Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 138

Thread: Democracy - a problem

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,791
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Democracy - a problem

    I was posting in the thread "national defense authroiztaion act" and it occured to me that this measure is a means for the US government to at least maintain its country's freedom from radical islamic terrorists. Im not saying that this paranoia is the right way to do this at all, but maybe the US government thinks it is the lesser of two evils. But thats not the whole picture.

    The problem starts with the US being a democratic nation - represtants to the government are democartically elected. This creates a problem that they have to please the people, or else they wont get elected. When it doesnt interfere in foreign matters, the US governements gets blamed for letting cruel despots take "democracy" and capitalism out from the hands of innocent citizens. When it does interfere, it arms people who then become a threat to their own country - and to the rest of the world. Case in point: the US government armed Afghanistan to reistst against Russian communism and the armed Afghans became the Taliban. Other examples would include Egyptian Presidant Ossni Mubarack, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and Libyan dictator Muammar Khaddafi being thrown over in favor of democartically elected governments. And when democratic elections in these countries are organized who wins the elections? Islamic parties. This is the heart of the problem. The middle east is just filled with Islamists who are just waiting to take over and impose their ideals through politics. They relish the throwing over of Islamic moderates like Khaddaffi, because this allows them to seize power where a stable governement originally created and put in place by the US was taking their place.

    Democracy is supposed to be the great liberator of mankind. But what is it doing in the wolrd now? Democratically elected governements are ruining everything because it allows the rule of the fool(the fool = the greatest majority) to have power, not the wise, the few, the intelligent.

    What do you think? Has democracy reached the end of its rope? Is its tip now burning away to ashes? Is it time for some new form of government to be favored over democracies? What about a meritocracy a group of people who select who gets to rule and make decisions, such as the anceint Roman senate during the Roman empire did, rather than (though I beleive they were democratically elected too, not everyone in Rome was allowed citizenship. In fact, most werent) everyone being able to make a "difference" by voting? Or is complaining about the government that your right to vote grants you worth too much? Do we just want a society comprised of upset complainers, rather than contributors? What power does democracy allow the average person to have in the end, and is the average really worth being given the final say?
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, because I wouldn't want - for example - niffweed in such meritocracy (even if he's smart), and he wouldn't want me, and countless numbers of smart people would not want each other in such meritocratic elite for a countless number of reasons. I can only see bloodbath as a result.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,791
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    No, because I wouldn't want - for example - niffweed in such meritocracy (even if he's smart), and he wouldn't want me, and countless numbers of smart people would not want each other in such meritocratic elite for a countless number of reasons. I can only see bloodbath as a result.
    LOl Niffweed...I guess thats the biggest problem in a meritocracy is getting it started...like who is worthy and who isnt? It shouldnt just be based on intelligence though, I never said that. Im not sure myself how such a thing would work, but it has in the past in numerous societies, I see that as a better alternative to deomcracy than the state cults of the early 20th century were, though.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  4. #4
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    maybe maritsa has rates for presidential selection.

  5. #5
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,629
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think the problem is that democracy doesn't work, it's just not used consequently enough. I personally regard the typical "democratic" states of the world like the USA, Germany, and the rest of Europe as rather undemocratic. We all have a chance to vote for someone (or better: just a amorphous party which chooses its own leaders) once in four years, or a similar, relatively long time. But that does actually just change the faces and not the way the country is ruled. The politicians are not even compelled to support a certain cause, they may have been elected for by the majority of their voters (speaking specifically of Germany here). They're much more likely to please the larger corporations, because the state (and therefore we as the citizens) is dependent on the cooperation of those companies.

    I also don't see a good and fair alternative to democracy. Councils of skilled experts can definitely help to find solutions, but this shouldn't be confused with the ability to rule. A meritocracy, even with good intentions of the "experts" has a high chance of transitioning into a oppressive system. In my opinion, any state system which doesn't include the citizen as an individual, who is able to vote (or somehow include their opinion ect.) is unfair. We can't judge about the people and give some the right to vote and deny others to do so. Intelligence and skill can also used for unethical causes, we shouldn't forget that. If a state exists, it's either all or no one. Any other form (dictatorship, oligarchy, rule of the elite, ect.) is bound to fail or rule in an unfair way. That's what I'm thinking.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  6. #6
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,776
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    I was posting in the thread "national defense authroiztaion act" and it occured to me that this measure is a means for the US government to at least maintain its country's freedom from radical islamic terrorists. Im not saying that this paranoia is the right way to do this at all, but maybe the US government thinks it is the lesser of two evils. But thats not the whole picture.

