NationStates Jolt Archive

Anarchy, complete with bloody civil war and roaming death squads.

EDIT

This is my thread now! Bwahahaha!!!

If you had to choose a non-democratic system to live under, what would it be? And how would you rate that system compared to democracy?

Anarchy. Just small groups of people, living on their own off the land, with limited contact with other groups for trade and marriage.

Benevolent Dictatorship so I can then stage a coup and take over. Duh. :D

Their is only one true 'democracy', and that is communism. Communism gives political and economic power to the masses, while capitalism gives an elite minority control of both.

The power of the bourgeois lies in their deceptive dictatorship, which is clouded in concepts of 'democracy', 'human rights', 'civil liberties', 'the rule of law' etc, of course these trivial decorations on bourgeois dictatorship will just as easily be restricted or dispensed with entirely if the proletariat starts using them to perpetuate class struggle. To think that the bourgeois will declare themselves openly in such a multi-party system is ludicrous, the current 'pluralistic' system is not at all pluralistic - it's simply a reflection of the 'consensus' and a competition between two equally bourgeois dictatorships, it's simply a fraud to try and fool the proletariat from resisting their class oppression.

For example, welfare capitalism represents the bourgeois state at a vulnerable state(ie Great Depression), when they conceded to welfare states to avoid proletarian revolution. Fascism is the highest stage of capitalism because it's capitalism at it's most vulnerable, it must utilize the whole apparatus of state oppression, genocide etc in order to avert the bourgeois loosing their state to the workers.

Anarchy. That way the world will be just like /b/.

Anarchy. That way the world will be just like /b/.

I am remembering a certain meme.

A monarchy might be nice as long as Clinton is the Undisputed Ruler.

No, not THAT Clinton! ANd not his rapidly deteriorating wife. This Clinton:































http://daduke.org/img/gc.jpg

I call it a Funkocracy. :)

I am remembering a certain meme.
How do I meme?

Meritocracy. Before you bite my head off for this let me explain it so that no one can argue that a person's merit would be inherently arbitrary.

Meritocracy is a system of a government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege, cronyism, popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.
So if someone wanted to be head of education they'd have to demonstrate their ability to run it as efficiently as possible, providing the best quality for the least price.

-snip-
Hey look everyone! AP is back! You are AP, aren't you?

Hey look everyone! AP is back! You are AP, aren't you?

Why wouldn't I be?

Hey look everyone! AP is back! You are AP, aren't you?

At what point was he away?

At what point was he away?
I'm not sure but I had lost track of him for a while.

Guys, as much as discussion about me is a worthy exercise, I think you should get back on topic.

I'm not sure but I had lost track of him for a while.

AP= Eureka Australis, if you didn't know.

If you had to choose a non-democratic system to live under, what would it be? And how would you rate that system compared to democracy?

Hmm... If I had to live under a different system of rule?

Maybe some sort of localized adhocracy (not bureaucratic; decentralized; lacking heirarchy) system with a more anarcho-socialist (if that makes any sense at all) policy...

And it'd have the potential to be better than the current system.

AP= Eureka Australis, if you didn't know.
I couldn't decide if EA was AP or just someone trolling for the lulz.

anarcho-socialist (if that makes any sense at all)
It doesn't.

And it'd have the potential to be better than the current system.
I doubt it.

A National Socialist dictatorship with more relaxed civil rights and a firm grip of the state on the economy

the possibilities are limitless. and depending on how you define it, ALL existing governments are non-democratic. some may be parlimentary in principal, perhapse even at their roots, but does that equal "democratic", when their legislatures are for sale to the highest bidding economic interest?

=^^=
.../\...

It doesn't.

I thought so...


I doubt it.

Meh, it depends on your definition of "better"... and "potential"...


EDIT: Time-warp'd Hamilay!
EDIT2: Time-warped by Cameroi...

I couldn't decide if EA was AP or just someone trolling for the lulz.

Why not both? ;)

Why not both? ;)
EA was never warned once, I guess that puts a damper on me being a 'troll' doesn't it...

It'd be absolute monarchy under the current British royal family (and appointed advisors), and I wouldn't mind it at all.

I thought so...
Socialism really only works when everyone is involved and contributing. I don't see how you could get socialism on a large scale. I know you say decentralized but this assumes that everyone is going to want to live in a small commune and be dependant on their neighboring communities and freely organize. I don't see that happening without a strong central government forcing it.

The other problem I see with socialism, aside from it redistributing wealth, is that it doesn't allow for capitalism. A capitalist society can tolerate socialist communes within it, so long as they pay the bills in America they're free to do anything that doesn't violate the law/the rights of others. During the 60's there was supposed to have been a surge of these and while a lot of businesses tended to look down on them people still put up with it. If you tried to start up some capitalist ventue in China or the Soviet Union at that time you'd be thrown in jail or even executed.

Meh, it depends on your definition of "better"... and "potential"...
I like my freedom, how's that? I don't care if some neo-hippies wanted to start a commune in my homestate. So long as they keep up with the bills there shouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't want to live with them but I wouldn't demand that they be thrown in jail until they grow up.

Why wouldn't I be?

because we thought you died in a flame war, doomed never to return:p

Guys, as much as discussion about me is a worthy exercise, I think you should get back on topic.

very well, i think either an elective monarchy or a stratocracy would be a good goverment, an EM elected by the people, while a stratocracy would be good for the ME

I wouldn't mind living under a benevolent monarchy or Empire (Operative word: Benevolent).

People are still allowed to do as they wish outside of politics, and the country has the relative stability that comes with a strong centralized government.

Most importantly: During battle, I get to shout things like "For the Emperor!".

