Democracy Sucks

[Comrade Anarchist]

I am NOT saying this from a fascist perspective like the rest of fucking revleft, but instead im coming from an individualist anarchist point. Democracy allows all of us to vote and have a say in our gov't, commune, city, whatever is around. The problem with democracy is that when in a republic is only allows you to choose your oppressors, in a commune or other form of collective it allows the people to oppress you through their vote. It allows people to decide on you behalf and you on their behalf. It gives my neighbor the right to rule me and me the right to rule him. I don't see what is so great about democracy. It allows people to vote and thats it, but in a direct democracy it allows people to control you and your behavior and thoughts. If a revolution were to happen it is my hope that we wouldn't revert to direct democracy and sacrifice the individual for the collective. So is democracy the fish paraded in front of us and when we reach it it is nothing but bones or it is the key to future and blah blah blah. Once again im not fascist nor do i believe in a despot, unlike the rest of revleft im coming from an egoist point.

[Havet]

I am NOT saying this from a fascist perspective like the rest of fucking revleft, but instead im coming from an individualist anarchist point. Democracy allows all of us to vote and have a say in our gov't, commune, city, whatever is around. The problem with democracy is that when in a republic is only allows you to choose your oppressors, in a commune or other form of collective it allows the people to oppress you through their vote. It allows people to decide on you behalf and you on their behalf. It gives my neighbor the right to rule me and me the right to rule him. I don't see what is so great about democracy. It allows people to vote and thats it, but in a direct democracy it allows people to control you and your behavior and thoughts. If a revolution were to happen it is my hope that we wouldn't revert to direct democracy and sacrifice the individual for the collective. So is democracy the fish paraded in front of us and when we reach it it is nothing but bones or it is the key to future and blah blah blah. Once again im not fascist nor do i believe in a despot, unlike the rest of revleft im coming from an egoist point.

Isn't it better than an individual sacrificing the collective for himself?

I understand where you're coming from. You're likely to reply something like "there need not be sacrifices", and I agree, but voluntary cooperation with other human beings is essential for the intellectual and technological development of mankind, for its betterment. If there are resources which have the capacity to affect all, then they should be controlled democratically.

[RGacky3]

It is'nt all or nothing, the question is what is democratically controlled, what is not.

BTW, if your an egoist, your probably not a leftist, which means you probably need to be restricted. BTW. As a side point, egoism is a rediculous philosophy.

[Edelweiss]

No true socialist rejects democracy. Socialism is democracy. It's bourgeois democracy what most here reject.

[Havet]

BTW, if your an egoist, your probably not a leftist, which means you probably need to be restricted.

He IS already restricted...like you xD

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you don't support the "tyranny of the majority", then I guess you support the "tyranny of the minority".

Dealing with other people is a fact of life, so grow the fuck up*. You can only hope influence the form in which you interact with people - democratically, through a hierarchy, through picking a leader, or having one imposed on you.

Democracy is the best of all these options in my opinion; the world has only known minority-run societies and so it's about time for socialism: a majority (working class) run society. A nice thing about democracy and collectives is since they are about "majority rule" and all groups are made of individuals, the majority of individuals would not want to create a system without protection for individuals like themselves.

Setting up "individuals" and "collectives" as opposites is a strange, non-materialist, and just plain false way that Ayn Randists and some Libertarians look at the world. In reality all societies are collectives and "collectives" are just individuals; collectives can have democratic decision making or autocratic decision making and everything in-between. In the end, "individualist" politics simply means that you favor collectives where the minority (or even individual) has power over the majority.




*unless you want to live as a naked hermit away from all human contact and all the efforts of human collective labor: clothes, houses, anything made by people or in factories.

[Skooma Addict]

I am NOT saying this from a fascist perspective like the rest of fucking revleft, but instead im coming from an individualist anarchist point. Democracy allows all of us to vote and have a say in our gov't, commune, city, whatever is around. The problem with democracy is that when in a republic is only allows you to choose your oppressors, in a commune or other form of collective it allows the people to oppress you through their vote. It allows people to decide on you behalf and you on their behalf. It gives my neighbor the right to rule me and me the right to rule him. I don't see what is so great about democracy. It allows people to vote and thats it, but in a direct democracy it allows people to control you and your behavior and thoughts. If a revolution were to happen it is my hope that we wouldn't revert to direct democracy and sacrifice the individual for the collective. So is democracy the fish paraded in front of us and when we reach it it is nothing but bones or it is the key to future and blah blah blah. Once again im not fascist nor do i believe in a despot, unlike the rest of revleft im coming from an egoist point.

The supposed supporters of democracy only support it when it is convenient for them. Should we be allowed to vote to enslave red haird people? No. So it turns out that supporters of democracy want to put arbitrary restricions on what can be voted on, and they only want democracy when it is convenient for them. There is nothing special about majority vote. Something is not right just because the majority wants it.


Isn't it better than an individual sacrificing the collective for himself?

I understand where you're coming from. You're likely to reply something like "there need not be sacrifices", and I agree, but voluntary cooperation with other human beings is essential for the intellectual and technological development of mankind, for its betterment. If there are resources which have the capacity to affect all, then they should be controlled democratically.

So what resources wouldn't be controlled democatically?


Setting up "individuals" and "collectives" as opposites is a strange, non-materialist, and just plain false way that Ayn Randists and some Libertarians look at the world. In reality all societies are collectives and "collectives" are just individuals; collectives can have democratic decision making or autocratic decision making and everything in-between. In the end, "individualist" politics simply means that you favor collectives where the minority (or even individual) has power over the majority.

An individual is a single person. A collective is a group of people. The people who claim that the individual and the collective are one and the same are mystics.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I am NOT saying this from a fascist perspective like the rest of fucking revleft, but instead im coming from an individualist anarchist point. Democracy allows all of us to vote and have a say in our gov't, commune, city, whatever is around. The problem with democracy is that when in a republic is only allows you to choose your oppressors, in a commune or other form of collective it allows the people to oppress you through their vote. It allows people to decide on you behalf and you on their behalf. It gives my neighbor the right to rule me and me the right to rule him. I don't see what is so great about democracy. It allows people to vote and thats it, but in a direct democracy it allows people to control you and your behavior and thoughts. If a revolution were to happen it is my hope that we wouldn't revert to direct democracy and sacrifice the individual for the collective. So is democracy the fish paraded in front of us and when we reach it it is nothing but bones or it is the key to future and blah blah blah. Once again im not fascist nor do i believe in a despot, unlike the rest of revleft im coming from an egoist point.

So you don't believe in a despot, but want everyone to replace democracy with what you think is correct, and have entirely no say in the matter if they disagree?

And you call this individualism! :rolleyes:

[GPDP]

Hyper-individualism is a strange beast, indeed. No to dictatorship, no to oligarchy, and a thousand times no to democracy, "individualists" seem to say. Only the individual rules!

...a while back I mentioned, as someone who has renounced anarchism (though sympathies remain, of course), I see no problem with government, but many anarchists do. Out of those anarchists, however, it seems most of those call for a confederation of democratic communes or other such systems of... GASP! Governance! Or, at least, what I argue is a form of (democratic and decentralized) government. They just seem to be reluctant to call it a government.

And then, in the remaining number of anarchists who reject government... you have the "individualists" who reject government not out of semantics, but out of principle altogether. Damn it, if we're gonna be anarchists, then let us HAVE fucking anarchy! No states, no governments, no one telling me what to do ever! I'm a society upon myself! You know, like the OP.

A little more insight into what I perceive is their "third way" that repudiates both minority and majority rule in society:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1666153&postcount=46

[Jimmie Higgins]

The people who claim that the individual and the collective are one and the same are mystics.Why? Because you said so?:lol:

I didn't argue that individuals and collectives are one and the same, I said that they are not opposed and opposites as small-thinking Ayn Rand acolytes claim.

Everything from language to the thoughts in your head are the result of the collective human experience. Humans are social beings and so since everything we have and use and think is the result of collective effort, since we are constantly coming into contact with other people - how do we negotiate this? How do we make decisions?

Since decisions for collectives have to be made - from how to produce something to what kind of laws to have or not have, the real question is not "individual vs collective" the real question is what is the best way for these decisions to be made. The one that is most fair for all individuals is democracy since every individual can get an equal chance to make his or her case from their perspective. Of course we can get more specific: how can we ensure that minority rights are respected, that certain rights can not be taken away from individuals and so on - in fact I think the majority would want to protect certain rights: right to privacy, right to defend yourself, right to strike, right to speak freely without repercussions, and so on.

Everything else is just abstractions and ideological slight-of-hand to justify minority rule over the majority.

[rednordman]

To create a collective...You first need individuals. There you go, simple maths for you. In otherswords, a group of individuals = a collective. Well what do you know, that wasnt that hard to understand was it?

FFs, we are not all trying to be like clones. And we are not fascists (or mystics for that matter -wtf?). What a dam snobish way to insult us. What the hell is an egoist anyway?

[Jimmie Higgins]

To add some more points: if people mean "individual freedom" by means of only having mutual associations - I am all for it. But I also think it's an impossible situation to have in class societies with artificial scarcity and competition for profits. Having to sell your labor because you don't have acess to the means of production is not a "mutual" arrangement, it's still a coercive one, just not coercive through the direct use of state repression.

When class differences are done away with and people can freely choose to enter into arrangements or not (without having to starve or go homeless) this is communism and even the kind of "state" organization that the working class may need after the revolution will not be necessary any more and so everything will just be based on mutual associations.

[RGacky3]

The supposed supporters of democracy only support it when it is convenient for them. Should we be allowed to vote to enslave red haird people? No. So it turns out that supporters of democracy want to put arbitrary restricions on what can be voted on, and they only want democracy when it is convenient for them. There is nothing special about majority vote. Something is not right just because the majority wants it.


Its much much less likely that red people would be enslaved democratically, rather than being enslaved by a society run by a just a few people. So your being silly, if you don't like democracy, becuase bad things MIGHT happen, and your solution is capitalism, dictatorship or some other form of tyranny where bad things most likely WILL happen, your an idiot.

In a truely democratic society I am willing to bet 100% that red haired people, or anyone, will not be enslaved.


So what resources wouldn't be controlled democatically?


Things that no one wants controlled democratically, like your toothbrush and clothes.


An individual is a single person. A collective is a group of people. The people who claim that the individual and the collective are one and the same are mystics.

There is no fight between individualism or collectivism. Socialists believe that the best way for EVERYONE to have the opportunity at individual freedom, is socialism. The question is'nt democracy or individualism, its democracy or tyranny, because unfortunately in society, things affect other people.


...a while back I mentioned, as someone who has renounced anarchism (though sympathies remain, of course), I see no problem with government, but many anarchists do. Out of those anarchists, however, it seems most of those call for a confederation of democratic communes or other such systems of... GASP! Governance! Or, at least, what I argue is a form of (democratic and decentralized) government. They just seem to be reluctant to call it a government.

The difference is those democratic communes or confederations are not institutions, or set in place, they are just tools to get things done.

[Zanthorus]

I am NOT saying this from a fascist perspective like the rest of fucking revleft, but instead im coming from an individualist anarchist point.

I'm a bit saddened and yet not entirely surprised to see you restricted. Every one of your posts that I've seen on the time I've been on here has reeked of individualism and anti-communalism/collectivism.

I used to have almost the same world outlook as you so I can sort of understand where you're coming from. But the problem is that if we champion the individual above all others and constantly attempt to maintain individual autonomy then when the time comes to move out of the swamp of the noble savage and enter the light of civilisation it becomes impossible to maintain that autonomy. Take the organisation of a factory for instance. For a factory to work properly people have to have some kind of co-ordination in their organisation and that means some kind of plan. Democracy allows the plan to reflect the interests of the majority of the workforce. Rampant individualism leads to two conclusions - First, don't build factories or anything that requires collective decision making, hence primitivism. Second, build factories but put them under the control of the strongest/richest individual so as not to allow him to be "oppressed" by the grovelling masses.

Clearly no one with any kind of sanity can maintain this kind of individualism for long without either championing free market capitalism or reverting to primitivism (Although even capitalism has rules and institutions and the more consistent individualists avoid making any blueprint for society altogether, Eschewing politics for a "live for the moment" type of ideal), or taking a more communalist approach to individual freedom.

As Murray Bookchin points out, there is a difference between "autonomy" and "freedom". The first is what hyper-individualists champion and conflate with freedom. The second is what communalists/collectivists champion because it isn't some abstract notion of no fetters on the almighty individual, but a real notion of actual freedom and absence of domination and oppression within the context of society.

Real human freedom is infinitely preferrable to abstract reductionist notions of autonomy because the basis of each individual is the society they are born into. If that society is built on a democratic economy, social freedom and the championing of materialism and rationality then the individual will truely be free to pursue their needs and happiness in the collective context.

As Bookchin says:


...freedom, a word that shares etymological roots with the German Freiheit (for which there is no equivalent in Romance languages), takes its point of departure not from the individual but from the community or, more broadly, from society. In the last century and early in the present one, as the great socialist theorists further sophisticated ideas of freedom, the individual and his or her development were consciously intertwined with social evolution -- specifically, the institutions that distinguish society from mere animal aggregations.

What made their focus uniquely ethical was the fact that as social revolutionaries they asked the key question -- What constitutes a rational society? -- a question that abolishes the centrality of economics in a free society. Where liberal thought generally reduced the social to the economic, various socialisms (apart from Marxism), among which Kropotkin denoted anarchism the "left wing," dissolved the economic into the social.3

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as Enlightenment thought and its derivatives brought the idea of the mutability of institutions to the foreground of social thought, the individual, too, came to be seen as mutable. To the socialistic thinkers of the period, a "collection" was a totally alien way of denoting society; they properly considered individual freedom to be congruent with social freedom and, very significantly, they defined freedom as such as an evolving, as well as a unifying, concept.

In short, both society and the individual were historicized in the best sense of this term: as an ever-developing, self-generative and creative process in which each existed within and through the other. Hopefully, this historicization would be accompanied by ever-expanding new rights and duties. The slogan of the First International, in fact, was the demand, "No rights without duties, no duties without rights" -- a demand that later appeared on the mastheads of anarchosyndicalist periodicals in Spain and elsewhere well into the present century.

Thus, for classical socialist thinkers, to conceive of the individual without society was as meaningless as to conceive of society without individuals. They sought to realize both in rational institutional frameworks that fostered the greatest degree of free expression in every aspect of social life.

- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/cmmnl2.mcw.html

[Skooma Addict]

Its much much less likely that red people would be enslaved democratically, rather than being enslaved by a society run by a just a few people. So your being silly, if you don't like democracy, becuase bad things MIGHT happen, and your solution is capitalism, dictatorship or some other form of tyranny where bad things most likely WILL happen, your an idiot.