    The problem starts with the US being a democratic nation - represtants to the government are democartically elected. This creates a problem that they have to please the people, or else they wont get elected. When it doesnt interfere in foreign matters, the US governements gets blamed for letting cruel despots take "democracy" and capitalism out from the hands of innocent citizens. When it does interfere, it arms people who then become a threat to their own country - and to the rest of the world. Case in point: the US government armed Afghanistan to reistst against Russian communism and the armed Afghans became the Taliban. Other examples would include Egyptian Presidant Ossni Mubarack, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and Libyan dictator Muammar Khaddafi being thrown over in favor of democartically elected governments. And when democratic elections in these countries are organized who wins the elections? Islamic parties. This is the heart of the problem. The middle east is just filled with Islamists who are just waiting to take over and impose their ideals through politics. They relish the throwing over of Islamic moderates like Khaddaffi, because this allows them to seize power where a stable governement originally created and put in place by the US was taking their place.

    Democracy is supposed to be the great liberator of mankind. But what is it doing in the wolrd now? Democratically elected governements are ruining everything because it allows the rule of the fool(the fool = the greatest majority) to have power, not the wise, the few, the intelligent.

    What do you think? Has democracy reached the end of its rope? Is its tip now burning away to ashes? Is it time for some new form of government to be favored over democracies? What about a meritocracy a group of people who select who gets to rule and make decisions, such as the anceint Roman senate during the Roman empire did, rather than (though I beleive they were democratically elected too, not everyone in Rome was allowed citizenship. In fact, most werent) everyone being able to make a "difference" by voting? Or is complaining about the government that your right to vote grants you worth too much? Do we just want a society comprised of upset complainers, rather than contributors? What power does democracy allow the average person to have in the end, and is the average really worth being given the final say?
    There is a small but important error in your assumptions: that Western countries are democracies, that democracy is the defining characteristic of these countries. But they aren't democracies. What is essential about Western countries, is that first and foremost, they are governed by constitutional law, which in turn embody ideas of the Enlightenment. Democracy just serves these principles. This also explains why democracy as the western world knows it, doesn't work in Islamic countries, and isn't a universal liberator of mankind, because the rest of mankind doesn't really understand the concept of Western constitutionalism. In a sense, democracy can actually be a potential risk, because democracy can be used to abolish the constitutional state.

    However, political scientists and other social scientist are currently in debate about the future of democracy or the lack thereof. The main problem for democracy is what is called "horizontalization" in Dutch, which is a phenomenon which has occurred throughout the Western world since the sixties: a change in the power-relationships between (social) institutions and citizens in favor of the citizens. To put if differently: everyone is an authority nowadays. The solutions you are mentioning in effect mean going back to the past, and would be contrary to the current trend, so these are not really viable options. No one can know for sure what the future will have in store, but if the current trend is to continue, it will be largely about monitoring democracy (instead of the current representative democracy).

    The following video, in which a number of influential political scientists discuss your question, might be of interest to you. Most of it is in English, some of it in Dutch:

    http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2009-2010/meeste-stemmen-gelden/na-de-democratie.html

    E
    TA: I found another version with English subtitles for the Dutch-spoken parts of the commentator:

    http://www.youtube.com/vprointernati.../8/7EBFLXCyM0I
    Last edited by consentingadult; 12-26-2011 at 11:26 AM.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  7. #7
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,791
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    There is a small but important error in your assumptions: that Western countries are democracies, that democracy is the defining characteristic of these countries. But they aren't democracies. What is essential about Western countries, is that first and foremost, they are governed by constitutional law, which in turn embody ideas of the Enlightenment. Democracy just serves these principles. This also explains why democracy as the western world knows it, doesn't work in Islamic countries, and isn't a universal liberator of mankind, because the rest of mankind doesn't really understand the concept of Western constitutionalism. In a sense, democracy can actually be a potential risk, because democracy can be used to abolish the constitutional state.
    Very, very good - I didnt see this Ill admit. However true this is though, it doesnt seem to be something that people in general are aware of. I was getting my own assumptions from public opinion which beleives democracy to be the liberator or western countries, when it is, in fact, theories of the enlightment and its constiutional state which creates the freedom we have in western countries. It needs to be screamed from the rooftops, though I guess the reason it would fall on deaf ears is that most people do not have enough historical sense to know what the enlightenment even is in detail at least in this context.