It'd be absolute monarchy under the current British royal family (and appointed advisors), and I wouldn't mind it at all.
Well, as much as I like talking pot plants and grey goo...

If you had to choose a non-democratic system to live under, what would it be? And how would you rate that system compared to democracy?
I've always supported a system where one house is democratic and another is purely meritocratic and the two have to work together to approve new legislation (though either can draft it). That way the majority opinion is kept under rational regulation, but the potential for autocracy is very much reduced.

I've always supported a system where one house is democratic and another is purely meritocratic and the two have to work together to approve new legislation (though either can draft it). That way the majority opinion is kept under rational regulation, but the potential for autocracy is very much reduced.
So, how do you define metit, and how do you select a house designed to represent it?

A totalitarian police state run by Siamese cats.

Come on; we all know it would be an improvement.

Pro-state anarchy is the best government

Anarchy, of the self-government form.
As in there is no actual government beyond the laws you lay down for yourself.
People with stupid laws would suffer when they came into conflict with the people with more sensible rules... personal justice would rule.

Benevolent dictatorship, with me as the benevolent dictator.

Or if you insist on the "live under" part, I'd nominate Professor Edward Craig (http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/teaching_staff/craig/craig_index.html) (and not just because I used to know him - he'd be awesome in any case).

A benevolent dictatorship, since it'd be the best kind of government anyway, were it the beginnings of feasible.

As for my personal input, I believe that democracy is the worst form of government, and as such would prefer most everything to it (though an aristocracy of natural authority undergirded by customary law would be best.) Since the elected officials do not own the nation but are only able to take advantage of its resources in a short period of time, they will necessarily be short-sighted in their policies out of self-interest. This short-coming is compounded by rational ignorance, iron triangles, the ability to constantly twist and change the law making it ever more unpredictable and arbitrary, appeals to emotion over reason by way of political party identification, and the fantasy that the particular interests of elected officials constitute a general good (thus conveniently ruling out tyrannicide and rebellion, which are the only true safeguards against tyranny.)

Indeed, the worst governments (fascism, communism, Naziism, etc.) of the twentieth century are democracies, as all depend upon the ownership of the nation by an abstract collective (the Volk, the workers, the people, etc.), all depend heavily upon a political party apparatus that takes advantage of a desire to conform and the proclivity to react to emotional rather than intellectual input, and all believe that law is subsequent to the political authority rather than antecedent. Indeed, the distinguishing features of liberal democracies is that they contain law which is de facto more or less antecedent to the legislative power, such as habeas corpus in the United States, which would explain the extreme difficulty of nations without such a tradition to establish any system of rule resembling our own (Russia, Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc.)

Unfortunately these rights have been steadily eroded through attacks such as the drug war and, most recently, the national security hysteria and the ensuing surveillance state, as the political power seeks to bring the periphery of law under its control.

Well, if I were the dictator...
If you have dictatorial aspirations, you cannot even feasibly be a benevolent dictator. The ego would go to your head.

Some kind of Social Betterment squad would probably hunt you down, tbqh.

A benevolent dictatorship, since it'd be the best kind of government anyway, were it the beginnings of feasible.
Well, if I were the dictator...

Socialism really only works when everyone is involved and contributing. I don't see how you could get socialism on a large scale. I know you say decentralized but this assumes that everyone is going to want to live in a small commune and be dependant on their neighboring communities and freely organize. I don't see that happening without a strong central government forcing it.

Well, even communism has worked together (at least in the short term, but those were bad times with big armies of fascists helped out by foreign powers) with anarchy before (see the Spanish communes etc.)

The only socialism that requires a large state is... statist socialism.

The other problem I see with socialism, aside from it redistributing wealth, is that it doesn't allow for capitalism. A capitalist society can tolerate socialist communes within it, so long as they pay the bills in America they're free to do anything that doesn't violate the law/the rights of others. During the 60's there was supposed to have been a surge of these and while a lot of businesses tended to look down on them people still put up with it. If you tried to start up some capitalist venture in China or the Soviet Union at that time you'd be thrown in jail or even executed.

1) Not talking about communism (anarcho-socialism)
2) Not talking about a statist society (anarcho-socialism)
3) What exactly is wrong with redistributing wealth? Your post assumes it is an automatic evil.
4) You use of 'rights' probably entails a different definition than one used by many leftists; which generally excludes what some advocates of leftist policy (using an emotional appeal) describe as the 'freedom to exploit'.

I like my freedom, how's that? I don't care if some neo-hippies wanted to start a commune in my homestate. So long as they keep up with the bills there shouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't want to live with them but I wouldn't demand that they be thrown in jail until they grow up.

I think we both have different definitions of "freedom" and "grown up".

Well, even communism has worked together (at least in the short term, but those were bad times with big armies of fascists helped out by foreign powers) with anarchy before (see the Spanish communes etc.).
Nah, it didn't work, or they'd have fought off the Nationalists.

robocracy

Rule by the Machines; I'd gladly live under a AI designed to ensure that everyone was treated fairly, fed, and had a room over their heads.

Rafflocracy - government policy is determined by pulling bits of paper out of boxes. Each bit of paper would have a random word or phrase on it. Verbs in the first box, nouns in the second. The function of the civil service would be to implement, and make excuses for, the idiotic and random decisions this produced.

For instance, first box: 'declare war on', 'ban', 'privatise', 'get rid of', 'issue a message of support for', 'issue a message of support for... then get rid of' etc.
Second box: 'Iraq', 'the NHS', 'post offices', 'railways', 'Peter Mandelson', 'ice cream' etc.

Come to think of it, I think UK policy over the last 20-30 years may well have been created in just such a manner. So it wouldn't improve things, or make things worse. But it would be cheaper.
I, for one, would like to see Peter Mandelson privatised, on the proviso that it makes his running cheaper. We should have £3 million study on the matter, to be honest. Then a referendum.