In a truely democratic society I am willing to bet 100% that red haired people, or anyone, will not be enslaved.While I am heartbroken that you think I am an idiot, I still think you missed the point. Supporters of democracy only support it at their own convenience. As I said, you don't think people should be allowed to vote to enslave red haired people (I hope). You are also 100% sure that nobody would be enslaved? Absolutely 100% sure?

By the way, are you expecting these democracies to just appear in the absence of a government?

[IcarusAngel]

While I am heartbroken that you think I am an idiot, I still think you missed the point. Supporters of democracy only support it at their own convenience.

Wrong logic. Supporters of democracy VOTE to decide what shouldn't be voted on.

Supporters of democracy would decide that you shouldn't vote on hair color (or race) because supporters of democracy have determined these are non-essential issues, and that everybody has certain rights, such as the right to hair color.

If it were proven that hair color affected freedom, supporters of democracy would allow it to be voted on.

Democracy is like science. What becomes standard is what is most supported.

[IcarusAngel]

The true form of individualism is leftism. There is no such thing as property rights in true forms of individualism, because everybody has their own definition as to what constitutes property. Even if people isolated themselves it would be very leftist, because there would be no hierarchy.

If people voluntarily entered into oppressive contracts, it could still be seen to be leftist although it wouldn't be anarchist by definition.

Leftism entails freedom of the individual to have as many choices as possible, and as much power as possible, and that entails some form of collectives like worker cooperatives.

Right forms of collectivism, like corporations, capitalism, racism, and so on, are all fundamentally based around hierarchy and around allowing certain capitalists (or property owners or land owners) more power.

So it's not individualism thats evil, it's the right distorted individualism that's pure evil. Leftist individualism is just unrealistic, much like, say, taoist philosophy (not practical for the real world but beneficial personally).

[Skooma Addict]

Wrong logic. Supporters of democracy VOTE to decide what shouldn't be voted on.

So we could vote to enslave people then? You do not oppose this in principal?

[Red Commissar]

No true socialist rejects democracy. Socialism is democracy. It's bourgeois democracy what most here reject.

Exactly. The structure of liberal democracies that are universal among democracies now is essentially a tool for bourgeoisie interests.

[Zanthorus]

So we could vote to enslave people then? You do not oppose this in principal?

Enslaving someone would involve removing their democratic right to vote. Hence undemocratic.

[The Red]

I don't see what's so great about Anarchy it leads to Somalia. Get a proper ideology before making such silly statements.

[Green Dragon]

A nice thing about democracy and collectives is since they are about "majority rule" and all groups are made of individuals, the majority of individuals would not want to create a system without protection for individuals like themselves.


What about protection for individuals NOT like "themselves?"

[Green Dragon]

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;1666929]Its much much less likely that red people would be enslaved democratically, rather than being enslaved by a society run by a just a few people.

Historically, there is not much of a basis for such a claim. ALL the great tyrannies of the 20th Century claimed to be democratic in nature.




In a truely democratic society I am willing to bet 100% that red haired people, or anyone, will not be enslaved.


Only if the majority of the people were motivated liberalism ie freedom. Otherwise the suppression of red haired people is entirely democratic- if the majority supports it.

[Green Dragon]

Wrong logic. Supporters of democracy VOTE to decide what shouldn't be voted on.

Supporters of democracy would decide that you shouldn't vote on hair color (or race) because supporters of democracy have determined these are non-essential issues, and that everybody has certain rights, such as the right to hair color.

If it were proven that hair color affected freedom, supporters of democracy would allow it to be voted on.

Democracy is like science. What becomes standard is what is most supported.

You are confusing two concepts: Democracy answers the question "Who rules." It has nothing to do what "How rule." Indeed, if it becomes standard to repress red-heads, then such an act is entirely democratic. There need not be any science based upon such a collective decision. Such a requirement would be "undemocratic" since it would mean not everyone would have an "equal say" in government (the educated would have more say than the uneducated).
It would be undemocratic to deny the majority to make decisions on what they wish.

Efforts to protect red-heads, and to protect freedom of speech ect. can certainly occur in a democracy, but its motivation is preserving liberty.
The question then becomes, What is more important? Defending the liberty of red heads, or defending a system which can allow their repression?

[Jimmie Higgins]

the majority of individuals would not want to create a system without protection for individuals like themselves.
What about protection for individuals NOT like "themselves?"You mean the Borg? What individual is not an individual? And I thought this discussion was too abstract BEFORE! :lol:

Do you interpret that I was saying that individuals would only vote to protect other individuals that they define as part of some similar category? That's not what I was talking about ("protection for individuals like themselves" ie other individuals) - but on this subject of protecting the minority opinion - most democratic bodies have put various rules in place to protect the dissenting voices. The most basic way would be the ability to bring things up for a new vote after enough time had passed to make an assessment of the first vote.

So if 90% voted for a pizza party every Friday to riase funds for the Pizza Party Club and you were part of the 10% minority who argued that pizza parties only end up raising money from within the club because no one else shows up... well after the first pizza party Friday, if no one outside the club showed up, you would probably move to have a new vote in which you argue that your position was correct all along and there should be no further pizza party fundraisers.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The true form of individualism is leftism. There is no such thing as property rights in true forms of individualism, because everybody has their own definition as to what constitutes property. Even if people isolated themselves it would be very leftist, because there would be no hierarchy.

If people voluntarily entered into oppressive contracts, it could still be seen to be leftist although it wouldn't be anarchist by definition.

Leftism entails freedom of the individual to have as many choices as possible, and as much power as possible, and that entails some form of collectives like worker cooperatives.

Right forms of collectivism, like corporations, capitalism, racism, and so on, are all fundamentally based around hierarchy and around allowing certain capitalists (or property owners or land owners) more power.

So it's not individualism thats evil, it's the right distorted individualism that's pure evil. Leftist individualism is just unrealistic, much like, say, taoist philosophy (not practical for the real world but beneficial personally).

Well Icarus, I don't think its that the left so much rejects individualism so much as we are bemused as to what the term even goddamn means.

It seems to me to be one of those contentless words, that can literally be reshaped to mean anything, but is often thrown about just because of the resonance it has in the public psyche.

What does individualism mean exactly? The only definition i've had really is that it favours "the individual", and is opposed by its evil and shadowy opponent; "collectivism" - which as a communist, apparently I support.

But thats always made little sense to me, because if we take the individualsts claims at their word, and agree that there is nothing more to collectives than the individuals that comprise them, the leftist seem avowedly individualistic in that they seek favour the great mass of individuals, over the minority of individuals who they see as oppressive. But apparently such action is "collectivist" because it seeks to put the collective above the "Individual" - except how can that be the case when the action benefitting the collective naturally benefits the individuals inside the collective - so by opposing the idea this, what are individualists saying exactly? That real individualism isn't so much putting "individuals before the collective" as putting a minority of individuals before a larger group of other individuals....which kind of renders the term "individualism" void of any meaning - better call it "despotism" or "minority rule" or something.

I could go on and on like this. It would seem to be to be pretty damn juvenile to make such a distinction between individual and collective interests, as they are two opposed groups...It is in the interest of the individual for the collective to flourish, and it is in the interest of the collective (i.e. groups of individuals) for an individual to flourish, unless it is at the expense of other individuals. That the miss such an obvious fact, its almost as if these individualist freedom loving libertarians think the poor, unwashed masses don't count as real individuals...Hmmmm...are they trying to tell us something here?

As Marx puts it; "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"

It would seem to me that individualism is just some slander, and when people claim the to be supporters of individualism, they do not mean to "favour the individual against the collective" like the name implies, but simply favour some individuals against others.

And guess what? The rights we need to grant and make sacred to protect the individual (namely private property) just so happen to be the ones most favorable to the wealthy rather than every other "individual" else. Well what a fucking surprise!

So, when a guy claims to be a individualist, what he really is is a guy who favours rich individuals over poor individuals.

Still I think any of us egalitarians should be happy that open elitism is so unacceptable that they have to disguise the same centuries old elitist arguments in this manner.

[mikelepore]

So we could vote to enslave people then? You do not oppose this in principal?

That example overlooks the point that we have to choose a system for making further choices, and we have to do it without knowing what the future's questions will be. Some policy question or other will arise in the year 2030, and we have to decide today what method we shall leave in place for the people of the future to use when the time comes. We know from experience that the people not being allowed to vote on issues is systematically associated with bad policies, and majority rule is correlated with improved policies. Your example would require that we could know in advance what the the future's choices would be, making the future become the past, which, if true, would permit us to comment "It was unwise of them to vote for slavery." That's like saying that people should tie your hands behind your back because we would be doing you a favor if someday in the future you were going to eat poison. All we know is that being allowed to make educated choices is systematically related to the best outcomes, so let's go with the practice of being able to choose at all times. Some bad choices will be made, and we will have also minimized the quantity of them.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

To the OP, I have to say you should perhaps, of you are worried about the tyranny of the majority, consider a system in which there are certain individual rights which are protected by the society itself and cannot be infringed upon. Maybe freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religion, etc etc

I think this is probably the reason that, to me, anarchism seems a little bit of a scary idea to me.

[Green Dragon]

Do you interpret that I was saying that individuals would only vote to protect other individuals that they define as part of some similar category? That's not what I was talking about

That is perhaps not what YOU are talking about. But perhaps the majority would dissagree.



("protection for individuals like themselves" ie other individuals) - but on this subject of protecting the minority opinion - most democratic bodies have put various rules in place to protect the dissenting voices. The most basic way would be the ability to bring things up for a new vote after enough time had passed to make an assessment of the first vote.


Yes. But not required.



So if 90% voted for a pizza party every Friday to riase funds for the Pizza Party Club and you were part of the 10% minority who argued that pizza parties only end up raising money from within the club because no one else shows up... well after the first pizza party Friday, if no one outside the club showed up, you would probably move to have a new vote in which you argue that your position was correct all along and there should be no further pizza party fundraisers.


Sure. If those 90% democratically decide to let you call for a new vote.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I am NOT saying this from a fascist perspective like the rest of fucking revleft, but instead im coming from an individualist anarchist point. Democracy allows all of us to vote and have a say in our gov't, commune, city, whatever is around. The problem with democracy is that when in a republic is only allows you to choose your oppressors, in a commune or other form of collective it allows the people to oppress you through their vote. It allows people to decide on you behalf and you on their behalf. It gives my neighbor the right to rule me and me the right to rule him. I don't see what is so great about democracy. It allows people to vote and thats it, but in a direct democracy it allows people to control you and your behavior and thoughts. If a revolution were to happen it is my hope that we wouldn't revert to direct democracy and sacrifice the individual for the collective. So is democracy the fish paraded in front of us and when we reach it it is nothing but bones or it is the key to future and blah blah blah. Once again im not fascist nor do i believe in a despot, unlike the rest of revleft im coming from an egoist point.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI7.html, u might want to read this.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Democracy allows people to control and constrict for their own benefit. It allows the lazy to take control of the great mind so that the lazy man can benefit while the great mind slowly loses initiative and drive. Nobody has any right to tell me what to do, i thought that was a basic tenant of anarchism yet you want to allow you neighbor to tell you what to do? That makes no sense and you rely on society and expect it to survive after a revolution and to form to your wishes, yet you rail against society. I'm against society as a whole and i believe that no one has the right to control me. My neighbor has no right to tell me what to do and i have no right to do the same to him. Individualism is when an individual has control of their life, mind, and body. The collective does not make individualism, it takes it away and forms you to fit it. Society can not be formed or changed, and it forms you and that is the false individualism kropotkin was talking about in the article from Red Robin. Democracy is one stain of modern day society that will thrown away after a revolution. If direct democracy takes its place then there will have to be another revolution or else the control and oppression that hurts us today will continue and will grow b/c it allows you neighbor to directly control instead of through a government.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Democracy allows people to control and constrict for their own benefit. It allows the lazy to take control of the great mind so that the lazy man can benefit while the great mind slowly loses initiative and drive. 1. What magic distinguished a "great mind" from the "lazy"? You sound like a puritan from 300 years ago saying that if someone's house burned down it's because they lack God's grace and have been pre-destined to fail and damned since birth.

2. I would think then that someone with thinking as lazy as yours would be all for democracy then.

[RGacky3]

Historically, there is not much of a basis for such a claim. ALL the great tyrannies of the 20th Century claimed to be democratic in nature.

But were they? Thats the point, so historically, there is a basis for such a claim.


Only if the majority of the people were motivated liberalism ie freedom. Otherwise the suppression of red haired people is entirely democratic- if the majority supports it.

I'm pretty sure most people want freedom and justice, the majority is not going to support the suppression of red haired people, I guarantee you that, so stop being silly, but whats your better option?

YOu can say "maybe this will happen, maybe that will" But the fact is, msot of the claims are preposterous, and you don't have another option. The fact that it might happen does'nt mean that its exponentially less likely to happen in comparison to any other system.

[(A)(_|]

I've always had such unanswered inquiries. To me, it always seemed ironic that anarchists supported a maximization of an individual's liberties while at the same time advocating direct democracy as a means to govern a collective, a direct democracy which could entail that you be stripped of such liberties or rights under the guise of the validity of a majority's rule. For example, the consumption of alcohol is banned, and was banned by a majority vote by the folks of the Zapatista movement.

What does this mean to someone who wants to drink Alcohol? The same question arises on the late minaret controversy in Switzerland. I'd always tell people I thought the ban was erroneous and unjustified but that I, at the same time, thought that direct democracy was an eligible process.

In all, I'm quite unsure as to what I should hold or think on this issue. What could replace such a system? a novel fascistic system? but that wouldn't be very unprecedented, would it?, what does the OP propose, an abolition of laws?

[Green Dragon]

But were they? Thats the point, so historically, there is a basis for such a claim.


Sure. They all were supported by the majority.

I am certain it would not be too difficult to find people on this board will defend the proposition that Cuba is a free country because the "Revolution" is popular.
In fact, there is a thread on Chavez right now, in which some of the notes caim that because Chavez is popular, therefore he cannot be dictatorial.



I'm pretty sure most people want freedom and justice, the majority is not going to support the suppression of red haired people, I guarantee you that, so stop being silly, but whats your better option?
[/QUOTE]

The red headed example was brought up by somebidy else. I simply went along with it. Substitute what you want with it.



YOu can say "maybe this will happen, maybe that will" But the fact is, msot of the claims are preposterous, and you don't have another option. The fact that it might happen does'nt mean that its exponentially less likely to happen in comparison to any other system.

We are watching, yet again, where it happens, yet again. This time in Venezuala.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm pretty sure most people want freedom and justice, the majority is not going to support the suppression of red haired people, I guarantee you that, so stop being silly, but whats your better option?

YOu can say "maybe this will happen, maybe that will" But the fact is, msot of the claims are preposterous, and you don't have another option. The fact that it might happen does'nt mean that its exponentially less likely to happen in comparison to any other system.

But in principal, do you think people should be allowed to vote to enslave red haired people?

