instead of your exclusive private benefit.

Also, democracy is not a system of exchange, seeing as how democracy is majoritarian while voluntary exchange is agreed upon by all parties, and all parties benefit ex ante.

"Voluntary exchange" in the context of an economy founded on capitalist private property is only an "everyone benefits!" scheme when it is compared to the alternative of the exchange not being made. "Everyone benefits" within the limits of a given distribution of property and a given economic system.

Democracy, by contrast, does not subjugate itself to the social circumstances of the capitalist market. It permits the public good to be pursued regardless of whether or not it complies with the rules.

Yes, there are winners and losers in democracy... but there are winners and losers in the abolition of democracy, too.

Just because the majority of people think that an idea is good does not make it good;

Nobody says it does.

But if our concern is to promote the general welfare, what better means of going about it do we have than actually asking the people whose welfare we intend to promote?

Indeed, this is the logical consequence of the libertarian idea that people are best left controlling their own lives. If I can be trusted to decide for myself whether or not to buy a given good, why can the community as a whole not be trusted to wisely pursue its own interest?

By extension, making people think that redistribution is just does not make it just, and therefore the will of the majority in and of itself can be ignored.

In questions of "Is this particular act just?", yes, absolutely. The whim of the majority does not dictate justice.

But neither does the whim of anybody else... and since political equality promotes both individual freedom and the public good, both central aims of justice, the political system founded upon political equality is the one best capable of approximating justice.

Such a system of government is ultimately nothing more than an animalistic pleasure/pain system of ethics based upon what idea pleases the greatest number of people.

Yes, so is the market.

And the decent treatment of others requires that their happiness and suffering be taken into consideration... because that is how we would want others to treat us.

Not in our imperfect world, no. But a better society is one in which such expropriation is minimized.

Undoubtedly we have different conceptions of "expropriation" - at least insofar as the term has morally condemnatory force.

But democracy is inherently unjust due to its irrational nature.

All human action is "irrational" by this standard, because as well as acting based on a conception of rational morality (for the moment leaving aside the question of whether such a thing is possible), we can act based upon our biological desires.

The market is based upon original production

Usurpation, really. Especially since private property today has virtually nothing to do with any appropriation from the state of nature.

and mutually beneficial exchange,

From starting places that are not necessarily just, free, or beneficial.

justifiable by the fact that both parties are free to pursue their own happiness

Unless they don't have enough property, in which case they are "free" to be tossed around by the powerful.

and thus in line with human nature,

"Human nature" is no more a legitimate source of moral obligation than what the majority happens to think.

justified only by the fact that a numerically superior number of people support an idea.

That is to say, that the interests of most of the public, rather than just a part of it, are served.

Of course, this "most" is not constant either, and in a properly-functioning democracy (most likely only possible under egalitarian anarchist conditions), the exclusive majority interest is replaced by the general interest of all.

So everyone is fucked by the deal (except those who are lucky enough to be socially priveleged).

No. No one is fucked.

For the same reason that if people were really equally dependent in the market, they would be free.

Fixed it for you.

No... not just political rights.

In virtually every respect individual freedoms are more common in democracies than they are in non-democracies.

I have not noticed this social forethought amongst the democracies I have been witness to.

So why do you think the majority does not violently suppress dissent from its brutal tyranny?

Don't be silly, the Queen is required by law to elect the man with the most votes anyway. And you're not arguing that the USA's democracy is the least bit fair are you? Especially in the face of evidence showing it was fixed. Oh and what does security cameras have to do with human rights anyway?
The Queen can appoint anyone she likes as PM. There's no law that states that she has to appoint the leader of the largest party in the Commons. It's an unwritten convention, in the same way that the Lords amost never opposes a bill proposed in a elected party manifesto.

Oh and what does security cameras have to do with human rights anyway?
The fact that British civilians are spied upon on a level with those living under the rule of the PRC seems bizarre, to say the least.

And to pre-empt anyone’s cries of, “but if you don’t do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear”, I’d say this:

I may have done nothing wrong, but it doesn’t mean I want the State to be able to track my movements, emails, phone calls, associates, business dealings, etc. If I have done nothing wrong, why track me?

Unless anyone actually enjoys being spied upon.

The Queen can appoint anyone she likes as PM. There's no law that states that she has to appoint the leader of the largest party in the Commons. It's an unwritten convention, in the same way that the Lords amost never opposes a bill proposed in a elected party manifesto.
Or that Cabinet members and their Shadows take the same holidays, or that PMQ's (one of my favourite programs of the week) are held when they are.

Saying that, I'd like to see the Queen try and appoint a PM apart from the one she's told to.

The Queen can appoint anyone she likes as PM. There's no law that states that she has to appoint the leader of the largest party in the Commons. It's an unwritten convention, in the same way that the Lords amost never opposes a bill proposed in a elected party manifesto.

Although these conventions are just as powerful as a law, imagine what would happen if the queen did actually decide not to elect the pm people voted for.

The fact that British civilians are spied upon on a level with those living under the rule of the PRC seems bizarre, to say the least.


Watching someone on public propertie isn't technically spying. It's not watching specific people but merely looking at the streets and alerting the police if a crime emerges.


I may have done nothing wrong, but it doesn’t mean I want the State to be able to track my movements, emails, phone calls, associates, business dealings, etc. If I have done nothing wrong, why track me?


But that is different from security cameras. The USA is more likely to track your movements, emails, phone calls etc.. then the UK, despite having security cameras.

Although these conventions are just as powerful as a law, imagine what would happen if the queen did actually decide not to elect the pm people voted for.
How can conventions be as powerful as law, when if the two were to conflict, it is law that would be considered supreme in court, and parliamentary convention is not legally binding?

In any case, if the wrong PM were to be chosen, he/she would probably quickly lose a motion of no confidence in the House of Commons, and then by convention the PM would have to seek a dissolution of Parliament or resign. Of course, though, a monarch prepared to break convention by appointing the wrong PM would probably be prepared to break convention again and not insist/accept the PM's resignation.