Rafflocracy - government policy is determined by pulling bits of paper out of boxes. Each bit of paper would have a random word or phrase on it. Verbs in the first box, nouns in the second. The function of the civil service would be to implement, and make excuses for, the idiotic and random decisions this produced.

For instance, first box: 'declare war on', 'ban', 'privatise', 'get rid of', 'issue a message of support for', 'issue a message of support for... then get rid of' etc.
Second box: 'Iraq', 'the NHS', 'post offices', 'railways', 'Peter Mandelson', 'ice cream' etc.

Come to think of it, I think UK policy over the last 20-30 years may well have been created in just such a manner. So it wouldn't improve things, or make things worse. But it would be cheaper.

Nah, it didn't work, or they'd have fought off the Nationalists.

Well, as useful (and indeed effective) as good intentions and guerilla warfare are, it still can't really defeat a force that is stronger, more organised, and funded by other major powers. The biggest weakness of the anarchists in Spain was that both other major factions put aside their differences and crushed them --- the statist leftists, funded by Russia, and the fascists, supported by various other powers.

Hence we can conclude that it works, but is vulnerable to organised attack by greater numbers with superior funding.

Well, as useful (and indeed effective) as good intentions and guerilla warfare are, it still can't really defeat a force that is stronger, more organised, and funded by other major powers. The biggest weakness of the anarchists in Spain was that both other major factions put aside their differences and crushed them --- the statist leftists, funded by Russia, and the fascists, supported by various other powers.

Hence we can conclude that it works, but is vulnerable to organised attack by greater numbers with superior funding.
Aye, and the fact that it didn't attract any international support, of any great kind, and was utterly destroyed pretty quickly, shows that it doesn't work all that well when it comes to what governments are really, actually for, which is stuff like fighting wars.

Rule by the Machines; I'd gladly live under a AI designed to ensure that everyone was treated fairly, fed, and had a room over their heads.
Me too, but the big questions are "Who programs it?" and "How can we tell they've programmed it right?"

So, how do you define metit, and how do you select a house designed to represent it?
Good questions. My notion of Merit is based on a combination of talent and competence in a particular field of knowledge or practice, but to all practical purposes, it would most likely be "nomination by peer organisations". The house itself would be composed of merited specialists from a wide range of different fields, such as medicine, engineering, the sciences, arts and culture, economics etc. where a particular number of seats can be given to professional or non-governmental organisations and trade unions for the purposes of representation.

Now, presumably, you see why this would need to be played off in opposition to a democratically elected house. You couldn't just give the organisations control and leave them be; they need to be limited by what the general public will let them do. However, elevating them to positions of office does have the additional benefit of meaning that every parliament ruling is effectively peer reviewed before coming into legislation, which is a rather nice little thing to be able to say.

Really? I'd rather declare war on him.
It would be cheaper to just ban Peter Mandelson (and anyone with the same name, which would be branded onto them at birth).

I, for one, would like to see Peter Mandelson privatised, on the proviso that it makes his running cheaper. We should have £3 million study on the matter, to be honest. Then a referendum.

Really? I'd rather declare war on him.

Aye, and the fact that it didn't attract any international support, of any great kind, and was utterly destroyed pretty quickly, shows that it doesn't work all that well when it comes to what governments are really, actually for, which is stuff like fighting wars.

Well, one must of course consider the wider context. The major European powers of the time had to worry about revolutionary elements among the working classes, mostly due to abominable conditions. The success of the Russian Communists in 1917 had proven to be nearly a catastrophe, and therefore a successful Anarchist state in Spain could have been the last straw. One must also consider that Russia was focusing on building standing in the international community, and therefore supporting the anarchists was really quite out of the question.

Secondly, remember that there was not actually a government at this time, nor really a state. There were a large number of people, living in equality, and what fighting forces were mustered were simply people pitching in to defend themselves. The result, therefore, was that their defensive capabilities were naturally limited, as no central authority tends to do that.

Therefore, what can impress us as to the efficiency of Anarchism is the fact that it held out for a year, without collapsing into internal fighting, and defending itself against multiple enemies with powerful backers. It also managed to do this without compromising it's fundamental principles. That sounds like a fairly successful system to me.

Of course, it's implementation today would be subject to many of the same weaknesses. While the state can tolerate differences such as communism and capitalism, a fundamental shift to anarchism is something that directly threatens all other governments, and so would be rapidly destroyed. Indeed, the differences between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were not too colossal, apart mostly from the differing economic ideas --- they were both highly nationalistic authoritarian states. On the other hand, by destroying the concept of a state, Anarchism is directly in conflict with the standing ideas, and will probably be generally unstable when in implemented in a limited scale for this very reason.

Me too, but the big questions are "Who programs it?" and "How can we tell they've programmed it right?"

Obviously we program an AI and it transcends past the first singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) level and programs another AI to rule over us...right? Makes enough sense.:p

Once you have an effective AI, the governance programming should be easy: give it Asimov's four (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Zeroth_Law_added) laws of robotics to chew on, and the rest is down to how effectively it can gather accurate data.

If you had to choose a non-democratic system to live under, what would it be?

I would do what was necessary to overthrow such a system and (re)establish a liberal democratic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).

(EDIT: "had to choose a" are the words of those who need overthrowing)

Indeed, the worst governments (fascism, communism, Naziism, etc.) of the twentieth century are democracies, as all depend upon the ownership of the nation by an abstract collective (the Volk, the workers, the people, etc.), all depend heavily upon a political party apparatus that takes advantage of a desire to conform and the proclivity to react to emotional rather than intellectual input, and all believe that law is subsequent to the political authority rather than antecedent.