[Havet]

But in principal, do you think people should be allowed to vote to enslave red haired people?

Olaf, I think you picked a rather poor example. What about something more credible, like an alcohol ban, or a cannabis ban? Or, if you want to get in the topic of humans, how about restricting black people from the commune?

[IcarusAngel]

In a democracy, everybody has the right to vote and have access to human rights. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a democracy, by definition. I know Miseans are bad at definitions but try to follow along.

If you have a free-market, you can probably assume that resources will be consolidated, because that is the best way to do research, when you have a lot of research and power. In a democracy this is unrealistic, because everybody would have power. In a free-market, it makes sense to pay one group of people less wages since that helps to create competition among the lower classes, the slaves, the workers, in other words. This is what actually happened when it was legal to pay blacks less. In a democracy, this is impossible, because everybody has equal rights.

As usual, Olaf refuses to even try to make sense.

[IcarusAngel]

I've always had such unanswered inquiries. To me, it always seemed ironic that anarchists supported a maximization of an individual's liberties while at the same time advocating direct democracy as a means to govern a collective, a direct democracy which could entail that you be stripped of such liberties or rights under the guise of the validity of a majority's rule.

I'm not allowed to drink alcohol on the job at work either, and that is a MINORITY rule, it isn't the rule of the majority of the workers there - the majority of people who actually run the company, while the managers go to sleep and collect all the money (make capital).

When two or more people form a group, there will be differences, so it's best to sort out those differences via majority rule. This could be specialized, in the way that science is specialized. For example, it used to be a "fact" that the universe was infinite, now it's a fact that the universe is expanding, because new research came in.

New information and facts are coming into society as well, and people need a way to deal with new information other than allowing an elite class of "owners" the right to permit or deny the workers access to this information.

I fail to see how it's tyrannical to get things done, and keep in mind, you could also drink on your own time. But you do NOT have the right to force me to drink or to accept your drinking.

Libertarians mirror a dictator, always telling me what THEY will be doing, rather I like or everybody else likes it or not.

[Skooma Addict]

Olaf, I think you picked a rather poor example. What about something more credible, like an alcohol ban, or a cannabis ban? Or, if you want to get in the topic of humans, how about restricting black people from the commune?

That is a good point. If I were trying to show practical problems with democracy, then I would use those as examples. However, I am referring to people who claim to support democracy in principal. I assume that nobody honestly thinks we should even be allowed to vote on enslaving a certain group of people, along with a whole host of other things. So what the supposed supporters of democracy actually mean is "I support democracy when it does not interfere with my other normative beliefs."


In a democracy, everybody has the right to vote and have access to human rights. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a democracy, by definition. I know Miseans are bad at definitions but try to follow along.

Sure. The slaves can have equal votes as well. It is still a democracy with slavery. As for human rights, those are just matters of opinion and that is the end of it.

[Zanthorus]

Olaf, have you ever considered that this isn't just a problem with democracy? As near as I can tell Hans-Hermann Hoppe seems to support some kind of feudalistic version of anarcho-capitalism run by "natural elites". In a private property society people can still discriminate against redheads if they want to and if the majority decide then they can easily enslave people even without having democratic institutions.

In any non-totalitarian society the majority opinion is going to have an effect. The point of democracy is to soften the affects of majority rule by allowing the oppressed to have a say as well.

[Skooma Addict]

Olaf, have you ever considered that this isn't just a problem with democracy? As near as I can tell Hans-Hermann Hoppe seems to support some kind of feudalistic version of anarcho-capitalism run by "natural elites". In a private property society people can still discriminate against redheads if they want to and if the majority decide then they can easily enslave people even without having democratic institutions.

In any non-totalitarian society the majority opinion is going to have an effect. The point of democracy is to soften the affects of majority rule by allowing the oppressed to have a say as well.

Ok, well then you support democracy purely on consequentialist grounds then? If so, then what I said doesn't apply to you, since you can add arbitrary restrictions on what can be voted on while maintaining consistency with your initial premises. People who claim that democracy is good in principal actually mean "democracy is good only when I say so."

[gorillafuck]

The supposed supporters of democracy only support it when it is convenient for them. Should we be allowed to vote to enslave red haird people? No. So it turns out that supporters of democracy want to put arbitrary restricions on what can be voted on, and they only want democracy when it is convenient for them. There is nothing special about majority vote. Something is not right just because the majority wants it.
There's a difference between having certain individual rights within democracy and "supporting democracy only when convenient". I'm sure if the majority of people wanted you dead then you'd end up dead whether it was voted on or whether no issue was voted on ever.

[Skooma Addict]

There's a difference between having certain individual rights within democracy and "supporting democracy only when convenient". I'm sure if the majority of people wanted you dead then you'd end up dead whether it was voted on or whether no issue was voted on ever.

There is no such difference. People support democracy only when it does not interfere with their other normative beliefs. The individual rights argument does not work. I can with no less justification than anyone else here claim that private property is an individual right, and so while we should have democracy, issues concerning property should not be subject to popular vote.

[gorillafuck]

There is no such difference. People support democracy only when it does not interfere with their other normative beliefs. The individual rights argument does not work. I can with no less justification than anyone else here claim that private property is an individual right, and so while we should have democracy, issues concerning property should not be subject to popular vote.
That's a fair point actually, you can't objectively prove when democracy is "good" or "bad". But do you honestly think that individual rights will be respected if nobody votes on anything?

[Skooma Addict]

That's a fair point actually, you can't objectively prove when democracy is "good" or "bad". But do you honestly think that individual rights will be respected if nobody votes on anything?

Well I don't think individual rights will ever be completely respected. But yes, in the absence of majority rule, I think individual rights would be respected.

[gorillafuck]

Well I don't think individual rights will ever be completely respected. But yes, in the absence of majority rule, I think individual rights would be respected.
Well then we just disagree there then, I guess. I think in the absence of majority rule, unless there was a strong government protecting individuals which obviously you don't want if you're an ancap, majority rule would likely still be carried out pretty frequently, except it would be less organized.

[Jimmie Higgins]

On the subject of moral prohibitions - like laws against sex outside of legally recognized marriages or use of alcohol and drugs - another thing to keep in mind if we are talking about democracy in a potential working class governmnet, there will no longer be the the same social conditions that create a need to legislate morality.

In all minority-run class systems, a moral or social code has been an important part in creating a sense of unity between classes in society. So obviously the feudal church was directly connecting moral and religious behavior to behavior they felt was needed to maintain the status quo. So, for example, it was both against god as well as the feudal order to question or try and rise above your caste in society.

In bourgeois Democracies, so-called "bourgeois-morality" has played an important part in maintaining bourgeois rule. So while children were being forced into sweatshops and mines in the Victorian era, moral crusades against drinking or non-accepted behavior argued that poverty and working class misery were due to alcohol or a deficit in morals or whatnot, not the economic system. The same is true today when the right wing (as well as Bill Cosby and Obama) blames hip-hop or lack of father-figures for black inequality in the US while ignoring the fact that blacks statistically are the first fired and the last hired in economic slumps, the de-industrialization of cities whith large blue-collar black labor forces and any number of other material reasons for inequlaity.

While after a revolution many induviudal workers may hold onto this or that social moral viewpoint, the class as a whole does not have an interest in pushing one set of moral code onto the other parts of society because a majority-ruled society would not need to worry about trying to get the majority of society to behave in a certain way on personal issues.

So while ultimately it will be up to people at the time to democratically argue this out and make the decisions, I think most radicals would argue for no intervention into personal lifestyles or morality. This would look like an abolition of state-involvement in marriages, abolition of drug and alcohol prohibitions, and a lot of other things that are a Libertarian wet-dream but impossible and utopitan in the context of minority-ruled class societies.

[RGacky3]

Sure. They all were supported by the majority.

I am certain it would not be too difficult to find people on this board will defend the proposition that Cuba is a free country because the "Revolution" is popular.
In fact, there is a thread on Chavez right now, in which some of the notes caim that because Chavez is popular, therefore he cannot be dictatorial.

Your being disingenuous,

You know as well as I know thats not what democracy means.

People call Chavez democratic because, he was VOTED IN BY A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, not because he's popular,

People call parts of cuba democratic, because in most local and industry matters, things are voted on democratically by the community/workplace. not because the revolution is popular.

Thats what democracy means you moron, a democratic process in which people vote on issues, not something thats populer.


The red headed example was brought up by somebidy else. I simply went along with it. Substitute what you want with it.


You can substitute it with anything, and my statement is the same, in a truely free and democratic society, I guarantee you a group is'nt going to be singled out for slavery. Stop being rediculous.


We are watching, yet again, where it happens, yet again. This time in Venezuala.

Whos taling about Venezuela? Is Venezeula more democratic than other countries? Yeah, slightly, more socialistic? Yeah, slightly, but Venezuela IS NOT a communist or anarchist society, far from it.

But again, I'm gonna ask you, whats your better suggestion? If your not for democracy what are you for?

(I pray your answer is'nt something idiotic like "universal love" or "eternal hugs".)

[Skooma Addict]

On the subject of moral prohibitions - like laws against sex outside of legally recognized marriages or use of alcohol and drugs - another thing to keep in mind if we are talking about democracy in a potential working class governmnet, there will no longer be the the same social conditions that create a need to legislate morality.How do you know? If enough people want to prohibit alcohol in a democracy, then it is very easy for them to do so.

[Demogorgon]

How do you know? If enough people want to prohibit alcohol in a democracy, then it is very easy for them to do so.
Well maybe, but the real point is people don't typically want to do such a thing. Any system is vulnerable to those in power wanting to do ridiculous things, but you have to look at how likely they are to do so, and historically speaking which has been more prone to making unreasonable rules, a small elite or a mass electorate? The thing people criticising democracy seem to be ignoring is that someone is always going to have power. If you are going to oppose democracy on the grounds that it might lead to horrible policies you are going to have to identify an entity or entities in whom to invest power who will not enact such policies.

Moreover, people are of course products of their circumstances and there is considerable empirical evidence to suggest that in more democratic situations people tend to have more open attitudes. Certainly when it comes to democracy in the workplace (a key socialist demand), those who take part in that currently on average have far more tolerant and open-minded attitudes on average than others in the same societies.

Lastly of course, only an idiot would suggest that there be no safeguards in any political system. And the very least you are going to need an agreed framework for the political process-that is a set means by which policy is made, effectively a constitution whether it be written or unwritten, and that means that there needs to be the agreement that any rules made not following this process are null and void. And of course what usually gets included in constitutions? Guaranteed rights. In setting up a new system, it is almost certain that people are going to wish to entrench certain rights. It isn't undemocratic to have certain fundamental principles that require a supermajority to change, indeed it is virtually impossible to have democracy when arbitrary impositions can easily be made.

[Skooma Addict]

Lastly of course, only an idiot would suggest that there be no safeguards in any political system. And the very least you are going to need an agreed framework for the political process-that is a set means by which policy is made, effectively a constitution whether it be written or unwritten, and that means that there needs to be the agreement that any rules made not following this process are null and void. And of course what usually gets included in constitutions? Guaranteed rights. In setting up a new system, it is almost certain that people are going to wish to entrench certain rights. It isn't undemocratic to have certain fundamental principles that require a supermajority to change, indeed it is virtually impossible to have democracy when arbitrary impositions can easily be made.


But if your going to say that you believe the actual principal of people voting on issues to decide what action should be taken is good, then you will have to qualify this statement if you want to adopt a constitution. That is unless you think we should all vote on whether or not to adopt a constitution, and we also vote on what should be in the constitution. However, then you cannot in principal oppose the idea that we can vote to enslave others, provided those slaves receive an equal vote.

On a side note, In America at least, the vast majority of the population would want some kind of right protecting private property in the constitution. What if people voted for a constitution which protects private property and the rights or corporations, as would likely be the case?

[gorillafuck]

On a side note, In America at least, the vast majority of the population would want some kind of right protecting private property in the constitution. What if people voted for a constitution which protects private property and the rights or corporations, as would likely be the case?
Just because people want something doesn't make it right, as you said. But whats the alternatives? Either a dictatorship government, or no governing system at all (which is ridiculously utopian).

[Agnapostate]

Not an "individualist anarchist" or "market anarchist" perspective so much as an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective, with all the elitism built into that worldview. A Hoppean, perhaps?

[Skooma Addict]

Just because people want something doesn't make it right, as you said. But whats the alternatives? Either a dictatorship government, or no governing system at all (which is ridiculously utopian).

Do you think it is utopian in the sense that it is unlikely, or utopian in the sense that it wouldn't work?


Not an "individualist anarchist" or "market anarchist" perspective so much as an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective, with all the elitism built into that worldview. A Hoppean, perhaps?

Not a Hoppean.

[Demogorgon]

But if your going to say that you believe the actual principal of people voting on issues to decide what action should be taken is good, then you will have to qualify this statement if you want to adopt a constitution. That is unless you think we should all vote on whether or not to adopt a constitution, and we also vote on what should be in the constitution. However, then you cannot in principal oppose the idea that we can vote to enslave others, provided those slaves receive an equal vote. If you are looking for me to give you a cast iron guarantee that nothing can go wrong then I will have to keep you waiting. However what are the chances of people voting for that? Seriously?

And moreover if the people cannot be trusted not to come up with law like that, who do you be proposed be trusted with such power?


On a side note, In America at least, the vast majority of the population would want some kind of right protecting private property in the constitution. What if people voted for a constitution which protects private property and the rights or corporations, as would likely be the case?
If you asked them to draw one up tomorrow they would, though they would also likely choose to keep the one they have, which indicates to me something of a lack of information given the American Constitution is inferior even to most other Western Constitutions currently in force.

In a situation when we have not overthrown capitalism it is unlikely that a Constitution is going to be enacted that abolishes private property and various other facets of capitalism, nor for that matter is it likely that one will be enacted in a sufficiently democratic manner anyway. However when the time comes for capitalism to make its long overdue farewell then hopefully people will wish to abolish private property, else any new socialist project isn't getting off to a very good start.

[gorillafuck]

Do you think it is utopian in the sense that it is unlikely, or utopian in the sense that it wouldn't work?
I think it's utopian in the sense that it wouldn't work to have no form of government whatsoever.

[Skooma Addict]

If you are looking for me to give you a cast iron guarantee that nothing can go wrong then I will have to keep you waiting. However what are the chances of people voting for that? Seriously?

And moreover if the people cannot be trusted not to come up with law like that, who do you be proposed be trusted with such power?

That isn't what I am asking you. I am asking you if you think that in principal people should be allowed to vote on anything? If you say we need a constitution, you need to qualify the statement that it is good for people to have a majority vote on issues. If you think the constitution itself should be formed on the basis of popular vote, then we are right back where we began. The constitution could end up legitimizing slavery. I am not asking whether this is practical or not.