Of course, though, we're only talking on a technical level. If the conventions were to be broken, it wouldn't be long before whoever broke it lost power, but it would be because of public and parliamentary opposition, not by the courts. The Queen would not be bound by the Courts to appoint the 'people's' PM.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtconv/265/265.pdf
All recommendations for the formulation or codification of conventions are subject to the
current understanding that conventions as such are flexible and unenforceable, particularly
in the self-regulating environment of the House of Lords.

I managed to find a couple of sources too:
http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/spr2001/entries/constitutionalism/
An example of a British constitutional convention is the rule that the Queen may not refuse Royal Assent to any bill passed by both Houses of the UK Parliament. Perhaps another example lies in a convention that individuals chosen to represent the State of Florida in the American Electoral College (the body which actually chooses the American President by majority vote) must vote for the Presidential candidate for whom a plurality of Floridians voted on election night. Owing to the fact that they are political conventions, unenforceable in courts of law, constitutional conventions are said to be distinguishable from constitutional laws, which can indeed be legally enforced.

No. No one is fucked.

For the same reason that if people were really equally dependent in the market, they would be free.

When people are equally dependent upon the market, they choose how dependent they are upon the market in the amount they exchange upon the market.

I have not seen the democracy yet that did not choose the scope that it was able to impose on the individual's life.


No... not just political rights.

In virtually every respect individual freedoms are more common in democracies than they are in non-democracies.

How many democratic societies are you drawing from, and over what period of time has your sample been drawn? How many factors have you been able to control to show that democracy is the factor that leads to this freedom?

So why do you think the majority does not violently suppress dissent from its brutal tyranny?

1. I have seen some rather violent suppression of minorities by democratic police states.

2. Violent suppression is hardly necessary considering the nature of democracy and the way it wrangles the economy to suit itself.

That's silly. Reality isn't dependent on people's perceptions; it exists exclusive of them. If there's any real substance to rights, then they would be apparent from reality and not from subective perceptions. If rights are just a matter of subjective perception, i.e. what certain people want them to be, then, if they conflict with your subjective perception, you don't have to obey them, since their subjective perceptions are not superior to yours. But then we fall into a dilemma that while those people are unable to enforce their perception of rights on you, you are not able to enforce your own perception on them either, which makes it so that people are made completely unable to act. Why couldn't 9 people who want rights to be one thing be unable to enforce their vision on 1 person who doesn't?

This state would be irrational, since the purpose of being human is to act like a human (to attain happiness), just like a cat should act like a cat or an oxygen molecule act like an oxygen molecule. So, there has to be a system of ethics based upon human nature, which is universal (applying to all people), uniform (applicable to all acts), accessible, and fixed (unchanging). While a system of rights is based upon subjective perceptions, which are not necessarily rational, a system of ethics based upon human nature would inherently be rational by its connection to reality.You're complaining about a subjective definition of rights and yet you put forth a code of ethics based upon what makes people happy? You realize the latter is also subjective, right?

Democracy falls into neither. It is a product of a primitive animalistic pleasure/pain system of ethics on a large scale, as well as being an institutionalized argumentum ad populam (not to mention an argumentum ad verecundiam, since people love to bludgeon each other into submission with the almighty "will of the people.")Again, there's a difference between saying that a system is better than all other systems and saying that a system is inherently good.
Appeasing the will of the people is generally better than other systems, so it is a good idea to do so, in general.

Silly. If rights depend on subjective perceptions, then you are giving carte blanche to criminals to do whatever they want. And since these rights are only as good as people's subjective perceptions, you cannot truly resolve this situation, as neither the criminal nor the victim can ethically enforce their perceptions of rights.I think you're confusing the idea of relative rights with the idea of subjective rights.
Accepting that rights are subjective doesn't mean you have to accept any other viewpoint as your own as valid if you don't want to.

Some people may prefer to have less wealth and not associate with people they find distasteful rather than associate with them and become more wealthy. Besides, they could always trade at a distance; the hatters and non-hatters could congregate in homogenous areas, produce what they wish, and then send it to intermediaries to make exchanges. This would accomplish a broader division of labor without taking away the happiness that the hatters and non-hatters would find in staying closely-knit to one another.Certainly, assuming that they could find an intermediary that neither found distasteful and felt that in spite of their distaste they could still trust all of the other parties.

When people are equally dependent upon the market, they choose how dependent they are upon the market in the amount they exchange upon the market.

The same way they choose to eat?

I have not seen the democracy yet that did not choose the scope that it was able to impose on the individual's life.

In the sense of "choose" that you seem to be using, I don't think any form of political organization would satisfy you in this respect, since you do not respect constitutions. If you have a real alternative, present it.

How many democratic societies are you drawing from, and over what period of time has your sample been drawn?

The modern democratic states from, say, 1783 onward.

How many factors have you been able to control to show that democracy is the factor that leads to this freedom?

The trait is fairly common across democracies.

But in truth I need not show that democracies lead to individual freedom. I need merely show that democracies do not fail at protecting individual freedom.

(Actually, in large part they do... but the individual freedom they fail to protect is largely economic, and their failure to protect it is bound up in the nature of democracy coexisting with class society and the lack of a consciousness revolutionary enough among the general populace to justify a radical shift from the status quo. It is not a function of tyranny by majority... which, with the very notable exceptions of the treatment of racial and sexual minorities, has largely been the pipe-dream of people seeking to protect economic privilege.)

1. I have seen some rather violent suppression of minorities by democratic police states.

Yes. Democracies coexist with class, racial, and gender inequality, and its alleged political equality becomes a lie when intertwined with these social inequalities, especially in the context of a hierarchical centralized statism that restricts popular access.

This is why genuine democracy must be classless, direct, and decentralized.