If, and only if, one buys into fascist, communist, and Nazi propaganda. They all claim the heritage of democracy, of the people, and of the law.

But no reasonable person would buy into that sort of nonsense, right?

robocracy

Rule by the Machines; I'd gladly live under a AI designed to ensure that everyone was treated fairly, fed, and had a room over their heads.

Are you serious? You would roll and get raped by AI?

A pampered slave is still a slave.

Letting AI have control over actual living human beings? Never! Why on earth would you ever want to have machines control mankind's destiny?!

*reasons*
Macht nichts, they lost.

If, and only if, one buys into fascist, communist, and Nazi propaganda. They all claim the heritage of democracy, of the people, and of the law.

But no reasonable person would buy into that sort of nonsense, right?

The abstract 'will of the people' is necessarily an amoral concept, in that just as one man can choose good or evil, so can many do the same. All of these regimes had at the very least the tacit approval of the greatest number, and the fanatical support of many. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini could rightly claim the support of the 'will of the people', for without this bare minimum they would have surely been overthrown. Yet this is not a compliment to these monsters but the sad truth of the deficiencies of mob rule. Until you can prove that to tacitly approve a totalitarian is not part of one's will, then this subject needs no further elaboration.

If you had to choose a non-democratic system to live under, what would it be? And how would you rate that system compared to democracy?

Market anarchism.

Macht nichts, they lost.

Given the particularly awful way the deck was stacked against them, holding on for a year is in itself pretty damn impressive. I can't think of any ideologies which could withstand that sort of attack

Given the particularly awful way the deck was stacked against them, holding on for a year is in itself pretty damn impressive. I can't think of any ideologies which could withstand that sort of attack
The fact that it mostly existed in villages and farms in the middle of nowhere kind of ensured that people didn't give a shit about it, which is why it lasted for as long as it did.

The abstract 'will of the people' is necessarily an amoral concept, in that just as one man can choose good or evil, so can many do the same. All of these regimes had at the very least the tacit approval of the greatest number, and the fanatical support of many. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini could rightly claim the support of the 'will of the people', for without this bare minimum they would have surely been overthrown. Yet this is not a compliment to these monsters but the sad truth of the deficiencies of mob rule. Until you can prove that to tacitly approve a totalitarian is not part of one's will, then this subject needs no further elaboration.

All forms of government require the tacit aproval of the majority. If a majority is all that is needed to make a government democratic then when you argue for customary law you are arguing for a form of democracy where the "will of the people" is customary law. Thus you are arguing for mob rule.

Are you serious? You would roll and get raped by AI?

A pampered slave is still a slave.

Letting AI have control over actual living human beings? Never! Why on earth would you ever want to have machines control mankind's destiny?!

Because every other form of government created by man has always failed.

Because every other form of government created by man has always failed.

Not only is this statement factually incorrect, but, even if it were true, it still would not follow that government by not-man must "succeed."

All of these regimes had at the very least the tacit approval of the greatest number,


As does every other form of government, society, organization or institution. Including the "aristocratic" ones. They exist only so long as the majority continue to tolerate them, they fail once their tolerance is used up.

At most, one is stating the obvious about everything in general, and yet nothing about "democracy" in particular.


Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini could rightly claim the support of the 'will of the people', for without this bare minimum they would have surely been overthrown.


Just like every leader of everything ever. So what?


Until you can prove that to tacitly approve a totalitarian is not part of one's will, then this subject needs no further elaboration.


I need not prove any such thing, because it has nothing to do with any of my claims or positions. My claim is that what you cite ("fascism, communism, Nazism, etc.") are not characteristic of democracy. It is not enough to cite side sufficient support for totalitarians, because sufficient support is necessary for everything. If sufficient support is alone all that makes democracy, then everything is democracy, including your own preference. I assume you don't intend that to be the case.

Because every other form of government created by man has always failed.
Why not point out that when it comes to dealing with finite material resources, emotionless and mathematical machines are far better than biased and dialetical humans in working out what to do with them? Or that mass production can be clearly done infinitely better by machine than by hand? Or that a trusted software base will not get bogged down in managing bureaucracy, but will nonetheless be able to produce it on command?

Focus on the positives!

Why not point out that when it comes to dealing with finite material resources, emotionless and mathematical machines are far better than biased and dialetical humans in working out what to do with them?


Or that an emotionless and mathematical machine is the perfect unquestioning lieutenant for carrying out the biased and dialectical plans of the human programmer without doubt or mercy?

The other points come back to this one, as well.

Until you can prove that to tacitly approve a totalitarian is not part of one's will...
Let's assume the extremity case here: totalitarian leader has his hand on a button that will blow up the entire nation instantly and thoroughly if he so desires. Any attempt to depose his rule will result in immediate and total destruction.

Obviously, the individual has a decision to make here; they can go along with this (and hope everyone else does too) or they can be blown to smithereens. In some sense, given that yielding authority is a choice that is the result of a process of rational evaluation of circumstance, we can say that it is an individual's will that the totalitarian regime stay in power, since they could but don't make the decision to sacrifice everyone instead.

However, the question remains whether this is action is actually based on the internal motivations of the person making the decision. Obviously they don't want everyone to die, but "submission to despotic overlord" has to rank pretty low on the desirability scale too. If we were to look at what the individuals making the decision actually wanted, it would probably be option c: "get him away from that button without dying"; a situation that they cannot bring about but that they nonetheless desire. As a result, we can also say that the individual's will has not been exercised, since external factors have prevented them from achieving or making progress towards the satisfaction of their intention.