If you asked them to draw one up tomorrow they would, though they would also likely choose to keep the one they have, which indicates to me something of a lack of information given the American Constitution is inferior even to most other Western Constitutions currently in force.

In a situation when we have not overthrown capitalism it is unlikely that a Constitution is going to be enacted that abolishes private property and various other facets of capitalism, nor for that matter is it likely that one will be enacted in a sufficiently democratic manner anyway. However when the time comes for capitalism to make its long overdue farewell then hopefully people will wish to abolish private property, else any new socialist project isn't getting off to a very good start.

So your just banking on the entire population to let go of their normative beliefs on property?

What if you had the capability to overthrow capitalism, and the chance of creating a socialist society seemed very possible. However, there is a vote on whether or not the majority supports a socialist revolution. After a fair election in which everyone votes, the majority votes against any kind of revolution, and instead supports modern day capitalism. Would you still move forward with the revolution?

[Skooma Addict]

I think it's utopian in the sense that it wouldn't work to have no form of government whatsoever.

Why?

[gorillafuck]

Why?
Different forms of government have been around since the dawn of history, they naturally form up as a way of organizing people as societies become larger. People need organization of some sort. Also, in your ancap situation then the "government" would just be the people who own the private cops, private prisons, etc.

[Skooma Addict]

Different forms of government have been around since the dawn of history, they naturally form up as a way of organizing people as societies become larger. People need organization of some sort. Also, in your ancap situation then the "government" would just be the people who own the private cops, private prisons, etc.

I agree that people need organization. I don't think private police or private courts count as governments. But I don't want to argue over it so we can agree do disagree on that point.

[gorillafuck]

I agree that people need organization. I don't think private police or private courts count as governments. But I don't want to argue over it so we can agree do disagree on that point.
Fine, that could have developed into a decent discussion though.:(

[Green Dragon]

You know as well as I know thats not what democracy means.

Democracy means the majority rules the minority; not "mutual consensus" or "equal say."



People call Chavez democratic because, he was VOTED IN BY A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, not because he's popular,

People call parts of cuba democratic, because in most local and industry matters, things are voted on democratically by the community/workplace. not because the revolution is popular.


You have just argued that folks like Castro, Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, Tito, ect ect ect are/were "democratic" as they were also voted in by a democratic process.




You can substitute it with anything, and my statement is the same, in a truely free and democratic society, I guarantee you a group is'nt going to be singled out for slavery. Stop being rediculous.


In a truly free society, yes, groups are not going to be singled out (ie targeted). In a truly democratic one...? I guess if the process functioned...

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Demogorgon;1669184]Well maybe, but the real point is people don't typically want to do such a thing. Any system is vulnerable to those in power wanting to do ridiculous things, but you have to look at how likely they are to do so, and historically speaking which has been more prone to making unreasonable rules, a small elite or a mass electorate?

A mass electorate


The thing people criticising democracy seem to be ignoring is that someone is always going to have power.

Often, it seems that the defenders of democracy are the ones who seem not to understand this. Usually, democracy is described as "rule of the people" or by "consensus" terms which say absolutely nothing.

However, it should be pointed out that "power" is the objective, the aim of democracy (ie power over people) where in other forms of government it is a method of rule.



Lastly of course, only an idiot would suggest that there be no safeguards in any political system. And the very least you are going to need an agreed framework for the political process-

How more "open-minded" and "tolerant" are democratic workforces when they all have to conform ahead of time to an agreed upon framework?


It isn't undemocratic to have certain fundamental principles that require a supermajority to change,

No. It is undemocratic. Depending upon what those fundamental principles are, becomes the issue of how free the community is.


indeed it is virtually impossible to have democracy when arbitrary impositions can easily be made.

true.

[Agnapostate]

Not a Hoppean.

No one is speaking to you of this, unless you presume to speak for others.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How do you know? If enough people want to prohibit alcohol in a democracy, then it is very easy for them to do so.Sure, and if 51% of the population wanted to make everyone walk backwards and call shit "ice-cream" they could call a vote and do that. But abstractions aside, there is no material reason for people to want this let alone vote for it.

There's a revolutionary Catch-22 for a lot of things - in order for there to be a conscious socialist revolution of working people then the consciousness of most people would necessarily be in agreement that problems in society are not inherent or personal problems, they are by and far due to the economic and political system now in place. So it's a silly argument to make that they would immediately turn around and enslave 49% of the population for no material reason other than they theoretically could do so. More likely, having won a far greater amounf of democracy and personal freedom, people would probably want to pass laws to try and ensure that liberation can not be fiddled.

Most importantly, as I said before, restrictions on attitudes and morality arise from a social need to get the whole population on the same page - the page of the minority ruling group in fact. So as social problems arose from urban life during the Victorian era, the bourgeois rulers began promoting a moral code based on family life, personal responsibility (self-restraint), charity, and so on. In Russia or China, the minority ruling groups promoted labor and toil as "good values" because the so-called communist parties wanted to increase production.

Now our ruling groups promote the idea of "self-responsibility"; in the conservative form this means tough drug laws to force people to clean up their act and limiting social programs; in the liberal form this means parents have to teach their kids to be better students (or as Mrs. Obama was saying today) teach them not to be so fat or "buying green" and responsible or anti-smoking laws. All this is bullshit and the effects of a ruling class that is trying to slash social programs, public education, public health, regulatory agencies and so on.

If the ruling class said: we're in debt and the way to restore profitability is to cut programs and make you pay for it privatly while we also keep taxes at the same rate... but instead of using thoes for public education and buses and so on, we are only going to fund tax breaks for corporations, police, military, and maybe we'll give a bunch of money to the local sports team to build a new stadium... on top of this, we are also going to furlough government employees, and raise bus fares, bridge tolls, on top of cutting services.

The ruling class simply can't come out and say that - so it sells it with bullshit moral arguments about personal behavior and pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps and abstaining from drugs and sex. Obama promotes charter schools and privitization of schools - and public systems all over the country are having budgets slashed and teachers cut - but Obama's message to the public is that "parents need to work harder to teach their kids".

A society truely run by the majority would have no interest in restricting the personal behavior of induviduals that does not impact others negativly because there is no need to enforce a certain social code on society from above.

[Demogorgon]

That isn't what I am asking you. I am asking you if you think that in principal people should be allowed to vote on anything? If you say we need a constitution, you need to qualify the statement that it is good for people to have a majority vote on issues. If you think the constitution itself should be formed on the basis of popular vote, then we are right back where we began. The constitution could end up legitimizing slavery. I am not asking whether this is practical or not.
You are asking a pretty silly question here. At no point in human history has anyone ever found a means to bind those making the rules at a point further back than the setting down of the initial rules. By that I mean, ordinary laws can be made subject to a Constitution and a Constitution can be made subject to prearranged ground rules (the South African Constitution for instance was bound by a requirement to adhere to the 34 principles agreed in advance) but can you bind the process of making those ground rules? Maybe, but what binds them and so forth?

This applies to whatever method is being used to make the rules whether it be democratic or not. A non democratic means of drafting a Constitution would still be as vulnerable (in practice far more vulnerable) to things like slavery being allowed in it. And if you want to use that as an argument against a Constitution altogether you then need to tell us how things will be decided instead. And of course in practice it would be much easier to make terrible rules in that situation. The only conceivable way to guarantee that no bad rules are made is to wipe out the human race.

So when you ask me if I think people should be allowed to vote on anything that goes into the constitution, all you are asking is whether I think that the people as a whole should draft the constitution in a democratic fashion or if a separate elite should do so. There is no other alternative.

The fact however is that a democratic means encompasses everyone including those that might be oppressed and hence it is unlikely to lead to a text that oppresses them. Many constitutions have been drafted in history and on every occasion when one discriminates against a group, that group was not allowed to take part in the drafting.


So your just banking on the entire population to let go of their normative beliefs on property?

What if you had the capability to overthrow capitalism, and the chance of creating a socialist society seemed very possible. However, there is a vote on whether or not the majority supports a socialist revolution. After a fair election in which everyone votes, the majority votes against any kind of revolution, and instead supports modern day capitalism. Would you still move forward with the revolution?This is the problem with playing these overly intellectual games. "What if" scenarios are only worth playing when there is a realistic possibility of them happening. If we can throw up any scenario, you might as well ask me what happens if we successfully set up a socialist society but then the Martians land on earth and tell us we aren't allowed to organise our society like this.

The reason I say that is that a fair and open vote on abolishing capitalism-held under a capitalist system at a time when it was under threat-is just ridiculous. Moreover how could a genuine socialist society be set up if people genuinely wished to be kept under the thumb of the capitalists-even when presented with all the information to make an informed choice. We may as well talk about how the American Revolution would have played out had the power brokers in the colonies genuinely wished to maintain the status quo under Britain.

[Demogorgon]

A mass electorate

Indeed? Perhaps you could qualify that with all the terrible things a mass electorate (lets call such the whole adult population voting under a non-rigged system) has done and how such things were worse than those that a small elite have done?


However, it should be pointed out that "power" is the objective, the aim of democracy (ie power over people) where in other forms of government it is a method of rule.

I see, so if we take Sweden for instance (which although not fully Democratic by my standards is commonly considered the most democratic country in the world), the Instrument of Government is a means of imposing power over people, whereas, say, the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia is simply a method of rule? "Power" not being the objective there at all. :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

So when you ask me if I think people should be allowed to vote on anything that goes into the constitution, all you are asking is whether I think that the people as a whole should draft the constitution in a democratic fashion or if a separate elite should do so. There is no other alternative.


I just wanted to know if you fully support the principle of a democratic process. Apparently, you do not, since you are in favor of a constitution. Since from what I can tell the voters will not themselves have a vote on what is on the constitution, then it would follow that, like most supposed supporters of democracy, you only support it when it is convenient. You don't think people should be able to vote on every issue, because you want to implement arbitrary restrictions on what can be voted on (anything which goes against your normative beliefs). I am sure you would oppose a constitution which would protect and guarantee the right to private property. So how specifically do you propose this constitution be implemented?


This is the problem with playing these overly intellectual games. "What if" scenarios are only worth playing when there is a realistic possibility of them happening. If we can throw up any scenario, you might as well ask me what happens if we successfully set up a socialist society but then the Martians land on earth and tell us we aren't allowed to organise our society like this.

The reason I say that is that a fair and open vote on abolishing capitalism-held under a capitalist system at a time when it was under threat-is just ridiculous. Moreover how could a genuine socialist society be set up if people genuinely wished to be kept under the thumb of the capitalists-even when presented with all the information to make an informed choice. We may as well talk about how the American Revolution would have played out had the power brokers in the colonies genuinely wished to maintain the status quo under Britain.

For starters, are you implying that the majority must support socialism before a socialist society can be set up? So before you can even begin your revolution, you need to convince over 50% of the population that socialism is good?

The point of my example was to see if you really support democracy. If people voted against a revolution, yet you still had the resources and the power to carry out a revolution, what would you do? Say 49% of the population was in favor of a revolution.

[Agnapostate]

"Tyranny of the majority" cannot be restricted in any legitimate sense. It only is now because the majority is not sufficiently inspired to impose their will upon a minority. But if they were, tyranny of the majority would exist, simply by virtue of the fact that it would be improbable that a minority would have the ability to repel greater numbers.

[RGacky3]

Democracy means the majority rules the minority; not "mutual consensus" or "equal say."

Thats not what Democracy means, it means the people rule, by "the people" it means everyone, which actually does mean equal say and mutual consensus.


You have just argued that folks like Castro, Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, Tito, ect ect ect are/were "democratic" as they were also voted in by a democratic process.


No I hav'nt, let me re-itterate, nice and clearly for you.

I said the REASON some people are called democratic, is because they're countries have institutions where there is a democratic process and democratic desicion making.

What democracy means however, full democracy, what I want, is actual people rule, meaning collective desicion making, and mutual concent.


In a truly free society, yes, groups are not going to be singled out (ie targeted). In a truly democratic one...? I guess if the process functioned...

But I'll ask you again, what would you prefer???


For starters, are you implying that the majority must support socialism before a socialist society can be set up? So before you can even begin your revolution, you need to convince over 50% of the population that socialism is good?

All you have to convince them is that its better to have a say rather than being ruled over, which would'nt be so hard in a society not run by immensely powerful corporate powers.

[Demogorgon]

I just wanted to know if you fully support the principle of a democratic process. Apparently, you do not, since you are in favor of a constitution. Since from what I can tell the voters will not themselves have a vote on what is on the constitution, then it would follow that, like most supposed supporters of democracy, you only support it when it is convenient. You don't think people should be able to vote on every issue, because you want to implement arbitrary restrictions on what can be voted on (anything which goes against your normative beliefs). I am sure you would oppose a constitution which would protect and guarantee the right to private property. So how specifically do you propose this constitution be implemented?

Hang on, you seem to be drawing things from my post that I certainly did not write. I do believe that the constitution should be drafted democratically, I also pointed out that it would be unlikely to contain the sort of horrible things you are suggesting because if everyone is involved in the drafting process, no one is likely to be disadvantaged by it.

Also, it seems unlikely that I will personally get to write the constitution so talking about restrictions I want to impose is silly. My ideal society is not one where I am dictator. What I am arguing for is first of all an agreed framework for making the rules so that governance will be carried out in an orderly fashion and arbitrary rule cannot be imposed and also guaranteed protection of human rights. That in principal is not a very radical position. The difference between me and bourgeoisie thinkers on the matter is what I want to go into the constitution. Obviously I want much more direct democracy for one and do not wish property to be protected whereas I do want other things, the right to worker self management for instance, to be entrenched. I believe that in a situation where capitalism has been overthrown and a new system is being set up to replace it such suggestions will be quite popular and at least some of what I argue for will be implemented.


For starters, are you implying that the majority must support socialism before a socialist society can be set up? So before you can even begin your revolution, you need to convince over 50% of the population that socialism is good?

The point of my example was to see if you really support democracy. If people voted against a revolution, yet you still had the resources and the power to carry out a revolution, what would you do? Say 49% of the population was in favor of a revolution.
I think if 49% supported socialism we would be in the process of seeing a major shift in public attitude and that it would not take long at all for us to have a majority on our side. But again, we are talking about something rather silly here. There is unlikely to be any referendum under capitalism on abolishing itself, not a fair one anyway and there certainly isn't going to be one on whether or not it should be forcefully overthrown. I have tried to be clear here. For socialism to succeed there needs to be a popular revolution. Trying to impose it in a top down manner simply won't work. And for that it needs popular support.

[Skooma Addict]

Hang on, you seem to be drawing things from my post that I certainly did not write. I do believe that the constitution should be drafted democratically, I also pointed out that it would be unlikely to contain the sort of horrible things you are suggesting because if everyone is involved in the drafting process, no one is likely to be disadvantaged by it.