2. Violent suppression is hardly necessary considering the nature of democracy and the way it wrangles the economy to suit itself.

Yes, democracies are very good at giving enough reforms to remove the edge of dissent.

This would not be a bad thing, were it not for undemocratic elements within the system; it would contribute to stability and freedom by allowing the interests of dissenters to be paid heed.

The same way they choose to eat?

The same way they choose whether they want to sell labor to support a wealthy lifestyle or a very basic lifestyle.

The relationship between an individual and a market, in that one provides his own ends by being the means to another's ends, where a man observes what will suit the needs of others and chooses his production accordingly is very different from the relationship between voter and democracy.

In the sense of "choose" that you seem to be using, I don't think any form of political organization would satisfy you in this respect, since you do not respect constitutions. If you have a real alternative, present it.

I respect constitutions, I just recognize them to be guidelines that have no more power than the reverence given to them by those making the rules.

Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid amendments to any constitution, because the constitution is not something greater than government itself.

Constitutions are not limitations to government action, because government has the power to change constitutions and/or interpret them to their own ends.

The trait is fairly common across democracies.

So is liberalism, capitalism, and Christianity. The point of a control group is to single out one particular factor, and I just don't see the possibility of making any such control group.

(Actually, in large part they do... but the individual freedom they fail to protect is largely economic, and their failure to protect it is bound up in the nature of democracy coexisting with class society and the lack of a consciousness revolutionary enough among the general populace to justify a radical shift from the status quo. It is not a function of tyranny by majority... which, with the very notable exceptions of the treatment of racial and sexual minorities, has largely been the pipe-dream of people seeking to protect economic privilege.)

It is quite clear that democracy is the preferred form of government mainly because it is stagnant and "morally justified", and as such provides a rather fortified position for the powers that be. People get to choose the rich-asshole leaders, so they are less likely to lynch their rich-asshole leaders.

I do disagree that your separation between economic and social rights is pretty specious. There is no way that one can separate the two, just ask the drug dealer, the prostitute, and the gambler.

This is why genuine democracy must be classless, direct, and decentralized.

Is democracy even necessary when governance is like this? Why not simply monarchy or governance by experts or anarchy?

Yes, democracies are very good at giving enough reforms to remove the edge of dissent.

Not really, it is just that the edge of dissent is not a threat to the status quo, and when they become one, they are suppressed and called lunatics.

Democracy means that the rulers are the moral majority, and because of this opposition is laughed at.

Why couldn't 9 people who want rights to be one thing be unable to enforce their vision on 1 person who doesn't?

Because the 9 may all be idiots.

You're complaining about a subjective definition of rights and yet you put forth a code of ethics based upon what makes people happy? You realize the latter is also subjective, right?

Yes, happiness is subjective. In fact, it is the ultimate subjective norm. But according to the principle of final causality, acts should be weighed in accordance with how much closer they bring you to the final end, the end that is not a means to another end. Human nature being the most perfect proximate objective norm, we should act in accordance with this to reach that object which gives us happiness in the fullest meaning of the word- the fulfillment of our existence.

Again, there's a difference between saying that a system is better than all other systems and saying that a system is inherently good.
Appeasing the will of the people is generally better than other systems, so it is a good idea to do so, in general.

No. Appeasing the will of the majority only satisfies an animal pleasure/pain scheme, which is unworthy of rational human nature. Pleasure/pain has nothing to do with whether something is good or evil, and any edict based solely upon this may be safely ignored.

I think you're confusing the idea of relative rights with the idea of subjective rights.
Accepting that rights are subjective doesn't mean you have to accept any other viewpoint as your own as valid if you don't want to.

But that's stupid. Why do other people's subjective perceptions have any more moral power than my own, if rights are merely subjective? They have no right to impose their subjective viewpoints upon me.

Certainly, assuming that they could find an intermediary that neither found distasteful and felt that in spite of their distaste they could still trust all of the other parties.

Well, historically, they have; that's why cities sprung up. Ultimately, it is the decision of the hatters and non-hatters as to what they believe are the best means to their happiness- isolation and less wealth, or integration and more wealth. (And before you pounce on me, this is not contradictory to human nature, our proximate objective norm of morality, as there is nothing morally wrong with wanting to associate with people whom you like over whom you dislike, or wanting to relieve one's material scarcity.)

Again, for you.

Compare democracy. Your wealth is contingent on the public good. Your usurpation of the commons is not an automatic right, but something that you can only justify by appealing to the interests of others: to the common good instead of your exclusive private benefit.

Original production IS positive sum because it creates value out of something that previously had no value.

I don't have to appease the desires of a majority of people to get permission to do what I want. What you are proposing is essentially an institutionalized argumentum ad populum; subjective perceptions do not necessarily have anything to do with reality. This is why nothing good can be expected out of democracy, as it is inherently irrational, and thus must be destroyed as soon as possible.

"Voluntary exchange" in the context of an economy founded on capitalist private property is only an "everyone benefits!" scheme when it is compared to the alternative of the exchange not being made. "Everyone benefits" within the limits of a given distribution of property and a given economic system.

Yes, but there is the greatest broad for benefit in a capitalist economy where people are free to make whatever exchanges they want with other people, instead of having to bow down to the institutionalized fallacy that is democracy.

Democracy, by contrast, does not subjugate itself to the social circumstances of the capitalist market. It permits the public good to be pursued regardless of whether or not it complies with the rules.

Democracy doesn't pursue the "public good." It only pursues the subjective pleasure/pain values of the majority. This is inherently irrational, because pleasure and pain are not rational, and this entire scheme is based upon the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Hence, it must be destroyed, as it is entirely useless.

Yes, there are winners and losers in democracy... but there are winners and losers in the abolition of democracy, too.

Of course there are. The political parasites lose in the abolition of democracy, since they cannot bludgeon anyone into submission with their "will of the people" (which is the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam), and that's reward enough in and of itself.