To summarise: It's all semantics. I think it's fair to say, to be honest, that Democracy is full of tacit approval itself anyway (since you've only got a limited number of candidates), so I'd be inclined to agree that the difference between totalitarianism and democracy is just the number of boxes you're allowed to tick, but I can see where people can be made to think that picking a choice is equivilent to making a decision, and we may safely acknowledge that what we've got here is a slight protocol glitch in the communication of ideas.

Or that an emotionless and mathematical machine is the perfect unquestioning lieutenant for carrying out the biased and dialectical plans of the human programmer without doubt or mercy?

The other points come back to this one, as well.
I did make that point myself a page ago. Did get a response about waiting until machines learn to program themselves, but I can see where that's ignoring the problem.

Let's look at it this way: Assuming by some miracle an entirely benevolent and 1337-skillz programmer manages to code an optimum algorithm for natural resource distribution that keeps all people nourished, healthy, safe and free to pursue their own happiness whilst retaining a renewable supply of the resources, utilising this algorithm would be a good idea.

Why not point out that when it comes to dealing with finite material resources, emotionless and mathematical machines are far better than biased and dialetical humans in working out what to do with them? Or that mass production can be clearly done infinitely better by machine than by hand? Or that a trusted software base will not get bogged down in managing bureaucracy, but will nonetheless be able to produce it on command?

Focus on the positives!

TBH, I was going to go on about how an AI that used solar energy wouldn't have any sort of greed or lust for power because it would realize an excess of energy would be wasteful (where as a human would want it for the sole point of having more then anyone else) And a AI controling multiple smaller machines wouldn't ever need to tax you; it pays it's self in energy from the sun and the workers wouldn't need anything other then energy to do their jobs.

Etc.

but then I realized I was rambling.

-snip-

Any state depends upon its legitimacy in the eyes of its population, as its monopoly on jurisdiction necessarily entails angering people who are victimized when the state decides against them for its own benefit. The state needs to maintain its legitimacy in order to prevent an uprising against it that would prevent its continued abuse of its perch in society due to their pursuit of self-interest. Seeing as how those controlling the state have their own particular interests which they will act upon for their own benefit, elections are superfluous in actual decision-making (see iron triangles, rational ignorance, and rent-seeking), and are only valid in so far as they provide a cloak of legitimacy to those controlling the state. The most they decide is which particular individual will be doing the exploiting. (Hence why campaign promises are routinely broken once their competitor is eliminated, and so many decisions are either made by leaders with little attention from the masses or are made by proxies such as bureaucrats and judges.)

Also, I did not say that tacit approval is the only determinant of whether a nation is a democracy or not, as every state depends upon legitimacy; the true determinant is the ownership of the nation. And, in democracies, the nation is owned by an abstract collective (the Volk, the workers, whatever group of people whose anger, envy and fear one wishes to take advantage of.) This holds true for Naziism, communism, fascism, etc., in that just as George W. Bush cannot sell the United States and pocket the proceeds, neither could Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. have done the same in their respective nations, as the nation belonged to their respective collectives.

Elections, again, are superfluous; it does not matter whether or not they are fair, as out of self-interest politicians will pursue a variety of policies that are beyond the comprehension of the masses. Elections are merely an end to maintaining legitimacy to continue exploitation. Rather, fair elections are the result of a pre-existing liberal culture, i.e. one with pre-existing laws that would cost the state too much legitimacy to remove, in which one in general is expected to honor one's word. But as one political party with its assorted particular interests vying for abusive power gains dominance it will dispense with fair elections to deprive its opponents the opportunity to exploit just the same as it will with all liberalism.

-snip-

See above.

-snip-

See above.

I did make that point myself a page ago. Did get a response about waiting until machines learn to program themselves, but I can see where that's ignoring the problem.

Let's look at it this way: Assuming by some miracle an entirely benevolent and 1337-skillz programmer manages to code an optimum algorithm for natural resource distribution that keeps all people nourished, healthy, safe and free to pursue their own happiness whilst retaining a renewable supply of the resources, utilising this algorithm would be a good idea.

Not if the a machine came up with it and implemented it. Machines should never have control over humans.

Democracies always collapse into anarchy or dictatorship. Democracy is not an option.

Dictatorships incite revolution, and fall to anarchy or a new dictatorship.

Anarchy is unstable. Someone will seize power, and it will cycle into a dictatorship.

The Constitutional Republic is the most stable form of government, but only when the people actively participate and vigilantly watch their servant, the government, lest it become the master and become a tyranny.

The united States of America was a Constitutional Republic. Now it is becoming an Oligarchy (rule of the many by an elite few, a form of tyranny) and there is little chance of change. Any action toward change MUST NOT result in anarchy, because the consequences WILL be worse than what we have now.

Also, I did not say that tacit approval is the only determinant of whether a nation is a democracy or not, as every state depends upon legitimacy; the true determinant is the ownership of the nation. And, in democracies, the nation is owned by an abstract collective (the Volk, the workers, whatever group of people whose anger, envy and fear one wishes to take advantage of.) This holds true for Naziism, communism, fascism, etc., in that just as George W. Bush cannot sell the United States and pocket the proceeds, neither could Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. have done the same in their respective nations, as the nation belonged to their respective collectives.

Ummmm.... I doubt Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashed al-Maktoum would be able to sell Dubai to the US government or Bill Gates if all parties desired it to happen. The people of Dubai, and more realistically the Sheikh's underlings and rivals, would stage a coup. The abstract collective still has de facto ownership of the nation. thus it is a democracy by your own definitions.