Ok, so you want the constitution to be settled democratically. Now, this means that you do not in principal oppose people voting on whether or not to enslave a certain group of people. Right? When a constitution is being drafted, you think we should be allowed to vote on whether or not we should be allowed to enslave red haired people. This is the only option which is consistent with a democratically drafted constitution.

[gorillafuck]

Ok, so you want the constitution to be settled democratically. Now, this means that you do not in principal oppose people voting on whether or not to enslave a certain group of people. Right? When a constitution is being drafted, you think we should be allowed to vote on whether or not we should be allowed to enslave red haired people. This is the only option which is consistent with a democratically drafted constitution.
So we're speaking from a purely legal standpoint when talking about people's principles, now?

Okay. Then in that case, why do you not oppose murder in principle? Obviously an anarcho-capitalist society would not have any laws restricting this since you want all government abolished, and it's an entirely might makes right situation (and you can't set up laws to enforce the non-aggression principle seeing as that would require government)

[Skooma Addict]

So we're speaking from a purely legal standpoint when talking about people's principles, now?

No we are not speaking from a purely legal standpoint. He supports the idea of a democratically implemented constitution. If it is going to be democratically implemented, then whether or not it will ban slavery must be decided democratically as well. Therefore, it appears that he does not oppose the action of a majority voting to enslave some minority.


Okay. Then in that case, why do you not oppose murder in principle? Obviously an anarcho-capitalist society would not have any laws restricting this since you want all government abolished, and it's an entirely might makes right situation (and you can't set up laws to enforce the non-aggression principle seeing as that would require government)
Why would there be no laws against murder?

[gorillafuck]

Why would there be no laws against murder?
Laws require government to enforce them. Either a specific group of people (a state) will enforce the laws, everyone will enforce laws, or there will be no laws.

[Demogorgon]

Ok, so you want the constitution to be settled democratically. Now, this means that you do not in principal oppose people voting on whether or not to enslave a certain group of people. Right? When a constitution is being drafted, you think we should be allowed to vote on whether or not we should be allowed to enslave red haired people. This is the only option which is consistent with a democratically drafted constitution.
My argument is that such a situation could not happen when red haired people are included in the drafting process. To be sure somebody could bring the issue up, but the chances of it getting enacted are close to zero.

I know you think you are tripping me up by pushing me to say that the issue cannot be voted on and that I am dodging the question by refusing to give an abstract answer, but in truth I am answering the question the only relevant way that it can be answered and that is that the safeguard being imposed on the drafting of the Constitution is that it must be an inclusive process.

And crucially as I said before, the only alternative to democratic enactment of a constitution is undemocratic enactment. And as undemocratic enactment is far more likely to include nasty elements, I fail to see how you think you are making an argument against democracy. No system is foolproof, but some are definitely more robust than others.

[Zanthorus]

Either a specific group of people (a state) will enforce the laws, everyone will enforce laws

That isn't the commonly accepted definition of "state" though. The commonly accepted one is that it's a monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force (See: Max Weber). Hence corporations competing to provide defence services wouldn't be a state.

[gorillafuck]

That isn't the commonly accepted definition of "state" though. The commonly accepted one is that it's a monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force (See: Max Weber). Hence corporations competing to provide defence services wouldn't be a state.
Different competeing defense organizations =/= Stateless society with laws

[Green Dragon]

Thats not what Democracy means, it means the people rule, by "the people" it means everyone, which actually does mean equal say and mutual consensus.


Yes. And the only way for that to work is by unanimity, 100% requirement of the vote one way or the other.
But elsewhere you have rejected this.
So then it must mean that the majority of the population rule the minority of the populaion.





All you have to convince them is that its better to have a say rather than being ruled over, which would'nt be so hard in a society not run by immensely powerful corporate powers.


The fellow who is part of the 49% does NOT have a say over the fellow who is part of the 51%. If he did, then one is faced by the rule of the minority over the majority. All the former has is that he is required to give "mutual consent" to the dictates of the 51ers. Nice, but what if he doesn't?

But the fellow voting in Cuba (or North Korea though nobody here much talks him or her) has an "equal say" with his next door neigbor with no powerful corporation exerting undue influence.

[Green Dragon]

Indeed? Perhaps you could qualify that with all the terrible things a mass electorate (lets call such the whole adult population voting under a non-rigged system) has done and how such things were worse than those that a small elite have done?


But now you are placing qualifiers onto the democracy Ie majority rule with certain freedoms.




I see, so if we take Sweden for instance (which although not fully Democratic by my standards is commonly considered the most democratic country in the world), the Instrument of Government is a means of imposing power over people, whereas, say, the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia is simply a method of rule? "Power" not being the objective there at all. :rolleyes:


What I am saying is that the aim of democracy is power; power of the majority over the minority. If it cannot exercise that power, that authority, then democracy cannot function.

[Demogorgon]

But now you are placing qualifiers onto the democracy Ie majority rule with certain freedoms.

No, I am not, The fact that you have a strange definition of democracy that denies freedom does not mean that ordinary views of it are wrong. However you are dodging my question. I asked for a list of terrible things a mass electorate has imposed on others.


What I am saying is that the aim of democracy is power; power of the majority over the minority. If it cannot exercise that power, that authority, then democracy cannot function.
If I were to be flippant I would ask you what makes you think that power of a minority over a majority is any better, however there is another major flaw in your thinking...

The fellow who is part of the 49% does NOT have a say over the fellow who is part of the 51%And here it is, see the 51 and 49 per centers are not permanent groups but simply those came down on a different side in a single vote. Those who lost this vote may be on the winning side in other votes and those on the winning side may loose in future. The 51% have not lorded over the others, but have won in a particular vote that all have participated in.

What "majority rule" as you describe it actually is, is a situation where suffrage is not universal but does extend to more than half the populace.. For instance if 60% of the people have the vote then they are exercising majority rule over the other 40%. That is the 40% permanently lack a say. But that obviously is not democracy.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Socialism is true Democracy.

[La Comédie Noire]

Ursula K. Leguin had an interesting view on this in her novel The Dispossessed. People who did not want to participate in society were allowed to wander from commune to commune living off whatever they would be allowed to have and moving on once they became a nuisance. Something like that could happen and may even be encouraged to allow the youth to sow their wild oats or it could be seen as a nuisance.

You can never tell with humans.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Demogorgon;1673126]No, I am not, The fact that you have a strange definition of democracy that denies freedom does not mean that ordinary views of it are wrong.

I never said that democracy denies freedom. I said that democracy concerns itself with who rules (majority rules minority). It doesn't deal with how the majority rules.



However you are dodging my question. I asked for a list of terrible things a mass electorate has imposed on others.


In the 20th century alone one could point out the holocaust or the gulags. Milder forms are certainly Jim Crow laws and perhaps toss in prohibition.


If I were to be flippant I would ask you what makes you think that power of a minority over a majority is any better,

Can be more stable, more benign in its rule.



however there is another major flaw in your thinking...
And here it is, see the 51 and 49 per centers are not permanent groups but simply those came down on a different side in a single vote. Those who lost this vote may be on the winning side in other votes and those on the winning side may loose in future. The 51% have not lorded over the others, but have won in a particular vote that all have participated in.


And if the 49% or 20% or whatever does not really believe in democracy? Or they are a permanent minority?



What "majority rule" as you describe it actually is, is a situation where suffrage is not universal but does extend to more than half the populace.. For instance if 60% of the people have the vote then they are exercising majority rule over the other 40%. That is the 40% permanently lack a say. But that obviously is not democracy.


Are you suggesting that a democracy requires 100% of the citizens to vote?

[Demogorgon]

I never said that democracy denies freedom. I said that democracy concerns itself with who rules (majority rules minority). It doesn't deal with how the majority rules.

Obviously that is nonsense. Democratic theory has heavily concerned itself with method of rule. I think it may be necessary to clarify that we are talking about democracy here as it is generally defined. Not how it is defined by you and you alone.


In the 20th century alone one could point out the holocaust or the gulags. Milder forms are certainly Jim Crow laws and perhaps toss in prohibition.

Say what? :lol: Since when were the Holocaust and whatnot carried out by mass electorates. They were carried out dictatorships that had imposed themselves against the popular will. Jim Crow laws and the like while having an electorate voting freely were certainly not carried out by democratic Governments as the electorate was restricted.


Can be more stable, more benign in its rule.

Since when? You are going to need to come up with some examples here before your statement can even begin to look like it applies to the real world.


And if the 49% or 20% or whatever does not really believe in democracy? Or they are a permanent minority?

They still get to take part in the votes. If you are suggesting that it is unfair that a minority who wants to impose its will over the majority can not do so, you will need to explain why.


Are you suggesting that a democracy requires 100% of the citizens to vote?
Perhaps you should take to reading what I wrote. I said that democracy requires Universal Suffrage.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Demogorgon;1676241]Obviously that is nonsense. Democratic theory has heavily concerned itself with method of rule. I think it may be necessary to clarify that we are talking about democracy here as it is generally defined. Not how it is defined by you and you alone.


What it tries to do is merge the concept of majority rule with the concept of liberty. Which do not, automatically, go hand in hand.



Say what? :lol: Since when were the Holocaust and whatnot carried out by mass electorates. They were carried out dictatorships that had imposed themselves against the popular will. Jim Crow laws and the like while having an electorate voting freely were certainly not carried out by democratic Governments as the electorate was restricted.


Probably since the nazis were an extremely popular party.

Electorates were indeed restricted in he South. However the majority whites restricted the minority blacks.
Majority ruled the minority.



They still get to take part in the votes.

There you go.



Perhaps you should take to reading what I wrote. I said that democracy requires Universal Suffrage.


Yep. The Pope is an elected official, but the Catholic Church is scarcely a democracy.

[Demogorgon]

What it tries to do is merge the concept of majority rule with the concept of liberty. Which do not, automatically, go hand in hand.

Now you are trying to bring up one of your buzzwords to change the subject. We aren't talking about "liberty" here, we are talking about democracy and democratic theory. Democratic theory is heavily concerned with method of rule. The fact that this is inconvenient to your argument is not going to make it go away.


Probably since the nazis were an extremely popular party. When exactly? Their high point was in the July '32 election when they gained 37.8% of the vote. This had fallen to 33.1% by the Nov '32 election which was the last election not marred by excessive voter intimidation. Even then in the March '33 election where they had already forced their way to power shut down part of the opposition and had their thugs engaged in widespread intimidation, they could only get 43.9% of the vote. So this case doesn't even match your ridiculous definition of democracy as being simple "majority rule" because at no point at all, did they have majority support.


Electorates were indeed restricted in he South. However the majority whites restricted the minority blacks.
Majority ruled the minority.

We still have that deeply troublesome fact that you are making up your own definitions here. It is easy to attack something when you give it an invented definition, but it won't actually count for anything. Your "majority rule" suggestion has been shot down time and again because it ignores the universal suffrage criterion. The South did not have Universal Suffrage (actually it didn't even have Universal White Suffrage, but that's another story) therefore it was not a democracy.


Yep. The Pope is an elected official, but the Catholic Church is scarcely a democracy.
What are you blabbering on about now? I fail to see how the Catholic Church comes into a discussion on democracy.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Demogorgon;1681497]Now you are trying to bring up one of your buzzwords to change the subject. We aren't talking about "liberty" here, we are talking about democracy and democratic theory. Democratic theory is heavily concerned with method of rule.

Whatever theory or method of rule is discussed, it is always about the majority ruling the minority. The question then becomes to what extent that majority wishes to defend liberty for itself and its vanquished minority.

I would agree that democracy and freedom do not go hand in hand. You will find notes even over the past week or so claiming how "democratic" Cuba is. And as long the majority supports Castro & Co., such notes are absolutely correct. But of couse, Cuba is not a free country by any stretch of the imagination.



When exactly? Their high point was in the July '32 election when they gained 37.8% of the vote. This had fallen to 33.1% by the Nov '32 election which was the last election not marred by excessive voter intimidation. Even then in the March '33 election where they had already forced their way to power shut down part of the opposition and had their thugs engaged in widespread intimidation, they could only get 43.9% of the vote. So this case doesn't even match your ridiculous definition of democracy as being simple "majority rule" because at no point at all, did they have majority support.

And you are defining democracy as being measured by people freely voting their preferences. That certainly can be true, IF the majority of the population chooses to structure their rule in such a fashion. But, as above, there are plenty of people on these boards who will deny that this is neccessary for democracy (as in the recent notes concerning present day Cuba, or The Russian Revolution).

[Dermezel]

I don't see what is so great about democracy. It allows people to vote and thats it, but in a direct democracy it allows people to control you and your behavior and thoughts.

In political science they distinguish between liberal and illiberal democracies. A liberal democracy, even a direct democracy, has certain legal mechanisms used to preserve individual rights against unjust and arbitrary tyranny.

Likewise, what you actually mean to say isn't that the majority in a democracy WILL exercise totalitarian or authoritarian control, but that it can do so. But the simple fact of the matter is any political system (oligarchy, autocracy, indirect democracy) can exercise that level of control.

In California, our best hope for Single-Payer and Pot Legalization come from direct democracy mechanisms.

[Dermezel]

What I am saying is that the aim of democracy is power; power of the majority over the minority. If it cannot exercise that power, that authority, then democracy cannot function.

Every system will have relative degrees of authority/freedom. The thing about democracy is that it is far less authoritarian then the alternatives.

But yeah, too much freedom for some can lead to a loss of freedom for others. My freedom to attack you, interferes with your freedom to live your life normally. Hence the Paradox of Freedom.

[Dermezel]

[QUOTE]

Whatever theory or method of rule is discussed, it is always about the majority ruling the minority. The question then becomes to what extent that majority wishes to defend liberty for itself and its vanquished minority.

But having democratic mechanisms and institutions is the surest safeguard against this, both according to history and practice. It is because Northern Europe is more democratic then the US that they have not had their system hijacked by corporations, or health care reform blocked by a Senate which gives 50% of the vote to 30% of the country. Or problems like Bush being elected by the Electoral College or Supreme Court even when he loses the popular vote.


The best way to protect one's rights, which are socially established, is by free speech, and transparency of government, and social control of the government.


I would agree that democracy and freedom do not go hand in hand. You will find notes even over the past week or so claiming how "democratic" Cuba is. And as long the majority supports Castro & Co., such notes are absolutely correct. But of couse, Cuba is not a free country by any stretch of the imagination.

Freedom is relative. Cuba, for example, is a lot more free for most then Haiti or Columbia or Brazil. People in Cuba have free health care, guaranteed income, guaranteed shelter, free education, and guaranteed food/water.

Having food and water and medicine you need to survive is a lot more liberating then starving to death on the street.



And you are defining democracy as being measured by people freely voting their preferences. That certainly can be true, IF the majority of the population chooses to structure their rule in such a fashion. But, as above, there are plenty of people on these boards who will deny that this is neccessary for democracy (as in the recent notes concerning present day Cuba, or The Russian Revolution).