Nobody says it does.

But if our concern is to promote the general welfare, what better means of going about it do we have than actually asking the people whose welfare we intend to promote?

Indeed, this is the logical consequence of the libertarian idea that people are best left controlling their own lives. If I can be trusted to decide for myself whether or not to buy a given good, why can the community as a whole not be trusted to wisely pursue its own interest?

But this is stupid; each person has their own individual valuation as to what is good or bad for them. Thus, you should let every individual follow what they want. This is different from democracy, as democracy merely bludgeons the minority into subservience to their demands. It again falls upon the argumentum ad populum; that if enough people think it is right, it must be right, even if they force others into doing it. This is why democracy is entirely incompatible with any real form of liberty.

In questions of "Is this particular act just?", yes, absolutely. The whim of the majority does not dictate justice.

But neither does the whim of anybody else... and since political equality promotes both individual freedom and the public good, both central aims of justice, the political system founded upon political equality is the one best capable of approximating justice.

Wrong. Justice is wholly related to liberty, and nothing else. It is especially not related to "the public good", which is just a means by which to bludgeon people into subservience. You again fall into the argumentum ad populum fallacy, since you implicitly assume that, although justice is not NECESSARILY equal to the whim of the majority, it has a greater chance of being connected to justice. This, of course, is wrong, as justice is discoverable only by reason, not by will.

Yes, so is the market.

And the decent treatment of others requires that their happiness and suffering be taken into consideration... because that is how we would want others to treat us.

No, the market isn't a utilitarian scheme like democracy. It has its own intrinsic ethics that are based upon individual rights that cannot be altered depending upon one's subjective perception of pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain may be taken into account, but they are not the be all and end all of action; indeed, if this were so, we would be nothing more than animals.

Undoubtedly we have different conceptions of "expropriation" - at least insofar as the term has morally condemnatory force.

I wouldn't be surprised.

All human action is "irrational" by this standard, because as well as acting based on a conception of rational morality (for the moment leaving aside the question of whether such a thing is possible), we can act based upon our biological desires.

In the sense that we do not rationally choose what we like to eat, (I just like chocolate. I don't know why, but I do.) then yes, it is irrational. But seeing as how we are not entirely rational beings, but rather have an animal nature as well, this cannot be avoided. Even so, we still apply reason to this animal nature, as we choose how we will get the money to get food and which food to eat. But to have an entire system of ethics based upon this lower nature is unacceptable, as our voluntary acts are not based on our animal nature but our rational nature. And as ethics is a study of action, specifically whether an action is good or evil, reason is the only acceptable standard to weigh it by.

Usurpation, really. Especially since private property today has virtually nothing to do with any appropriation from the state of nature.

Wrong. You can still mine or drill in a place that is not owned by anyone, and that is not usurpation. Perhaps you are right in the last part; a good deal of private property today is bludgeoned out of original producers to serve the politically connected... for the public good, of course.

From starting places that are not necessarily just, free, or beneficial.

Maybe not. But that's the fault of the state, not the market.

Unless they don't have enough property, in which case they are "free" to be tossed around by the powerful.

No. You still cannot ethically murder someone if you are richer than he is.

"Human nature" is no more a legitimate source of moral obligation than what the majority happens to think.

Wrong again. Human nature exists in reality apart from subjective perceptions. If everyone in the world believed that human nature was entirely irrational, they would still be wrong; it's just that there would be a very large number of wrong people, instead of just one wrong person. And if they do not think human nature is a source of moral obligation, then they are acting irrationally, as there is no better proximate objective norm for morality, and thus they may be ignored.

That is to say, that the interests of most of the public, rather than just a part of it, are served.

Of course, this "most" is not constant either, and in a properly-functioning democracy (most likely only possible under egalitarian anarchist conditions), the exclusive majority interest is replaced by the general interest of all.

The best you can say of such a system is that it gains the greatest amount of pleasure from people, not whether it is right or wrong. Pleasure and pain being irrational, animal sensations, they are not fit for use as a system of ethics and thus any edict based upon them may be legitimately ignored.

Because the 9 may all be idiots.Idiotic enough that they wouldn't know how to use brute force to get the 1 to comply with their wishes?

Yes, happiness is subjective. In fact, it is the ultimate subjective norm. But according to the principle of final causality, acts should be weighed in accordance with how much closer they bring you to the final end, the end that is not a means to another end. Human nature being the most perfect proximate objective norm, we should act in accordance with this to reach that object which gives us happiness in the fullest meaning of the word- the fulfillment of our existence.Acts, yes, of course acts are weighed with the amount of happiness they will provide for the actor.
Rights are not acts.

No. Appeasing the will of the majority only satisfies an animal pleasure/pain scheme, which is unworthy of rational human nature. Pleasure/pain has nothing to do with whether something is good or evil, and any edict based solely upon this may be safely ignored.Er...is not the key to human happiness to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain?

But that's stupid. Why do other people's subjective perceptions have any more moral power than my own, if rights are merely subjective? In and of themselves, they don't.

They have no right to impose their subjective viewpoints upon me.Says you. In the subjective opinion of the majority, they do, and because they can, they will.

Well, historically, they have; that's why cities sprung up. Ultimately, it is the decision of the hatters and non-hatters as to what they believe are the best means to their happiness- isolation and less wealth, or integration and more wealth. (And before you pounce on me, this is not contradictory to human nature, our proximate objective norm of morality, as there is nothing morally wrong with wanting to associate with people whom you like over whom you dislike, or wanting to relieve one's material scarcity.)Certainly not. But if the hatters and non-hatters are living in the same city, then they are indirectly associating (if they have to pay taxes or a fee in order to live in the city).

Original production IS positive sum because it creates value out of something that previously had no value.You're not arguing that nature has no value to anybody, are you?

Idiotic enough that they wouldn't know how to use brute force to get the 1 to comply with their wishes?