    However, political scientists and other social scientist are currently in debate about the future of democracy or the lack thereof. The main problem for democracy is what is called "horizontalization" in Dutch, which is a phenomenon which has occurred throughout the Western world since the sixties: a change in the power-relationships between (social) institutions and citizens in favor of the citizens. To put if differently: everyone is an authority nowadays. The solutions you are mentioning in effect mean going back to the past, and would be contrary to the current trend, so these are not really viable options. No one can know for sure what the future will have in store, but if the current trend is to continue, it will be largely about monitoring democracy (instead of the current representative democracy).

    The following video, in which a number of influential political scientists discuss your question, might be of interest to you. Most of it is in English, some of it in Dutch:

    http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2009-2010/meeste-stemmen-gelden/na-de-democratie.html

    E
    TA: I found another version with English subtitles for the Dutch-spoken parts of the commentator:

    http://www.youtube.com/vprointernati.../8/7EBFLXCyM0I
    Im not sure if there is a difference between the 1960s and before in terms of the freedom's people have in society. "Everyone's an authority" is a mental concept that may have emerged in the sixties, but revolution didnt. It began way before the sixties. Im not sure individuals have more authority since then than before - or if its something that is perceived that way. I would like to know what makes you say that this is the case exatcly?

    Also Ive started watching the video its a bit long, (49:36) but Ill see how far Ill get. Thanks for the link.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  8. #8
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,776
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    However true this is though, it doesn't seem to be something that people in general are aware of.
    They aren't. And this is why the Western world is in danger. Populist tendencies with no regard for the constitutional state or the 'contract social' (Rousseau) is what threatens our 'civilization' from within, and not so much outside threats such as Islam.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  9. #9
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ****** was elected.

    I believe in forced asceticism to positions of political power. They shouldn't receive payment, they'd only be sustained like they were monks. After their term their possessions and credits should be public information. They should be also dressed in a silly uniform so they can't keep up the cryptic facade of professionalism.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  10. #10
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,776
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    ****** was elected.

    I believe in forced asceticism to positions of political power. They shouldn't receive payment, they'd only be sustained like they were monks. After their term their possessions and credits should be public information. They should be also dressed in a silly uniform so they can't keep up the cryptic facade of professionalism.
    You have just described the populist tendencies of the monitory democracy perfectly!
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  11. #11
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    You have just described the populist tendencies of the monitory democracy perfectly!
    By what I say or by how I say? Should I be insulted or complimented?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  12. #12
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,776
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    By what I say or by how I say? Should I be insulted or complimented?
    It would be too difficult to explain in a post, but let me suffice to say that power trends in especially European countries (but I have been told it also applies to the US) involve a conflict between professionals (those who think they are well informed and thus better equipped to make decisions than others) and the common people (those who, in this modern day and age, demand instant gratification and fulfillment of all their wishes, and are not bothered by fact-free politics and demand transparency). Some other parties are also involved (especially pro-market capitalists and bureaucrats).

    Personally I don't think what you want is a good thing (so you could take it as criticism, not so much as an insult), but I do think it's what is going to happen in the next few years, perhaps even for quite a period of time (so in a way, you're on the right track, i.e. if you are serious).
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    in ancient China, the country was ruled for long periods of time by euneuchs: ministers who were forcibly sterilized so they could not found their own Imperial dynasty.

  14. #14
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Or maybe just having a functional dick correlates with being like one.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  15. #15
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,791
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok. Im back. A little buzzed but they didnt stay enough time for me to have too many screwdrivers, lol. Anyways,

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post

    I believe in forced asceticism to positions of political power. They shouldn't receive payment, they'd only be sustained like they were monks. After their term their possessions and credits should be public information. They should be also dressed in a silly uniform so they can't keep up the cryptic facade of professionalism.
    I dont see the logic in this. Who would impose these standards? And wouldnt they actually be the ones in power if they do? And logically shouldnt the ones who enforce this also be forced to live to monks and then wouldnt everyone be forced to live in asceticism?