Most academic scholars include mechanisms such as rule of law, courts, free speech, and free conscious as necessary qualifications for a liberal democracy.

[Skooma Addict]

There has been no adequate counter to the claim that under a true democracy, one should be allowed to vote to enslave others, provided the enslaved people are given a right to vote. Anyone who opposes this does not support true democracy, as they are willing to put arbitrary restrictions on what can be voted on in order to match their normative beliefs. They are essentially saying "You can't vote on X because I say so."

[RGacky3]

Yes. And the only way for that to work is by unanimity, 100% requirement of the vote one way or the other.
But elsewhere you have rejected this.
So then it must mean that the majority of the population rule the minority of the populaion.

Mutual consensus does not mean 100% either way, look it up for gods sake.

issues do not always involve everyone.


The fellow who is part of the 49% does NOT have a say over the fellow who is part of the 51%. If he did, then one is faced by the rule of the minority over the majority. All the former has is that he is required to give "mutual consent" to the dictates of the 51ers. Nice, but what if he doesn't?


First of all like I said democracy is not, everyone votes on every issue, so mutal consent is not needed, only those why want to take part in a project or an issue will take part, and then the desicion will be made and if someone does'nt want to take part in it he does'nt have to.


But the fellow voting in Cuba (or North Korea though nobody here much talks him or her) has an "equal say" with his next door neigbor with no powerful corporation exerting undue influence.

Yeah your right, he has equal say with his nieghbor, but over the main state THEY HAVE NO SAY, in North Korea, they have almost no say over anything, and in cuba over national issues that do involve them they have very very little say, so no, its not democracy.

[IcarusAngel]

There has been no adequate counter to the claim that under a true democracy, one should be allowed to vote to enslave others, provided the enslaved people are given a right to vote. Anyone who opposes this does not support true democracy, as they are willing to put arbitrary restrictions on what can be voted on in order to match their normative beliefs. They are essentially saying "You can't vote on X because I say so."


This has been refuted. Democracy means "the people rule." You can't rule yourself if you are enslaved dumb-ass, you also couldn't have a vote.

Everybody rules in a democracy to some degree, even people who don't get their way, since they can choose not to participate and they can actively try and promote alternatives.

Direct democracy essentially means everybody has a voice. Representative democracy, which is necessary for capitalism, is based on majority rule, as are corporations, which are based on mobocracy.

What you advocate is straight up mobocracy, where roaming gangs go around and protect "corporations" and their 'property,' instead of the government.

Obviously no one takes this seriously.

[Dimentio]

This has been refuted. Democracy means "the people rule." You can't rule yourself if you are enslaved dumb-ass, you also couldn't have a vote.

Everybody rules in a democracy to some degree, even people who don't get their way, since they can choose not to participate and they can actively try and promote alternatives.

Direct democracy essentially means everybody has a voice. Representative democracy, which is necessary for capitalism, is based on majority rule, as are corporations, which are based on mobocracy.

What you advocate is straight up mobocracy, where roaming gangs go around and protect "corporations" and their 'property,' instead of the government.

Obviously no one takes this seriously.

I think it would have suited Orcs quite well. ^^

[Skooma Addict]

This has been refuted. Democracy means "the people rule." You can't rule yourself if you are enslaved dumb-ass, you also couldn't have a vote.

Everybody rules in a democracy to some degree, even people who don't get their way, since they can choose not to participate and they can actively try and promote alternatives.

Direct democracy essentially means everybody has a voice. Representative democracy, which is necessary for capitalism, is based on majority rule, as are corporations, which are based on mobocracy.

What you advocate is straight up mobocracy, where roaming gangs go around and protect "corporations" and their 'property,' instead of the government.

Obviously no one takes this seriously. You completely failed to address my point. Democracy is where decisions are made according to a majority vote. If we vote to enslave red haired people, and still allow them to vote, then that is not anti-democratic in any way. It is however anti-democratic to prevent the majority from voting to enslave another group of people. Direct democracy is majority rule even more so than representative democracy is. So far nobody has been able to counter this argument.

[Demogorgon]

You completely failed to address my point. Democracy is where decisions are made according to a majority vote. If we vote to enslave red haired people, and still allow them to vote, then that is not anti-democratic in any way. It is however anti-democratic to prevent the majority from voting to enslave another group of people. Direct democracy is majority rule even more so than representative democracy is. So far nobody has been able to counter this argument.
Your type of argument seems to be to take a definition nobody uses and claim that we cannot answer your question within the framework of that definition. But you are being ridiculous because democracy is obviously more refined than what you are describing.

First of all as I said previously a charter of guaranteed rights that requires a supermajority to change is not anti-democratic in any way, nor is allowing minority groups a veto on matters that will affect their status.

Further, it is also quite reasonable to presume that democracy can include safeguards to prevent its own abolition. The creation of slavery is ipso facto the end of democracy because the slaves will no longer be able to enjoy political equality, even if they were to retain the franchise as in your absurd example.

Most importantly however is the fact that the most crucial aspect of democracy is democratic culture. A society willing to comprehend slavery is quite clearly not operating under a culture of democracy as there has been a catastrophic breakdown in the deliberative process. So in fact a precondition to allowing a vote on slavery would be democracy already having collapsed.

[Skooma Addict]

Your type of argument seems to be to take a definition nobody uses and claim that we cannot answer your question within the framework of that definition. But you are being ridiculous because democracy is obviously more refined than what you are describing.

First of all as I said previously a charter of guaranteed rights that requires a supermajority to change is not anti-democratic in any way, nor is allowing minority groups a veto on matters that will affect their status.

Further, it is also quite reasonable to presume that democracy can include safeguards to prevent its own abolition. The creation of slavery is ipso facto the end of democracy because the slaves will no longer be able to enjoy political equality, even if they were to retain the franchise as in your absurd example.

Most importantly however is the fact that the most crucial aspect of democracy is democratic culture. A society willing to comprehend slavery is quite clearly not operating under a culture of democracy as there has been a catastrophic breakdown in the deliberative process. So in fact a precondition to allowing a vote on slavery would be democracy already having collapsed. My definition of democracy is perfectly sound in my opinion. A true democracy is where decisions are made according to majority vote. If you have a different definition, then present it. But you cannot then claim to support the actual principal of basing decisions on what the collective votes for.

As you said, you prefer some kind of constitution. To this I would ask whether this constitution is constructed according to a democratic vote (in which case it would still be possible to enslave red haired people) or if the constitution is imposed by some authority on the citizens.

I do agree with you that a crucial aspect of a successful democracy is a democratic culture, but I think that just separates preferable democracies from unpreventable ones.

[Demogorgon]

My definition of democracy is perfectly sound in my opinion. A true democracy is where decisions are made according to majority vote. If you have a different definition, then present it. But you cannot then claim to support the actual principal of basing decisions on what the collective votes for.

As you said, you prefer some kind of constitution. To this I would ask whether this constitution is constructed according to a democratic vote (in which case it would still be possible to enslave red haired people) or if the constitution is imposed by some authority on the citizens.

I do agree with you that a crucial aspect of a successful democracy is a democratic culture, but I think that just separates preferable democracies from unpreventable ones.
Obviously the constitution is created in a democratic manner and if it enslaves people-well it isn't a democratic constitution, is it? However if it is drafted by democratic means then it is extremely unlikely to contain such a provision.

And this is the point, your argument at this stage does not seem to be against democracy but against society. That is you claim that there is a slight chance that democracy could do horrible things and there is a chance democracy could lead to that (though the process itself would necessarily involve democracy collapsing before it happened), but it is the least likely of all systems to lead to such a thing. We can see this by real world evidence. It is true of course that nowhere in the world is democratic enough for me, but some places are clearly more democratic than others and the more democratic a place is, the less likely horrible things are to happen.

So challenging me to admit a flaw in my preferred system by pointing out that there is a chance that if it collapsed there is a chance that something could happen that is more likely in literally every other system isn't that much of a challenge.

Of course it may be that you have simply been a little haphazard in phrasing these posts. I got the impression a few posts back that what you really wanted to argue was that I myself do not support democracy because I would impose limits on it (protection against slavery for instance). However as I pointed out a precondition for slavery to be seriously entertained in modern society is catastrophic collapse of the democratic system itself, so it is not an applicable example.

However let's play along for a moment and imagine that something has happened that has led to a temporary breakdown in democratic deliberation. Society will come to its senses later, but for the time being, some nasty policies are being proposed. Here is where the democratic constitution comes in. The courts can then declare the nasty policies unenforceable because they violate guaranteed rights. An attempt could be made to amend the constitution to allow for these policies, but that would take time and hopefully society has come to its senses by then. if it hasn't then democracy is doomed and a whole host of horrible things will happen, but again by this stage democracy no longer exists so we are onto a different subject.

[Skooma Addict]

Obviously the constitution is created in a democratic manner and if it enslaves people-well it isn't a democratic constitution, is it? However if it is drafted by democratic means then it is extremely unlikely to contain such a provision.

And this is the point, your argument at this stage does not seem to be against democracy but against society. That is you claim that there is a slight chance that democracy could do horrible things and there is a chance democracy could lead to that (though the process itself would necessarily involve democracy collapsing before it happened), but it is the least likely of all systems to lead to such a thing. We can see this by real world evidence. It is true of course that nowhere in the world is democratic enough for me, but some places are clearly more democratic than others and the more democratic a place is, the less likely horrible things are to happen.

So challenging me to admit a flaw in my preferred system by pointing out that there is a chance that if it collapsed there is a chance that something could happen that is more likely in literally every other system isn't that much of a challenge.

Of course it may be that you have simply been a little haphazard in phrasing these posts. I got the impression a few posts back that what you really wanted to argue was that I myself do not support democracy because I would impose limits on it (protection against slavery for instance). However as I pointed out a precondition for slavery to be seriously entertained in modern society is catastrophic collapse of the democratic system itself, so it is not an applicable example.

However let's play along for a moment and imagine that something has happened that has led to a temporary breakdown in democratic deliberation. Society will come to its senses later, but for the time being, some nasty policies are being proposed. Here is where the democratic constitution comes in. The courts can then declare the nasty policies unenforceable because they violate guaranteed rights. An attempt could be made to amend the constitution to allow for these policies, but that would take time and hopefully society has come to its senses by then. if it hasn't then democracy is doomed and a whole host of horrible things will happen, but again by this stage democracy no longer exists so we are onto a different subject.

A constitution which allows slavery is democratic as long as it was enacted democratically, and it allows the slaves to vote. Saying that such a constitution is not democratic because it allows slavery is like me saying a constitution is not democratic because it allows for the masses to vote to violate private property. In both cases, we are saying something is not democratic only because it does not mold with our personal preferences. But we would both be incorrect. In both cases, the constitution is democratic.

It is not that I think there would in practice be orthodox slavery under a modern democracy, it is that I oppose the actual principle of democracy for the reasons I listed. I do not value a collective vote in and of itself, and I don't think whether an action is right or wrong has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not the majority supports it.

I just don't see why having slaves who are given an equal vote is anti-democratic as long as the majority voted for it. The majority can choose not to care about the well being of others and still sustain a democratic society. They would just hold different values than you.

[Demogorgon]

A constitution which allows slavery is democratic as long as it was enacted democratically, and it allows the slaves to vote. Saying that such a constitution is not democratic because it allows slavery is like me saying a constitution is not democratic because it allows for the masses to vote to violate private property. In both cases, we are saying something is not democratic only because it does not mold with our personal preferences. But we would both be incorrect. In both cases, the constitution is democratic.

It is not that I think there would in practice be orthodox slavery under a modern democracy, it is that I oppose the actual principle of democracy for the reasons I listed. I do not value a collective vote in and of itself, and I don't think whether an action is right or wrong has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not the majority supports it.

I just don't see why having slaves who are given an equal vote is anti-democratic as long as the majority voted for it. The majority can choose not to care about the well being of others and still sustain a democratic society. They would just hold different values than you.
The reason that the existence of slavery means there cannot be democracy is that even if you were to give slaves the franchise (in which case slavery would be unlikely to survive as slave owners aren't likely to outvote slaves and the non slave owning majority have no particular reason to side with the owners consistently) they would not be able to exercise their full political rights or be on a footing of political equality with others.

At any rate though, the problem for you is that your proposed system is far more likely to lead to such things than mine, so saying that democracy could lead to something bad is no argument against me because I have at least on my side the fact that democracy is the most robust of all systems when it comes to preventing the enactment of unpleasant policies.

I'm not sure how you got from this debate to saying that just because the majority supports something doesn't mean it is right. Obviously it doesn't, but nor does whatever other entity you wish to invest power in wanting it make it right. We are discussing methods of governance here, not means to determine the rightness or wrongness of something.

[Skooma Addict]

The reason that the existence of slavery means there cannot be democracy is that even if you were to give slaves the franchise (in which case slavery would be unlikely to survive as slave owners aren't likely to outvote slaves and the non slave owning majority have no particular reason to side with the owners consistently) they would not be able to exercise their full political rights or be on a footing of political equality with others.

At any rate though, the problem for you is that your proposed system is far more likely to lead to such things than mine, so saying that democracy could lead to something bad is no argument against me because I have at least on my side the fact that democracy is the most robust of all systems when it comes to preventing the enactment of unpleasant policies.

I'm not sure how you got from this debate to saying that just because the majority supports something doesn't mean it is right. Obviously it doesn't, but nor does whatever other entity you wish to invest power in wanting it make it right. We are discussing methods of governance here, not means to determine the rightness or wrongness of something.

I am not sure what you mean when you say the slaves wouldn't be able exert their full political rights or be on a footing of equal political equality with others. They are, like everyone else, given an equal vote in everything. They are allowed to run for any office, and to participate in any vote. So what rights are they missing, and why does the fact that they are missing these rights lead you to conclude that such a society is not democratic? To me, they are given every political right as everyone else. Namely, they can vote and run for office.

Well I don't agree that my proposed system if more likely to lead to unpleasant policies. But that was not really the point I was making anyways. I was under the impression that you actually valued the democratic process itself as a good thing. Maybe I was wrong, and you just think a democratic society is likely to bring good consequences, and that is the only reason why you favor it.

[Wolf Larson]

Direct democracy is evil in capitalists eyes because they want a democratic representative republic in order for a minority property/land/means of production owning capitalist class to control the masses. As the founding tyrants said -
“Those who own the country ought to govern it.” -John Jay-

[Nolan]

Democracy Sucks

No, you suck.

[Demogorgon]

I am not sure what you mean when you say the slaves wouldn't be able exert their full political rights or be on a footing of equal political equality with others. They are, like everyone else, given an equal vote in everything. They are allowed to run for any office, and to participate in any vote. So what rights are they missing, and why does the fact that they are missing these rights lead you to conclude that such a society is not democratic? To me, they are given every political right as everyone else. Namely, they can vote and run for office.