Ah, but that doesn't have anything to do with legitimacy of rights. That just has to do with bludgeoning people into submission.

Acts, yes, of course acts are weighed with the amount of happiness they will provide for the actor.
Rights are not acts.

Rights are best defined as a moral power to something. Seeing as how we are meant to fulfill our human nature, we have a moral power to do so, i.e. rights.

Er...is not the key to human happiness to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain?

No. That is the key to animal happiness. We can perform acts that are unpleasant or painful but lead to our contentment, such as if I were to sacrifice my life for a person I care for. And there can be acts that give us pleasure that are morally wrong, such as sadistic acts. An act should be judged by its relation to our human nature, not simply by whether it gives us pain or pleasure.

In and of themselves, they don't.

Which is why they can be safely ignored.

Says you. In the subjective opinion of the majority, they do, and because they can, they will.

But they have no moral power to do so, and I am perfectly entitled to resist them.

Certainly not. But if the hatters and non-hatters are living in the same city, then they are indirectly associating (if they have to pay taxes or a fee in order to live in the city).

I suppose I would say then that there are degrees of association, and that the individuals choose which degree they prefer. More tolerant and cosmopolitan hatters or non-hatters may choose to live right next to one another; less cosmopolitan ones may choose to live in separate districts; the least cosmopolitan ones in separate villages or parts of the country entirely. It is ultimately up to their preference.

You're not arguing that nature has no value to anybody, are you?

Of course not. I happen to like nature, myself. However, there is a difference between liking the idea of nature and liking nature itself. There could be some beautiful forest in some distant end of the universe, but if we know nothing about it it has no value to us. Likewise with areas that people have not encountered on earth. If someone were to find a wonderful natural habitat, and cordone it so that poachers could not get in, and documented what varieties of flora and fauna were present, and tagged the animals, and set up little trails and lodges and whatnot, then it would be a positive sum appropriation. The undiscovered wilderness has no value to the human; the new wildlife preserve that the fellow just created does, as shown by his acts.

Ah, but that doesn't have anything to do with legitimacy of rights. That just has to do with bludgeoning people into submission.It has to do with the creation of rights - i.e. protecting them from people who would incur against them.

Rights are best defined as a moral power to something. Seeing as how we are meant to fulfill our human nature, we have a moral power to do so, i.e. rights.Certainly, and since morality is subjective (or at least it can't be proven to be objective), so are rights.

No. That is the key to animal happiness. We can perform acts that are unpleasant or painful but lead to our contentment, such as if I were to sacrifice my life for a person I care for. Okay, so you don't consider altruism to be particularly pleasant. That's fine.
Are you saying that it's impossible for the majority to be altruistic?

And there can be acts that give us pleasure that are morally wrong, such as sadistic acts. An act should be judged by its relation to our human nature, not simply by whether it gives us pain or pleasure.Morally wrong according to whom? If causing others pain makes me happy, then by your standards shouldn't I be able to do so?

Which is why they can be safely ignored.Not quite, since the majority has the power to force its views upon you if it chooses to do so.

But they have no moral power to do so, and I am perfectly entitled to resist them.They don't need the moral power to do so.
You're entitled to resist them either way, should you wish to do so.

I suppose I would say then that there are degrees of association, and that the individuals choose which degree they prefer. More tolerant and cosmopolitan hatters or non-hatters may choose to live right next to one another; less cosmopolitan ones may choose to live in separate districts; the least cosmopolitan ones in separate villages or parts of the country entirely. It is ultimately up to their preference.Fair enough. Generally when I speak of association and lack of it, I tend to think of the last example. Hopefully if I bring it up in a discussion in the future, you'll remember that. If not, oh well. ;)

Of course not. I happen to like nature, myself. However, there is a difference between liking the idea of nature and liking nature itself. There could be some beautiful forest in some distant end of the universe, but if we know nothing about it it has no value to us. Likewise with areas that people have not encountered on earth. If someone were to find a wonderful natural habitat, and cordone it so that poachers could not get in, and documented what varieties of flora and fauna were present, and tagged the animals, and set up little trails and lodges and whatnot, then it would be a positive sum appropriation. The undiscovered wilderness has no value to the human; the new wildlife preserve that the fellow just created does, as shown by his acts.Why should he be obligated to cordon it off to preserve nature?

It has to do with the creation of rights - i.e. protecting them from people who would incur against them.

You don't create rights, you have to discover them. Otherwise, they become a matter of the will, and not of reason, and have very little, if any, moral power due to their subjectivity. That's why human nature is a good PON- it is fixed and discoverable through reason, rather than flexible and thus very weak.

Certainly, and since morality is subjective (or at least it can't be proven to be objective), so are rights.

It can be proven to be objective, actually, and we can show this through the principle of final causality. Everything in the universe acts purposefully; non-cognitive agents act in certain, predictable ways (that's why we don't have trees turning into stars or other randomness), and human beings rationally choose means to ends. The principle of final causality holds that there is an end that is not a means to another end- if it were otherwise, our actions would have no real meaning due to an infinite regression. Thus, all of our actions should be judged in light of this final end, with acts that bring us closer to this end being morally good and those that push us away being morally evil. We can understand what acts bring us closer to this final end in light of our human nature, which existence has endowed us to reach its own end via our actions. Thus, if we act according to our human nature, we can reach this final end and affirm our very existence, which will lead to happiness.

Okay, so you don't consider altruism to be particularly pleasant. That's fine.
Are you saying that it's impossible for the majority to be altruistic?

I'm not saying that it's impossible for the majority to be altruistic. I'm just saying that the standard by which majoritarianism works is not rational, but rather pleasure/pain. The majoritarian approach does not say that the altruistic majority's decision is good because it is altruistic, but because it is found to be most preferable by the majority. Likewise if the majority was sadistic; the decision is good not because it is sadistic, but because the majority finds it most preferable. And, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the majority is filled with rationalists. It would still not make democracy rational, because the decision is good not because it is rational, but because it is made by the majority. Therefore, we really cannot expect democracy to really be a worthy system of operation.