Any state depends upon its legitimacy in the eyes of its population, as its monopoly on jurisdiction necessarily entails angering people who are victimized when the state decides against them for its own benefit. The state needs to maintain its legitimacy in order to prevent an uprising against it that would prevent its continued abuse of its perch in society due to their pursuit of self-interest. Seeing as how those controlling the state have their own particular interests which they will act upon for their own benefit, elections are superfluous in actual decision-making (see iron triangles, rational ignorance, and rent-seeking), and are only valid in so far as they provide a cloak of legitimacy to those controlling the state. The most they decide is which particular individual will be doing the exploiting. (Hence why campaign promises are routinely broken once their competitor is eliminated, and so many decisions are either made by leaders with little attention from the masses or are made by proxies such as bureaucrats and judges.)


How the aristocratic/oligarchic state (mal)functions is irrelevant. It's rather obvious how the aristocratic/oligargic state fails to implement democracy. You've described it rather well.

However, we were discussing whether "fascism, communism, Nazism, etc." are characteristic of democracy. Please avoid invoking additional red herrings in future responses.


And, in democracies, the nation is owned by an abstract collective (the Volk, the workers, whatever group of people whose anger, envy and fear one wishes to take advantage of.)


This is perhaps true only where we are concerned with national/state entities. The practice of democracy is not constrained to such entities, however. Indeed, individualism and decentralization are key democratic concepts.

In any genuine democracy, an individual owns his or her own self. As such, democracy is nothing more than each individual expressing the will that he or she owns. Of course, no one individual will can claim unchallenged sovereignty over another individual; thus the purpose of universal suffrage and the democratic vote.

Aristocracy, however, limits the effective expression of will to only an elite few because it allows this few to claim unchallenged sovereignty (this is essentially the corrupt perversion that you insist, for whatever bizarre reason, on calling "democracy"). Aristocracy thus disallows each individual outside the elite from expressing his or her own will.

In effect, with aristocracy, my will becomes owned by someone else. Pine for one's feudalistic fantasy in private as one wishes, but know that I will not be made a slave.


But as one political party with its assorted particular interests vying for abusive power gains dominance it will dispense with fair elections...


In other words, this political party will destroy democracy. This, of course, is why no serious advocate of democracy will also advocate sheer unrestricted "majority rule." Limitations on power, the liberal values one cites, are instead advocated as necessary to restrain "majority rule" and ensure that "one political party" cannot "dispense with fair elections."

The system as it exists now may be corrupted; indeed, in the many ways it reflects aristocracy and oligarchy, it is highly corrupted.

But to attribute the corruption to democracy, rather than the absence of democracy, is absurd. To suggest abandonment of democracy entirely is worse still.

One may as well be a doctor that cures an infection with a bullet to the head. Such a "cure" somewhat misses the point.

Undisputed dictatorship, with me in charge. It would be worse than democracy, as non-democracy is inherently worse than democracy, but it would be the best non-democratic system.

Meritocracy. Before you bite my head off for this let me explain it so that no one can argue that a person's merit would be inherently arbitrary.


So if someone wanted to be head of education they'd have to demonstrate their ability to run it as efficiently as possible, providing the best quality for the least price.Demonstrate that 'efficiency' is more meritorious than other possible methods of running education.

Macht nichts, they lost.Does the fall of France to the Nazis a couple years later mean the republic must always fail?

-snip-

You have no way of supporting this other than your intuition. Do you honestly think that if he sold to one of his family members, that there would really be any resistance? Kings decide who inherits the realm, kings decide the property transfers of weddings and the like, and aristocracies can buy, sell and transfer titles all the time (the king, of course, being the highest aristocrat.) In fact, the Sheikh has leased a great deal of his land in exchange for money. Democratic masters, however, could not lease the land and pocket the proceeds, as they do not own the country.

How the aristocratic/oligarchic state (mal)functions is irrelevant. It's rather obvious how the aristocratic/oligargic state fails to implement democracy. You've described it rather well.

However, we were discussing whether "fascism, communism, Nazism, etc." are characteristic of democracy. Please avoid invoking additional red herrings in future responses.

If you weren't so busy being snide, you might have noticed that I was trying to lay the groundwork of what a state does in general so as to better understand the working of the democratic state in particular. In all states, legitimacy (along with the competition of other states) is the only restraint on the pursuit of self-interest of those in power. As such, elections are immaterial, in that they only decide who will pursue their self-interest with the deadly tools of a monopoly on jurisdiction which largely go unnoticed or even applauded.

This is perhaps true only where we are concerned with national/state entities. The practice of democracy is not constrained to such entities, however. Indeed, individualism and decentralization are key democratic concepts.

The arbitrary power of the largest portion of the population =/= individual jurisdiction, especially when the former is able to decide the laws. And as for decentralization, it should be noted that the largest expansion of state power came with democracy with its ascendance after WWI, concerning taxation, regulation and inflationary expansions of the money supply. Democracy specifically reinforced state power like no other form of government prior, which is because few will criticize a system of government which they can enter and (ab)use for their self-interest.

In any genuine democracy, an individual owns his or her own self. As such, democracy is nothing more than each individual expressing the will that he or she owns. Of course, no one individual will can claim unchallenged sovereignty over another individual; thus the purpose of universal suffrage and the democratic vote.

You can't own yourself if the laws may be changed arbitrarily. This is the fundamental problem with the democratic legislative process, which is not led by each individual's will but by the will of the largest portion of the population (at best. Often, due to this portion's ignorance many edicts can be made by the political elite and judges and bureaucrats.) To conflate the will of one individual with the will of a bunch of other people is strange, at best.

Aristocracy, however, limits the effective expression of will to only an elite few because it allows this few to claim unchallenged sovereignty (this is essentially the corrupt perversion that you insist, for whatever bizarre reason, on calling "democracy"). Aristocracy thus disallows each individual outside the elite from expressing his or her own will.