Well I don't agree that my proposed system if more likely to lead to unpleasant policies. But that was not really the point I was making anyways. I was under the impression that you actually valued the democratic process itself as a good thing. Maybe I was wrong, and you just think a democratic society is likely to bring good consequences, and that is the only reason why you favor it.We appear to be going round in circles here. How on earth could a slave exercise full political rights? To vote, to hold public office, to participate in political activities all in defiance of their masters' will? What if they are elected to office on a platform of going directly against the desires of their master? Will they be allowed to carry out such a programme? You are bringing up the most absurd "what if?" scenarios here.

You are trying to view my political ideas through a prism of your own attitudes. That is you imagine that I must look at politics dogmatically and be concerned with process above all and not be looking at a broader picture of what a desirable state of affairs is. A democratic society is desirable for two principle reasons. First of all it is desirable in of itself for people to be taking part in the process of governing myself. I regard it as always being worse to have a separate elite governing and secondly democracy is desirable because it is far less likely to lead to bad consequences than governance by this separate elite.

You seem to think I am being presented with a choice wherein my options are either a democratic society where horrible policies are routinely enacted, seemingly just for the hell of it and a somewhat democratic society where I, or someone thinking identically to me, gets a veto on anything undesirable. The thing is, these are not the choices on offer. I have tried explaining several times, but here it is again:

Policies in democracy should obviously be made by the people in an agreed manner. There are also courts, convened in a democratic manner than can annul decisions that contradict the constitution which requires a supermajority to change. further said constitution might include as part of its agreed political process an arrangement that minority groups have a veto on policies that would particularly affect them.

So what we have is a system where the people enact laws in a democratic manner and people are protected from arbitrary exercises of authority in a likewise democratic manner. Now the question I think you are asking is, could a group bent on undermining the democratic oder pack the courts and change the constitution to suit its ends, well perhaps, but to get the necessary support to do so would mean democracy would no longer be possible anyway. And that of course is the real point, democracy is not dependent so much on institutional protection as it is on democratic culture where people exercise power in a responsible manner. I have said elsewhere why I think socialist society is the best environment in which to exercise such responsibility. The institutional protections are there to guard against temporary wavers from this responsibility and are fully democratic despite what you might try to claim as they are there to keep democracy robust for the future when it comes under temporary attack.

Should the problem become more permanent, could these institutional protections fail and the system collapse in on itself? It is possible, however such a thing would happen for a reason, there would have to have been some kind of material change in society to make this happen and again democracy is a good guaranteer against that happening. However is there a minor risk? Yes, but all systems have a risk and democracy is the one with the least risk. If the risk present in democracy is enough to count against it then all other systems have to be seen as even worse. However we have to have a system of some kind so long as humanity exists and that means that unless you have a pre-packaged utopia on offer, democracy is the best one going.

[RGacky3]

You completely failed to address my point. Democracy is where decisions are made according to a majority vote. If we vote to enslave red haired people, and still allow them to vote, then that is not anti-democratic in any way. It is however anti-democratic to prevent the majority from voting to enslave another group of people. Direct democracy is majority rule even more so than representative democracy is. So far nobody has been able to counter this argument.

Listen, is it in theory possible forthat to happen? Yes, but its so unlikely its stupid to discuss it, and its also MUCH LESS likely than in any other political system, so essencially you have no point.

Thats like saying, you might get injured working out, so you might as well sit on your ass, get fat, and die of heart disease, infact thats more sensible because getting injured working out is much much much more likely than slavery happening in a democracy.

Your being idiotic, and you know it.

[Skooma Addict]

I had a detailed response to this typed up, and then something went wrong and I lost everything...darn. So ill just respond to this and then let you have the last word.


We appear to be going round in circles here. How on earth could a slave exercise full political rights? To vote, to hold public office, to participate in political activities all in defiance of their masters' will? What if they are elected to office on a platform of going directly against the desires of their master? Will they be allowed to carry out such a programme? You are bringing up the most absurd "what if?" scenarios here.

You are trying to view my political ideas through a prism of your own attitudes. That is you imagine that I must look at politics dogmatically and be concerned with process above all and not be looking at a broader picture of what a desirable state of affairs is. A democratic society is desirable for two principle reasons. First of all it is desirable in of itself for people to be taking part in the process of governing myself. I regard it as always being worse to have a separate elite governing and secondly democracy is desirable because it is far less likely to lead to bad consequences than governance by this separate elite.

You seem to think I am being presented with a choice wherein my options are either a democratic society where horrible policies are routinely enacted, seemingly just for the hell of it and a somewhat democratic society where I, or someone thinking identically to me, gets a veto on anything undesirable. The thing is, these are not the choices on offer. I have tried explaining several times, but here it is again:

Policies in democracy should obviously be made by the people in an agreed manner. There are also courts, convened in a democratic manner than can annul decisions that contradict the constitution which requires a supermajority to change. further said constitution might include as part of its agreed political process an arrangement that minority groups have a veto on policies that would particularly affect them.

So what we have is a system where the people enact laws in a democratic manner and people are protected from arbitrary exercises of authority in a likewise democratic manner. Now the question I think you are asking is, could a group bent on undermining the democratic oder pack the courts and change the constitution to suit its ends, well perhaps, but to get the necessary support to do so would mean democracy would no longer be possible anyway. And that of course is the real point, democracy is not dependent so much on institutional protection as it is on democratic culture where people exercise power in a responsible manner. I have said elsewhere why I think socialist society is the best environment in which to exercise such responsibility. The institutional protections are there to guard against temporary wavers from this responsibility and are fully democratic despite what you might try to claim as they are there to keep democracy robust for the future when it comes under temporary attack.

Should the problem become more permanent, could these institutional protections fail and the system collapse in on itself? It is possible, however such a thing would happen for a reason, there would have to have been some kind of material change in society to make this happen and again democracy is a good guaranteer against that happening. However is there a minor risk? Yes, but all systems have a risk and democracy is the one with the least risk. If the risk present in democracy is enough to count against it then all other systems have to be seen as even worse. However we have to have a system of some kind so long as humanity exists and that means that unless you have a pre-packaged utopia on offer, democracy is the best one going. To be clear, this is not one of my practical worries about democracy (I have others). I do not think something like this would happen in a modern democracy. But anyways, as for the slave example, the slave must still be allowed to run for office against his masters wishes. If he isn't then the society cannot be said to be fully democratic. The slaves must be given the right to vote and the right to run for office. If these two conditions are met, slaves can still exist in a democratic society.

The points I wanted to get at were that anyone who claims to support democracy cannot oppose the idea of allowing people to vote to enslave others. I oppose the actual principle of allowing a majority vote on whether or not to enslave a group of people, even though I know that such a scenario would be unlikely. My criticism is not to those who support democracy merely because it leads to good policies. It is a criticism for the countless number of people who hold their hand to their heart and praise the actual concept of democracy. The actual idea of a majority vote as being a good thing itself.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Aw, why did I come to OI i was just beginning to forget that faux-anarchists still existed

[Green Dragon]

But having democratic mechanisms and institutions is the surest safeguard against this, both according to history and practice.

During the inter-war years of Europe, the countries which resisted tyranny the greatest (such as Sweden, or England) were the historical monarchies.


It is because Northern Europe is more democratic then the US that they have not had their system hijacked by corporations, or health care reform blocked by a Senate which gives 50% of the vote to 30% of the country. Or problems like Bush being elected by the Electoral College or Supreme Court even when he loses the popular vote.

Corporations also never hijacked the systems of the USSR et. al.




The best way to protect one's rights, which are socially established, is by free speech, and transparency of government, and social control of the government.


Freedom.



Freedom is relative. Cuba, for example, is a lot more free for most then Haiti or Columbia or Brazil. People in Cuba have free health care, guaranteed income, guaranteed shelter, free education, and guaranteed food/water. :thumbdown:



Having food and water and medicine you need to survive is a lot more liberating then starving to death on the street.


Sure. "Communism of the stomach" And when the Germans were unemployed and starving in the streets they turned to this same "freedom" offerred by the National Socialists.





Most academic scholars include mechanisms such as rule of law, courts, free speech, and free conscious as necessary qualifications for a liberal democracy.


Yes. rule of law, free speech ect is part of freedom. If you have it in a democracy, then one has a "liberal" democracy. However, one can certainly have an "illiberal" democracy, and still be quite democratic.

[Green Dragon]

First of all like I said democracy is not, everyone votes on every issue, so mutal consent is not needed, only those why want to take part in a project or an issue will take part, and then the desicion will be made and if someone does'nt want to take part in it he does'nt have to.


Ok. So its the majority of the total of people who choose to participate.




Yeah your right, he has equal say with his nieghbor, but over the main state THEY HAVE NO SAY, in North Korea, they have almost no say over anything, and in cuba over national issues that do involve them they have very very little say, so no, its not democracy.


OK. So in a democracy certain issues do not concern certain people and therefore they should have no say on it? Are those qualifications determined democratically?

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]Further, it is also quite reasonable to presume that democracy can include safeguards to prevent its own abolition.

Yes. They can do so. But their failure to do so in way disqualifies their democratic status.




Most importantly however is the fact that the most crucial aspect of democracy is democratic culture. A society willing to comprehend slavery is quite clearly not operating under a culture of democracy as there has been a catastrophic breakdown in the deliberative process. So in fact a precondition to allowing a vote on slavery would be democracy already having collapsed.


More along the lines that liberty and freedom has collapsed, not democracy.

[Green Dragon]

It is true of course that nowhere in the world is democratic enough for me, but some places are clearly more democratic than others and the more democratic a place is, the less likely horrible things are to happen.


Was Russia "more" democratic after 1917, or less?

Was Germany "more" democratc after 1919, or less (another question: Is Germany more democratic in 2010, or in 1919?)?

[Green Dragon]

However let's play along for a moment and imagine that something has happened that has led to a temporary breakdown in democratic deliberation. Society will come to its senses later, but for the time being, some nasty policies are being proposed. Here is where the democratic constitution comes in. The courts can then declare the nasty policies unenforceable because they violate guaranteed rights. An attempt could be made to amend the constitution to allow for these policies, but that would take time and hopefully society has come to its senses by then. if it hasn't then democracy is doomed and a whole host of horrible things will happen, but again by this stage democracy no longer exists so we are onto a different subject.

And if the majority supports these "nasty policies?" A decision of the courts can only hold if those "rights" are also agreed upon by the majority as well. And in a practical matter, a system where the courts can strike down the will of the majority is not something which is universally cheered (as any perusal of this very board will show).

[RGacky3]

Ok. So its the majority of the total of people who choose to participate.

Yes sir, and it does'nt involve those who did'nt.

Now let me ask you, how else would YOU like desicions to be made?


During the inter-war years of Europe, the countries which resisted tyranny the greatest (such as Sweden, or England) were the historical monarchies.

So was Spain dumbass, so was Russian, no connection between the 2. You know what the difference is between a Monarchy and a dictatorship?? Nothing.


Corporations also never hijacked the systems of the USSR et. al.


No but the USSR was not a democracy, desicions were made by the Communist party. Seriously, give it up, you know your full of it.


Freedom.

Freedom is not a way to make desicions that effect society or more than one people, its a concept, and I'm all for freedom, and the system that alows the most is democracy.

But then again, I suppose this sollution of yours "freedom" will go along with "radical love" and probably bunny jizz and tickle me elmos.


Yes. rule of law, free speech ect is part of freedom. If you have it in a democracy, then one has a "liberal" democracy. However, one can certainly have an "illiberal" democracy, and still be quite democratic.

No you can't. So called illiberal democracies are not democracies, IF SOCIETAL DESICIONS ARE NOT MADE DEMOCRATICALLY ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Also "rule of law" I'm pretty sure fascists and monarchists also have rule of law.


OK. So in a democracy certain issues do not concern certain people and therefore they should have no say on it? Are those qualifications determined democratically?

No you don't need qualifications, why would you vote on something that does'nt concern you? You can if you want but I don't know why would would, the point is no one would be required to vote about an issue, no one would be barred from it, but I don'nt know why I, for example, would vote on something that I could care less about.


More along the lines that liberty and freedom has collapsed, not democracy.

Liberty and freedom are concepts of human rights, democracay is a method of desicion making, what in hell are you tlaking about? And do you have a better way, than democracy to make desicions and at the same time protect freedom and Liberty?

I'm still waiting for your solution, and something more substative than just saying "liberty."


Was Russia "more" democratic after 1917, or less?

Was Germany "more" democratc after 1919, or less (another question: Is Germany more democratic in 2010, or in 1919?)?

As far as Russia? IN actual desicion making? Maybe slightly more, not much, but many other factors were also added.

Germany is more democratic in 2010, and I don't know what your talking about, before the republics Europe was a bloddy terrible place with no freedom at all, yet you seam to say it was better back then.

As I said before, if policy and decision making are not democratically decided, ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

[Green Dragon]

So was Spain dumbass, so was Russian, no connection between the 2.

Both Russia (1917) and Spain (1934) abolished their monarchies, and both fell into tyranny.


You know what the difference is between a Monarchy and a dictatorship?? Nothing.

The UK is a dictatorship? How about Sweden? Belgium?





Freedom is not a way to make desicions that effect society or more than one people, its a concept, and I'm all for freedom, and the system that alows the most is democracy.


Unless it doesn't.



No you can't. So called illiberal democracies are not democracies, IF SOCIETAL DESICIONS ARE NOT MADE DEMOCRATICALLY ITS NOT A
DEMOCRACY.

If decsions are made with majority support, then it is a democracy.








Liberty and freedom are concepts of human rights, democracay is a method of desicion making,

Yes. thank you. Democracy is about who rules, not how they rule.






As far as Russia? IN actual desicion making? Maybe slightly more, not much, but many other factors were also added.


Yep, Russia was more democratic after the revolution-- and much less free.


Germany is more democratic in 2010,

Less. Germany has a higher threshold for a voice to be heard in political life today than under Weimar.

[RGacky3]

Both Russia (1917) and Spain (1934) abolished their monarchies, and both fell into tyranny.

FIrst of all, Russia was a tyranny before and after. But before I go on, do you believe there is a connection between not having a monarchy and tyranny? Do you honestly believe that there is a connection between abolishing monarchies and tyranny? IF you do I want you to say it.

Also if you do, your an idiot.


The UK is a dictatorship? How about Sweden? Belgium?

THey arn't monarchies, in all those examples the monarch is symbolic, pretty much a tourist attraction. Policy is made by a parliment not the monarch, you know that.


If decsions are made with majority support, then it is a democracy.

No it is'nt. If the majority of the people voted in a guy, who then does something like kill someone, that is not a democratic desicion. UNLESS, that specific desicion was democratically made.


Yes. thank you. Democracy is about who rules, not how they rule.

Not who rules, but how specific desicions are made, I'm an Anarchist, I don't believe in rulership.