Morally wrong according to whom? If causing others pain makes me happy, then by your standards shouldn't I be able to do so?

Well, according to the subjectivist, this question could not be answered, and the sadist would just have carte blanche- there would not be any moral power to stop him. If this act were done upon non-consenting people it would be wrong because you are arrogating to yourself that which people have appropriated as they attempt to reach their final end, in this case their bodies. If you were doing it with a willing partner I would still say it was wrong because damaging your body does not help you to reach your final end (Your body is meant to help you reach said final end, hence why it was given to you.) However, in the latter case you could be able to do it, seeing as how you and your partner have a moral power to use your bodies as you wish, being rational beings, so long as they do not infringe upon others' belongings.

Not quite, since the majority has the power to force its views upon you if it chooses to do so.

It has the physical power to attempt to force their views upon me, but not the moral power. That is why you are entitled to resist it.

They don't need the moral power to do so.
You're entitled to resist them either way, should you wish to do so.

No, if they have the moral power to enforce it upon you, such as if you are a murderer and they are trying to bring you to justice, then you do not have the moral power to resist. You may have the physical power, but not the moral power, because it would be an act unworthy of you to resist.

Fair enough. Generally when I speak of association and lack of it, I tend to think of the last example. Hopefully if I bring it up in a discussion in the future, you'll remember that. If not, oh well. ;)

I'll try, bud. ;)

Why should he be obligated to cordon it off to preserve nature?

Because it would be readily recognizable if he does so, and shows that he values the land enough to go through the trouble of building it up. Other people may want to use the wilderness as farmland or residential space or for industrial uses. If you "develop" it (in a sense), then it shows that the land is already demonstrably in use and cannot be taken by other developers without said developers being guilty of theft.

Nice way to counter my argument, NO YOURS IS WORST, I never said I liked my country.

How about you concentrate on fixing yours then? =)

You don't create rights, you have to discover them. Otherwise, they become a matter of the will, and not of reason, and have very little, if any, moral power due to their subjectivity. That's why human nature is a good PON- it is fixed and discoverable through reason, rather than flexible and thus very weak.Of course rights are a product of the will.
Reason might lead to a good way of focusing the will, but it alone doesn't lead to rights.

It can be proven to be objective, actually, and we can show this through the principle of final causality. Everything in the universe acts purposefully; non-cognitive agents act in certain, predictable ways (that's why we don't have trees turning into stars or other randomness), and human beings rationally choose means to ends. The principle of final causality holds that there is an end that is not a means to another end- if it were otherwise, our actions would have no real meaning due to an infinite regression. Thus, all of our actions should be judged in light of this final end, with acts that bring us closer to this end being morally good and those that push us away being morally evil. We can understand what acts bring us closer to this final end in light of our human nature, which existence has endowed us to reach its own end via our actions. Thus, if we act according to our human nature, we can reach this final end and affirm our very existence, which will lead to happiness.Not quite. The way to prove that there is an objective morality via this method is to discover what that final causality is and prove that it is the final causality.
Without that, the question of whether morality is objective or subjective is moot; we must act as though they are subjective because we have no objective way of figuring out what they are.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for the majority to be altruistic. I'm just saying that the standard by which majoritarianism works is not rational, but rather pleasure/pain. The majoritarian approach does not say that the altruistic majority's decision is good because it is altruistic, but because it is found to be most preferable by the majority. Likewise if the majority was sadistic; the decision is good not because it is sadistic, but because the majority finds it most preferable. And, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the majority is filled with rationalists. It would still not make democracy rational, because the decision is good not because it is rational, but because it is made by the majority. Therefore, we really cannot expect democracy to really be a worthy system of operation.But I didn't say that democracy was a worthy system of operation in and of itself. It is simply the best system of operation that we have.
Propose a better system that's actually feasible.

Well, according to the subjectivist, this question could not be answered, and the sadist would just have carte blanche- there would not be any moral power to stop him. The sadist would not have carte blanche, because whether or not there is moral power to stop him is irrelevant, the victim would still try to do so.

If this act were done upon non-consenting people it would be wrong because you are arrogating to yourself that which people have appropriated as they attempt to reach their final end, in this case their bodies. If you were doing it with a willing partner I would still say it was wrong because damaging your body does not help you to reach your final end (Your body is meant to help you reach said final end, hence why it was given to you.) Given to me by whom?

However, in the latter case you could be able to do it, seeing as how you and your partner have a moral power to use your bodies as you wish, being rational beings, so long as they do not infringe upon others' belongings.Is it never rational to infinge upon others' belongings?

It has the physical power to attempt to force their views upon me, but not the moral power. That is why you are entitled to resist it.You don't need to be entitled to resist it to resist it.

No, if they have the moral power to enforce it upon you, such as if you are a murderer and they are trying to bring you to justice, then you do not have the moral power to resist. You may have the physical power, but not the moral power, because it would be an act unworthy of you to resist.Why would it be unworthy of me?

ecause it would be readily recognizable if he does so, and shows that he values the land enough to go through the trouble of building it up. Other people may want to use the wilderness as farmland or residential space or for industrial uses. If you "develop" it (in a sense), then it shows that the land is already demonstrably in use and cannot be taken by other developers without said developers being guilty of theft.Why does it need to be readily recognizable?

How about you concentrate on fixing yours then? =)

I don't know if you ever read, but Marxism is about global change.

I don't know if you ever read, but Marxism is about global change.

Perhaps you should read alittle more about Marx before you take an extreme pov.

Of course rights are a product of the will.
Reason might lead to a good way of focusing the will, but it alone doesn't lead to rights.