Untrue. Have you ever heard of the concept of rex sub lege, in which one's particular rights rise and fall with the others (hence delegitimizing any king who steps outside of the bounds of his particular rights)? Or, better yet, tyrannicide, a concept that has spanned everyone from the Jesuits to Confucius? Physical disruption, including violence, is the only limit on the abuse of power. Punching a hole in a piece of paper a few years after a politician has done his damage, assuming you can get a whole bunch of other people to look past the lies and follow you, is not, as it merely replaces one person who is abusing the reins of power for another who will do the same. Bullets always trump ballots, unless you know how to use the latter to cause a paper cut on a despot's vitals.

In effect, with aristocracy, my will becomes owned by someone else. Pine for one's feudalistic fantasy in private as one wishes, but know that I will not be made a slave.

If you truly wanted to be free, you would not put such faith in little slips of paper.

In other words, this political party will destroy democracy. This, of course, is why no serious advocate of democracy will also advocate sheer unrestricted "majority rule." Limitations on power, the liberal values one cites, are instead advocated as necessary to restrain "majority rule" and ensure that "one political party" cannot "dispense with fair elections."

Governments can never impose liberal values; we can see this in Iraq. But we can see this even in marginally liberal nations, such the United States, as any 'check' created by power, like the Constitution will necessarily be biased in the state's favor due to self-interest (or it will become so.) Hence why George Washington was able to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion right after a war against excise taxation, thanks to that despicable document. And we've only gotten worse since. It is only pre-existing liberal institutions that can limit a state, such as the rights of Englishmen, since these are free of the bias of the state power.

In fact, that political party is not defying democracy but rather bringing it to its logical conclusion. Seeing as how an emotional response precedes the results of the deductive process, and that the latter is a time-consuming and difficult task, political parties can readily seize upon this and bend others through the use of their noise machine. Eventually, when the particular interests behind one noise machine overpowers its competitors by solidifying an emotive loyalty to the party, it will dispense with fair elections to the applause of the masses. Nowhere is the fundamental principle of democracy, the ownership of the abstract collective, violated, as the party cannot sell the nation or its components and pocket the proceeds; this indicates that the nation still belongs to 'the people.' However, the party has brought the periphery of law, liberalism, completely under the control of the state as the purest expression of the will of the people and with law subsequent to the political authority, which is perfectly in line with the core tenet of democracy.

The system as it exists now may be corrupted; indeed, in the many ways it reflects aristocracy and oligarchy, it is highly corrupted.

Due to the unequal endowments of people, especially in charisma and leadership, there will always be aristocrats who are followed by others. Eliminating aristocracy is a fantasy, and not even desirable. What makes a difference is whether this aristocracy is one of natural authority or of statist legislative power.

But to attribute the corruption to democracy, rather than the absence of democracy, is absurd. To suggest abandonment of democracy entirely is worse still.

Democracy is innately corrupt, because it puts the law subsequent to the authority of the political power, who will always abuse their position out of self-interest regardless of whatever paper restraints are put upon them (specifically voting.) It is because democracy provides the greatest legitimacy to these people, especially with the establishment of an entrenched political party that the masses have an emotional tie to, that it is so corrupt.

One may as well be a doctor that cures an infection with a bullet to the head. Such a "cure" somewhat misses the point.

It is more like being a doctor who is trying to remove a massive tumor on a patient's chest while someone keeps shouting their erroneous belief that the tumor is actually the patient's heart, and that to remove it will kill them.

You have no way of supporting this other than your intuition. Do you honestly think that if he sold to one of his family members, that there would really be any resistance? Kings decide who inherits the realm, kings decide the property transfers of weddings and the like, and aristocracies can buy, sell and transfer titles all the time (the king, of course, being the highest aristocrat.) In fact, the Sheikh has leased a great deal of his land in exchange for money. Democratic masters, however, could not lease the land and pocket the proceeds, as they do not own the country.

If he sold it to brother there would likely be little to know resistance if that acceptable way of passing rulership but I doubt the people would be so accomodating for a foreigner. Do you have historical evidence that a king/queen/emperor sold ownership/monopoly of jurisdiction rights to their entire Kingdom? Do you have evidence of a dictator being kicked out of office for stealing money from the people, ie the true owners? Do you have a dictionary whose sole definition of democracy is alleged ownership rights by an abract collective?

If you had to choose a non-democratic system to live under, what would it be? And how would you rate that system compared to democracy?

Telepathic Hivemind.

If he sold it to brother there would likely be little to know resistance if that acceptable way of passing rulership but I doubt the people would be so accomodating for a foreigner. Do you have historical evidence that a king/queen/emperor sold ownership/monopoly of jurisdiction rights to their entire Kingdom?

The heir to Byzantium actually sold his title to the rulers of Spain, but he had been disinherited by the Turks at this point. But more relevantly it was common for medieval Icelandic godord to sell their titles, and much the same with in the rest of Europe to sell property that would provide ennoblement (such as a title to a castle.)

I will say that absolute monarchy is distinct from aristocracy in that it is a precedent to democracy, since it supposes that rather than the king being an authority because of the support he gains from specific individuals he is actually the agent of an abstract nation (hence the meaning of "l'etat c'est moi.") However, at least the absolute monarch has what jurists called 'fortunate powerlessness', in which the king cannot defy that which gives him power (i.e. the upholding of the rights of the people) and may be eliminated. Democracy has de facto unlimited power and brings the idea of abstract ownership to its fullest expression.

Do you have evidence of a dictator being kicked out of office for stealing money from the people, ie the true owners?