Yep, Russia was more democratic after the revolution-- and much less free.

How was it more democratic? How was it less free?

AGAIN,

Whats your actual solution to making desicions?

[Demogorgon]

Debating with Green Dragon often feels like wrestling Jelly. it doesn't put up much of a fight, but you can never really finish it off either. Nonetheless I have to comment on this bizarre notion that somehow it was monarchy that preserved freedom when the vast majority of Europe had monarchies, either serving a symbolic role or taking active involvement in Government. As a rule those on the winning side after the war kept their monarchies and those on the losing side dispensed with them. So if you want to tell me that the losing sides were more unstable after the war then you will have to forgive me for not being surprised. Concluding it had something to do with the retention of monarchy though is a tad difficult to take seriously.

Let's not forget either that Italy retained its monarchy.

Moreover all of these monarchies, with perhaps a few minor exceptions functioned as Republics in all respects anyway. Parliamentary Government where the Cabinet was under no obligation to follow the instructions of the King and only required the confidence of Parliament was well established.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Democracy is the tool of the mob. It is clearly shown that the mob being the majority will make decisions that are harmful to the minority and beneficial to itself. The french revolution led to a republic and one of greatest genocides ever. The mob when it sees people above it will try to punish the people above. The mob will vote for security and stability. Every mob will vote all rights away as long as it gets a job, food, and safety. They do not care for liberty. They fear it b/c it means having to think for one self and without the collective mind making decisions for them they'd shit their pants. Representative democracy should have never existed, it is the whore of special interests.

Mob rule is what democracy is and will always be because when the mob has the right to make decisions for the whole then the rights of all will be sacrificed.

[Nolan]

Democracy is the tool of the mob. It is clearly shown that the mob being the majority will make decisions that are harmful to the minority and beneficial to itself. The french revolution led to a republic and one of greatest genocides ever. The mob when it sees people above it will try to punish the people above. The mob will vote for security and stability. Every mob will vote all rights away as long as it gets a job, food, and safety. They do not care for liberty. They fear it b/c it means having to think for one self and without the collective mind making decisions for them they'd shit their pants. Representative democracy should have never existed, it is the whore of special interests.

Mob rule is what democracy is and will always be because when the mob has the right to make decisions for the whole then the rights of all will be sacrificed.

There we go, ancap in a nutshell.

[Wolf Larson]

Democracy is the tool of the mob. It is clearly shown that the mob being the majority will make decisions that are harmful to the minority and beneficial to itself. The french revolution led to a republic and one of greatest genocides ever. The mob when it sees people above it will try to punish the people above. The mob will vote for security and stability. Every mob will vote all rights away as long as it gets a job, food, and safety. They do not care for liberty. They fear it b/c it means having to think for one self and without the collective mind making decisions for them they'd shit their pants. Representative democracy should have never existed, it is the whore of special interests.

Mob rule is what democracy is and will always be because when the mob has the right to make decisions for the whole then the rights of all will be sacrificed.
You would benefit from reading or watching Democracy For The Few or The Myth Of The Founding Fathers by Michael Parenti. You won't though. You will burry your nose in Ludwig Von Rothbardian drek at Lew Rockwell.dumb

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!videos=-xrBtdbm3Ho&v=dz36-Fecgtw (http://www.youtube.com/watch#%21videos=-xrBtdbm3Ho&v=dz36-Fecgtw)

http://www.iefd.org/articles/constitution_for_the_few.php


The founding tyrants set up a democratic republic so as to keep any meaningful power out of the hands on non white slave, white, native and woman non land owning working class. John Locke called us Leet-Men. The ignorant and vile masses. They held us in contempt. John Jay said the people who own the country ought to govern it and Madison also said the only function of government is to protect the minority opulent from the poverty stricken majority. You share the same contempt for the working class and for that you are scum. They [property owning white capitalists such as you aspire to be] hate direct or even basic democracy because it gives the masses of people a voice. You're promoting outdated and tyrannical socio-economic system which was built to facilitate the abject rule of the rich. A system meant to take power from royalty and put it directly in the hands of big business. A system that simply switched feudal lords for capitalist masters and in time it will be overturned.

You are no anarchist. Anarchism has and always will be a part of the broader socialist movement. You're an oddity. A self hating white working class John Galt wannabe. A reactionary to the tenth degree. An enemy of liberty.

[Comrade Anarchist]

You would benefit from reading or watching Democracy For The Few or The Myth Of The Founding Fathers by Michael Parenti. You won't though. You will burry your nose in Ludwig Von Rothbardian drek at Lew Rockwell.dumb

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!videos=-xrBtdbm3Ho&v=dz36-Fecgtw (http://www.youtube.com/watch#%21videos=-xrBtdbm3Ho&v=dz36-Fecgtw)

http://www.iefd.org/articles/constitution_for_the_few.php


The founding tyrants set up a democratic republic so as to keep any meaningful power out of the hands on non white slave, white, native and woman non land owning working class. John Locke called us Leet-Men. The ignorant and vile masses. They held us in contempt. John Jay said the people who own the country ought to govern it and Madison also said the only function of government is to protect the minority opulent from the poverty stricken majority. You share the same contempt for the working class and for that you are scum. They [property owning white capitalists such as you aspire to be] hate direct or even basic democracy because it gives the masses of people a voice. You're promoting outdated and tyrannical socio-economic system which was built to facilitate the abject rule of the rich. A system meant to take power from royalty and put it directly in the hands of big business. A system that simply switched feudal lords for capitalist masters and in time it will be overturned.

You are no anarchist. Anarchism has and always will be a part of the broader socialist movement. You're an oddity. A self hating white working class John Galt wannabe. A reactionary to the tenth degree. An enemy of liberty.

The original creators of democracy knew that the majority would abuse the right to vote so they called it as they saw it. I see it like this. Democracy allows people to control you and your rights with a vote. Liberty, the freedom to control and determine one's life is crushed under democracy, b/c one must always answer to the collective and fear the mob's wrath. I don't believe that the mob is all that stupid, and b/c of that belief i believe in self government. The ability to control and rule ones life should not in any way be infringed upon but as it can be seen with history that the mob will turn on self government and go from a self governing attitude to ignorance if given the chance. I am promoting a society where the only influence and authority over the individual is that individual. Laissez Faire capitalism has open markets and open choices allowing all to participate in economics, individual have free minds b/c the only responsibility of the person is to themselves. No one has any right to control me nor do i have any right to control anyone, but under democracy that is what happens. It gives people a fair say in government, the problem that arises is the fact that government becomes nothing more than a tool of the mob and allows itself to grow and exert more control. Look at the last few elections. Bush used fear and the need for bigger government military and such and people bought it and gave up rights for the sake of security.

What you are not seeing is the fact that because i am an anarchist i believe in autonomy of the individual. The belief that anarchism is just a schism of socialism is stupid. To advocate for self governance and liberty of the individual is anarchism. I am pro liberty. The fact that you believe in democracy shows you are not. You are willing to give up your liberty or take away other people's liberty as long as you vote on it.

[Sinred]

The original creators of democracy knew that the majority would abuse the right to vote so they called it as they saw it.
The "creators" of democracy was the people who struggled on life and death to save themselves from bankers and aristocrats. They didnt try to regulate themselves in anyway, and if they werent stopped by the power politics of capitalism we would probably even have socialism today. Its pretty obvious you don't know squat about working class history.



I see it like this. Democracy allows people to control you and your rights with a vote. Liberty, the freedom to control and determine one's life is crushed under democracy, b/c one must always answer to the collective and fear the mob's wrath.
Sure you do. Democracy prevents indivudals from sacrifice the majority for their self-interests, pretty much what separates socialism from capitalism. The freedom to control and determine over one´s life is crushed under plutocracy (the logical closure point to what you advocate) when people for economic reason cant build a future for their family, community, friends or themselves. That is, if you don't believe everyone can be doctors and border directors. Every ruler (economical as political) must and shall fear the mobs wrath and answer to the majority, the economies that openly rejects this usually is pretty well knowed for massacres and fascism.


I don't believe that the mob is all that stupid, and b/c of that belief i believe in self government. The ability to control and rule ones life should not in any way be infringed upon but as it can be seen with history that the mob will turn on self government and go from a self governing attitude to ignorance if given the chance.
Are you kidding me? In everything you said so far, you have acknowledge the "fact" that the mob (as you prefer to call oppressed people) is down right retarded.
Who says that, if a majority ruled, people ever would be ignorant enough to make bad decisions? would be my answer to that.
We dont need an ruling elite (economical or political) to prevent us from (for example) lock in red-haired people or ban toe-nail clippers or whatever.
If you do believe that a majority in a a democratic society wouldn't be able to govern themselves, it says more about your view on humanity then it does about democracy.



I am promoting a society where the only influence and authority over the individual is that individual. Laissez Faire capitalism has open markets and open choices allowing all to participate in economics, individual have free minds b/c the only responsibility of the person is to themselves. No one has any right to control me nor do i have any right to control anyone, but under democracy that is what happens. It gives people a fair say in government, the problem that arises is the fact that government becomes nothing more than a tool of the mob and allows itself to grow and exert more control. Look at the last few elections. Bush used fear and the need for bigger government military and such and people bought it and gave up rights for the sake of security.
Its basically objectivism without any polices, courts or military?
Yeah, try that one out and se how far it would go.
Once again you fail to see the grounds of power politics between capitalists and its workers. The very concept of class relations and who the people are that will always has the most saying under capitalism seems totally alien for you.
Yeah, Bush as a tool of the people... gotta love that one.
What groups do you think install presidents like Bush or Hitler in the first place? Can people expect to find the unbiased truth in a capitalist society without being lied upon by the power?


What you are not seeing is the fact that because i am an anarchist i believe in autonomy of the individual. The belief that anarchism is just a schism of socialism is stupid. To advocate for self governance and liberty of the individual is anarchism.
For once, i kinda agree with you



I am pro liberty. The fact that you believe in democracy shows you are not. You are willing to give up your liberty or take away other people's liberty as long as you vote on it.
Wow, and i thought i had to much spare time. You are nothing but a plutocrat, so far from pro-liberty as any sane man can go. It must be quite a hobby sitting home and fuse together different thoughts you've lapped together in your own head. Everything without any real basis (whatsoever) in the real world. I gotta hand it to you, thou... your derangement is impressive.

[Nolan]

What you are not seeing is the fact that because i am an anarchist i believe in autonomy of the individual. The belief that anarchism is just a schism of socialism is stupid. To advocate for self governance and liberty of the individual is anarchism. I am pro liberty. The fact that you believe in democracy shows you are not. You are willing to give up your liberty or take away other people's liberty as long as you vote on it.

You fucking dolt, capitalism and the individual are mortal enemies. I don't really give a flying fuck about you, but I don't want to depend on wages from social parasites to survive. If you're so against the state infringing on your individuality, try saying something bad about your boss. You are not an anarchist or a leftist of any kind.

I'm a Marxist, but this is my understanding of anarchism (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

1. Anarchism is anti-state.

Ancaps confuse this to mean something to do with only the central government. No wonder their haven is Somalia. Let's be clear: The state is anything that enforces the rule of a class, in this case it protects the private property of the bourgeoisie. Ancap includes a state, no matter what the fuck they choose to call it.

2. Anarchism is anti-hierarchy.

This goes without explanation. They want to keep the class system. Whoever is chosen by the great god Capital must be there by divine providence, since we know the rich are the productive class, right?

3. Anarchism is anti-exploitation.

Also without saying. But gee, it's only an exchange, isn't it.

Admins, change his username. Let's not let apples call themselves oranges, please.

[RGacky3]

I think its becoming more and more apparent that This Comrade Anarchist is a complete tool, but anyway.


To advocate for self governance and liberty of the individual is anarchism. I am pro liberty. The fact that you believe in democracy shows you are not. You are willing to give up your liberty or take away other people's liberty as long as you vote on it.

Without democracy how do social issues get resolved in a way that respects everyones liberty?

Oh yeah, the market (aka the rich) people decide.

What a defender of liberty you are.

[Demogorgon]

Suppose we are all going to "self rule" in the sense CA proposes rather than in the democratic sense. Are we all going to decide individually what side of the road we will drive on and everyone will be free to make a different choice?

If not how will we decide? It would be oppressive to hold a vote on it, so what will we do?

[Green Dragon]

.
[QUOTE=RGacky3;1684696]FIrst of all, Russia was a tyranny before and after

Russia was was far more tyrannical after 1917 (and in the first years of the 20th Century was becoming much more free. Russia was a different country in 1914 than it was in 1900.)



But before I go on, do you believe there is a connection between not having a monarchy and tyranny?

You had made the comment there was no difference between monarchy and dictatorship. My comment was simly to observe that freedom did much better in the historical monarchies of Europe, than in those which dispensed of them in the name of progress.
In the case of Italy, which was on the WINNING side of WW I, it has always been recognise that the rule of Mussolini was far more milder than that of Hitler, and of course Stalin.




THey arn't monarchies, in all those examples the monarch is symbolic, pretty much a tourist attraction. Policy is made by a parliment not the monarch, you know that.


Yep. And the monarch is an institution which is not subjet to control by the democratic majority.




No it is'nt. If the majority of the people voted in a guy, who then does something like kill someone, that is not a democratic desicion. UNLESS, that specific desicion was democratically made.


OK. So every action requires a democratic majority upon which to decide.




Not who rules, but how specific desicions are made, I'm an Anarchist, I don't believe in rulership.


Yes. Decisions are made by the majority.
Part of the problem is that you are seeking to deny what is obvious- somebody, even in a democracy, will rule somebody else. And often those ruled may not like or wish to continue the decisions of the majority. But obey them they must. Else democracy cannot function.

[Physicist]

Hyper-individualism is a strange beast, indeed. No to dictatorship, no to oligarchy, and a thousand times no to democracy, "individualists" seem to say. Only the individual rules!

...a while back I mentioned, as someone who has renounced anarchism (though sympathies remain, of course), I see no problem with government, but many anarchists do. Out of those anarchists, however, it seems most of those call for a confederation of democratic communes or other such systems of... GASP! Governance! Or, at least, what I argue is a form of (democratic and decentralized) government. They just seem to be reluctant to call it a government.

And then, in the remaining number of anarchists who reject government... you have the "individualists" who reject government not out of semantics, but out of principle altogether. Damn it, if we're gonna be anarchists, then let us HAVE fucking anarchy! No states, no governments, no one telling me what to do ever! I'm a society upon myself! You know, like the OP.

A little more insight into what I perceive is their "third way" that repudiates both minority and majority rule in society:


Astute observation. I have also abandoned the anarchist label after recognizing that 'government' is merely a substitute for 'settling disagreements.' I recognize that leftist anarchists have often contributed more theoretical contributions that can seemingly overlook this fact, but the term has become so mangled in the US that it's better to just refer to oneself as a libertarian (socialist) and watch the monkey poo fly.