If they're a product of the will, then they're subjective. And will is not a good norm to base a system of rights upon, because, while it may be accessible, one's will does not apply to other people's actions, is not applicable to every person, and is not fixed. It has no moral authority, as one's will is not superior to another.

Not quite. The way to prove that there is an objective morality via this method is to discover what that final causality is and prove that it is the final causality.
Without that, the question of whether morality is objective or subjective is moot; we must act as though they are subjective because we have no objective way of figuring out what they are.

Actually, I have an answer concerning to what is the UON (ultimate objective norm.) The ultimate objective norm is that object which, when attained, will provide the USN of happiness. We'll use a process of elimination. Worldly goods, whether physical such as wealth or immaterial such as friendship, cannot be our UON because they are neither complete nor permanent. There is always more money to be made, more friends to be made, and so these are sources of unhappiness as well as happiness. So we can discount these. Bodily goods, such as health, are also not complete or permanent. Spiritual goods, such as knowledge, are not good enough either, because our knowledge is always limited. So there is nothing on the human level or below that can satisfy the requirements of a UON.

The only object that could really satisfy such requirements of a complete, permanent good are God, who/which is complete and permanent and the ultimate good. Of course, I have no idea if this is a sentient or non-sentient being, or if it is Jesus or Allah or Brahma or a guiding force or fate or whatever. Quite honestly, that's not the purpose of unaided reason to find out. The inaccessability of God provides a problem in using Him/Her/It as a PON, as opposed to a UON. However, there is a link between the two, as our human nature is purposefully given to us by Him/Her/It. Thus, if we just follow our human nature in the fullest meaning, then we will achieve the UON.

But I didn't say that democracy was a worthy system of operation in and of itself. It is simply the best system of operation that we have.
Propose a better system that's actually feasible.

A better system would not depend upon democracy. Democracy is fundamentally irrational, as it depends upon the will of the majority rather than a basis in reality. The better system would be one that depends upon reason. Since it is unjust for any one person to have a monopoly (i.e. entry restricted by force) on jurisdiction, there would be a series of concurrent, competing jurisdictions concerning declarative law (that law which concerns natural law, such as prohibitions on murder and slavery and theft.) It would be the responsibility of these individuals to use their exceptional powers of reason and strong character to arbitrate in such cases and have their rulings seen as legitimate by any who would approach them, as well as the populace at large. So much as the appearance of irrationality or moral corruption would render their opinions effectivelly null and void, and thus they would be cautious to avoid bad conduct.

As for determinative law, i.e. what side of the road you should drive on, what level of noise you are permitted to make during the day and night, and other details not directly related to natural law, these would be taken care of by founders of covenants whose desire it would be to make their area as attractive as possible to their clientele. The more rational of these, i.e. the ones who better understand what determinative laws make their covenant more valuable, will be the ones that succeed, while the less rational ones will go out of business.

The sadist would not have carte blanche, because whether or not there is moral power to stop him is irrelevant, the victim would still try to do so.

Moral carte blanche, which effectively makes the one who is in the right the one who is stronger. This, of course, is an irrational animal system of right and wrong.

Given to me by whom?

The UON.

Is it never rational to infinge upon others' belongings?

Unless you have some moral power to do so, in some sort of retribution, no. Committing an act to which one does not have a moral power to pushes one away from the UON, which entails the foregoing of happiness.

You don't need to be entitled to resist it to resist it.

No, you don't have to have the moral power to resist in order to physically resist. But doing so anyway is counter-productive and irrational.

Why would it be unworthy of me?

Because it pushes you away from the purpose of all of your actions, happiness. It is counter-productive and irrational. That is why it would be unworthy of you.

Why does it need to be readily recognizable?

If you claim to own something, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this, how would it at all be logical to assume that you really do own it? That's why we have "No Trespassing" signs and the like, so that people can readily recognize that the area is owned by another.

If they're a product of the will, then they're subjective. And will is not a good norm to base a system of rights upon, because, while it may be accessible, one's will does not apply to other people's actions, is not applicable to every person, and is not fixed. It has no moral authority, as one's will is not superior to another.Good? Perhaps not.
Real? Yes.

Actually, I have an answer concerning to what is the UON (ultimate objective norm.) The ultimate objective norm is that object which, when attained, will provide the USN of happiness. We'll use a process of elimination. Worldly goods, whether physical such as wealth or immaterial such as friendship, cannot be our UON because they are neither complete nor permanent. There is always more money to be made, more friends to be made, and so these are sources of unhappiness as well as happiness. So we can discount these. Bodily goods, such as health, are also not complete or permanent. Spiritual goods, such as knowledge, are not good enough either, because our knowledge is always limited. So there is nothing on the human level or below that can satisfy the requirements of a UON.

The only object that could really satisfy such requirements of a complete, permanent good are God, who/which is complete and permanent and the ultimate good. Of course, I have no idea if this is a sentient or non-sentient being, or if it is Jesus or Allah or Brahma or a guiding force or fate or whatever. Quite honestly, that's not the purpose of unaided reason to find out. The inaccessability of God provides a problem in using Him/Her/It as a PON, as opposed to a UON. However, there is a link between the two, as our human nature is purposefully given to us by Him/Her/It. Thus, if we just follow our human nature in the fullest meaning, then we will achieve the UON.So your point is that we should become God?

A better system would not depend upon democracy. Democracy is fundamentally irrational, as it depends upon the will of the majority rather than a basis in reality. The better system would be one that depends upon reason. Since it is unjust for any one person to have a monopoly (i.e. entry restricted by force) on jurisdiction, there would be a series of concurrent, competing jurisdictions concerning declarative law (that law which concerns natural law, such as prohibitions on murder and slavery and theft.) It would be the responsibility of these individuals to use their exceptional powers of reason and strong character to arbitrate in such cases and have their rulings seen as legitimate by any who would approach them, as well as the populace at large. So much as the appearance of irrationality or moral corruption would render their opinions effectivelly null and void, and thus they would be cautious to avoid bad conduct.