Peron comes to mind, when he lost his legitimacy and was overthrown. But the distinction is that while the stealing of a dictator is corruption, the pocketing of proceeds of a king is considered standard-fare as he is using his personal property and not that of others. The dictator is ultimately not the owner but beholden to political party loyalty, and will try to take as much as he can before the party decides to remove him, whereas a king owns the realm and may take advantage of its future returns.

Do you have a dictionary whose sole definition of democracy is alleged ownership rights by an abract collective?

Regular dictionaries are rather bad at political definitions; hence why they conflate anarchy with chaos. But Bertrand de Jouvenel's Sovereignty and Power highlight the philosophical underpinnings of democracy and absolute monarchy and how dictatorship naturally flows from liberal democracy thanks to the nature of party politics.

Venndee, the ancien regime no longer exists, no matter how much you wish it did.

...non-democracy is inherently worse than democracy...
I think I have to disagree. There are circumstances where democratic process may need to be limited, such as when the majority is in favour of the oppression of a minority. Although this is certainly better than a minority being able to oppress the majority, we are not in an either-or situation here. Non-democratic elements in a nations governance can act as a buffer to the former, while democratic elements can act as a buffer to the latter, as long as the structure is properly established such that neither has power over the other.

Venndee, the ancien regime no longer exists, no matter how much you wish it did.

Very cute. Now, do you have something intelligent to say?

Now, do you have something intelligent to say?
The key behind quantum computing is that when the atomic elements of computation are simply state permutation matrices, you're not actually making any irreversible changes to the initial state, and thus you don't need to make measurements (which, as we know, would fix the spin of the particles used to perform the computation) until the point at which you need to retrieve a particular item of information...

Oh, sorry, about systems of government? Nah, I got nothin'.

A Fascist state as it was origionally concieved, not as it was put into practice.

Can't exist. For Fascism to exist people would have to put aside their selfish lifestyles and devote themselves to the greater good of those around them...and too few people actually care about the rest of society.

If you have dictatorial aspirations, you cannot even feasibly be a benevolent dictator. The ego would go to your head.
I'd be benevolent toward those who thought I was doing a good job. I might have to go all Pinochet on everyone else.

Their are only 2 bases for states, either bourgeois or proletarian, although these two are not fully descriptive, the correct conception that political power can only serve one of these classes at the same time (because of their diametrically opposed interests) means that the state in essence can only serve one or the other. The bourgeois state, as the most common, has many variations, welfare states if the bourgeois feel threatened, or fascist states if they feel really threatened, or even liberal 'democracies' or or neoliberal trade blocs (rather than states) if they feel very confident in their positions.
To view states under the spectrum of class is of course the only way to correctly analyze them, because it looks at the reality of material conditions for the basis of them, not to some meta psychical or religious concept as Venndee does.

The heir to Byzantium actually sold his title to the rulers of Spain, but he had been disinherited by the Turks at this point. But more relevantly it was common for medieval Icelandic godord to sell their titles, and much the same with in the rest of Europe to sell property that would provide ennoblement (such as a title to a castle.)

So the answer is no.

I will say that absolute monarchy is distinct from aristocracy in that it is a precedent to democracy, since it supposes that rather than the king being an authority because of the support he gains from specific individuals he is actually the agent of an abstract nation (hence the meaning of "l'etat c'est moi.") However, at least the absolute monarch has what jurists called 'fortunate powerlessness', in which the king cannot defy that which gives him power (i.e. the upholding of the rights of the people) and may be eliminated. Democracy has de facto unlimited power and brings the idea of abstract ownership to its fullest expression.

The desire to curb an absolute monarch's power appears to innevtiably include the introduction of a constitutional restraints follwed by a parliamentary government. How is this to be curbed?

Peron comes to mind, when he lost his legitimacy and was overthrown. But the distinction is that while the stealing of a dictator is corruption, the pocketing of proceeds of a king is considered standard-fare as he is using his personal property and not that of others. The dictator is ultimately not the owner but beholden to political party loyalty, and will try to take as much as he can before the party decides to remove him, whereas a king owns the realm and may take advantage of its future returns.

Peron's loss of legitimacy does not appear to be because of his missapropiation of public funds, from what I can tell. Do you have a source? I did not mean just a dictator who was disposed of by a successful coup.

Regular dictionaries are rather bad at political definitions; hence why they conflate anarchy with chaos. But Bertrand de Jouvenel's Sovereignty and Power highlight the philosophical underpinnings of democracy and absolute monarchy and how dictatorship naturally flows from liberal democracy thanks to the nature of party politics.

I doubt many would find it convincing.

I think I have to disagree. There are circumstances where democratic process may need to be limited, such as when the majority is in favour of the oppression of a minority. When the majority is in favor of the oppression of a minority, that is itself the limiting of the democratic process.
Nonetheless, I did not specify a majority-rule form of democracy, or more specifically, majority rule is not the only form of democracy.

Well, the most successful historical state was the Roman Empire and who really knows what governmental system they ran as it seemed to change almost yearly. Maybe states should run in spite of themselves?

As far as what other governmental system I'd rather have- assuming we're talking about democracy in its current form (parliamentary democracy, not a system I particularly like), I'd rather have a system where the people elect a single, absolute leader (or a small council) whose lawmaking is bound by the Constitution and upheld by a democratically elected (in some form) Supreme Court. Much of the problems with Parliamentary democracy is the fact that there's just too much bureaucracy created by too many representatives. It'd still make elections a popularity contest but at least decisions can be made quicker.

Non-democracy I'd also vote for "benevolent dictatorship", since the dictator has the interest of the people at heart and the ability to make decisions that may not be popular but best for the country. However, I just don't see it sustaining itself forever- not all the dictators will be good for the country and if the people can't get rid of their dictator the country is in trouble.