As for determinative law, i.e. what side of the road you should drive on, what level of noise you are permitted to make during the day and night, and other details not directly related to natural law, these would be taken care of by founders of covenants whose desire it would be to make their area as attractive as possible to their clientele. The more rational of these, i.e. the ones who better understand what determinative laws make their covenant more valuable, will be the ones that succeed, while the less rational ones will go out of business.Lots of problems with this, not the least of which is that it assumes there is such a thing as natural rights.

Moral carte blanche, which effectively makes the one who is in the right the one who is stronger. This, of course, is an irrational animal system of right and wrong.Not quite. Might doesn't make right, but might makes rights a reality.

The UON.Remember what I said about systems of objective morality being unprovable?

No, you don't have to have the moral power to resist in order to physically resist. But doing so anyway is counter-productive and irrational.It's counter-productive and irrational to resist someone trying to harm you?

Because it pushes you away from the purpose of all of your actions, happiness. It is counter-productive and irrational. That is why it would be unworthy of you.I view freedom of movement to be a necessary component of my happiness.
Jail would restrict my freedom of movement, thus making me unhappy.
Fleeing the jurisdiction would restrict my freedom less, so it is the better of two evils.

If you claim to own something, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this, how would it at all be logical to assume that you really do own it? That's why we have "No Trespassing" signs and the like, so that people can readily recognize that the area is owned by another.But since everyone owns everything (as a default position), there isn't any reason for me to put my mark on it.

Democracy is a petty bourgeoise fetish. Real socialism can only be achieved by dictatorship of the proletariat and a strong, protective, centralized government that manages the economy and regulates the nation to prevent chaos. We need more real socialists, like the viciously smeared, unsung hero Joseph Stalin, to bring about real socialism, and hopefully, real communism.

Good? Perhaps not.
Real? Yes.

But there's no rational reason to follw such a system, as it has absolutely no moral power. All such schemes have are physical power behind them, and can only be followed by a "might makes right" system of ethics, which is more on the level of animals than rational human beings.

So your point is that we should become God?

No. It is to attain God, in some sense or another.

Lots of problems with this, not the least of which is that it assumes there is such a thing as natural rights.

Then please elaborate, because otherwise you're begging the question of "What are the problems?" As for the natural rights bit, I have shown why I believe natural rights to be the rational mode of operation.

Not quite. Might doesn't make right, but might makes rights a reality.

Might doesn't give moral power, the best it can do is enforce moral power.

Remember what I said about systems of objective morality being unprovable?

Yes. And I remember that I responded to that, so we've kind of passed that point.

It's counter-productive and irrational to resist someone trying to harm you?

It depends why they're doing it. If they're taking your stuff as an indemnity for a crime you've committed, it is ultimately counter-productive to resist. If they're taking your stuff to go and fence it, then it is rational to resist.

I view freedom of movement to be a necessary component of my happiness.
Jail would restrict my freedom of movement, thus making me unhappy.
Fleeing the jurisdiction would restrict my freedom less, so it is the better of two evils.

It depends why you're in jail. If you're in jail as a political prisoner, then it is rational for you to escape. If you're in jail because you're a mass-murderer, then you must stay to repay your debts to your victims. Doing so will bring you closer to the final end that brings true happiness, while the previous will just push you further away from it.

But since everyone owns everything (as a default position), there isn't any reason for me to put my mark on it.

No, the default position is that we only initially own our bodies. Once we take scarce resources and alter them in some way or another do we own a resource, as we have indicated that it is something of value (hence why we went out of our way to homestead it.) Otherwise, if everyone owns all resources jointly, for one individual to go and use a resource constitutes theft, because he did not get everyone else's consent.

But there's no rational reason to follw such a system, as it has absolutely no moral power. All such schemes have are physical power behind them, and can only be followed by a "might makes right" system of ethics, which is more on the level of animals than rational human beings.The rational reason to follow such a system is that it actually exists. Is it rational to follow a system that doesn't exist?

No. It is to attain God, in some sense or another.I see. But if God is the end with no purpose, then why does God grant humans with the ability to attain happiness? Wouldn't that be the actual end?

Then please elaborate, because otherwise you're begging the question of "What are the problems?" As for the natural rights bit, I have shown why I believe natural rights to be the rational mode of operation.All right, other problems:

Too much power concentrated in the hands on one individual.
The assumption that people wouldn't want a leader who is irrational or morally corrupt.

Also, the part about the covenants. If morality is objective, then there would only be one covenant, and only one rational side of the road to drive on, and only one rational noise level to make, etc.

Might doesn't give moral power, the best it can do is enforce moral power.And moral power doesn't exist without might; you would have a powerless system of morals in that case.

Yes. And I remember that I responded to that, so we've kind of passed that point.Yes, you responded to an unproven assumption (the existence of an end result) with another (the existence of God). Unless of course, you can prove the existence of God.

It depends why they're doing it. If they're taking your stuff as an indemnity for a crime you've committed, it is ultimately counter-productive to resist. If they're taking your stuff to go and fence it, then it is rational to resist.It is rational to do whatever has the lowest amount of consequences.

It depends why you're in jail. If you're in jail as a political prisoner, then it is rational for you to escape. If you're in jail because you're a mass-murderer, then you must stay to repay your debts to your victims. Doing so will bring you closer to the final end that brings true happiness, while the previous will just push you further away from it.What is 'true happiness'? Is there not only one type of happiness?

No, the default position is that we only initially own our bodies. Once we take scarce resources and alter them in some way or another do we own a resource, as we have indicated that it is something of value (hence why we went out of our way to homestead it.) Otherwise, if everyone owns all resources jointly, for one individual to go and use a resource constitutes theft, because he did not get everyone else's consent.Indeed, for one individual to go use a resource without the permission of the people who would be affected by that use is theft.