    I do like the last sentence though. People in positions of power dress up too much, for the most part. Silly outfits would be convenient, though one might argue they already have them.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  16. #16
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry almost forgot this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    I dont see the logic in this. Who would impose these standards?
    How do we get there is another matter, yet an important question and a flaw in it's practicality. Would some politicians try to compete with their self-imposed ascetism as a rising school of thought? Or would it come after as part of some kind of revolution?
    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    And wouldnt they actually be the ones in power if they do?
    It would require more political organs involved if there such structure was to be kept. Maybe constitutionalization would be a force enough.

    If you lived in a culture where everything is otherwise pretty fine in your country's "plato's parliamentary system", would you vote for someone who isn't loyal to the holy-ish ascetism vow of the parliament, even though protected by the constitution in one of the first amendments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    And logically shouldnt the ones who enforce this also be forced to live to monks and then wouldnt everyone be forced to live in asceticism?
    Hmm, perhaps later on if some new ideologies were to be found, but I can't really see it as a direct flaw that would emerge and completely fell the system before it's on its feet. It's like when I liked democracy, but i didn't like corporatocry, populism and many other thesises.

    Knowledge of the combination of these flaws is becoming too troublesome for our aims to pursue life and happiness, we have need for something new to fix it while preserving our utmost values whatever they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    Silly outfits would be convenient, though one might argue they already have them.
    Touche. Though I'd say that their current outfits fool the Average Joe.
    Last edited by Aquagraph; 01-08-2012 at 07:03 PM.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  17. #17
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Its weird, Ashton. When I read the stuff you say about your beef with the system, almost everything resonates; you seem to hold almost the exact core views that I do about essentially how shit should be, but we always approach it from opposite angles, and I think our respective locales of upbringing have heavily influenced the color, if you will, that our proposed methodologies take.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  18. #18
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    People who don't think government matters, just live too comfortable a life in a first world country surrounded by wealth and affluence.

  19. #19
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,371
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    People who don't think government matters, just live too comfortable a life in a first world country surrounded by wealth and affluence.
    exactly, they have the luxury of saying that it doesn't matter. why do people from impoverished, politically corrupt countries want to come here, to places like the US, otherwise? and do you think something like Don't Ask, Don't Tell would have been repealed under someone like Michele Bachmann? hell no. of course it matters who is in power.

  20. #20
    Grand Inquisitor Bardia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    1,251
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure that any form of government can succeed for a long period of time without someone corrupt and selfish getting into the mix and ruining it for everyone.
    “No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov

    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
    http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0

  21. #21
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    TIM
    Yet to be determined
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    People who don't think government matters, just live too comfortable a life in a first world country surrounded by wealth and affluence.
    There is the chaotic mico-despotism of primtive societies (constant violence, lack of liberalism, rampant theft, little conception of property rights, etc.) and the modern homogenized state. The state is the result of the gradual pacification and regularization of the violent/despotic elements of society into an increasingly (on average) contained, despised, and regulated entity. Humans can and do use philosophical technology towards utilitarian ends. The benefits of personal autonomy with respect towards other's personal autonomy is increasingly instilled in subsequent generations and as long as this is the case the trajectory of civilizations will be towards anarchism.

    Apes living in violent, constantly warring, raping clans -> Nomadic tribes doing the same -> Agricultural societies begin formalizing tribal violence into social-proprietary hierarchy, legitimized by religion and direct force -> As population size increases due to agriculture, power is increasingly delegated and divided creating bureaucracies -> The governing body becomes an abstraction based on commitments and shared beliefs, leading to increased need for philosophical justification -> science disproves religious beliefs, increased literacy rate, benefits of the liberal free-market society understood -> the justification for coercive, institutional monopolies becomes more difficult -> During this time humans become more averse to violence, death, suffering. Extend rights to more and more minorities even amazingly to other species to the extent that it is justifiable. -> The non-aggression principle gradually becomes the basis of social ethics -> At some point the support for the non-aggression principle reaches a critical mass and it is popularly declared as the new paradigm of civilization with all the ensuing reforms (similar to the democratic revolution in the western world) -> humans lives in a heterogeneous, technological, leisurely society with little fear of violence/slavery on any significant scale. There are still issues, but institutionalized slavery is not one of them. I classify the state as violent because it is, extorting because it is, enslaving because it is, no matter your "necessity arguments."

    Anarchism is a technology that has to be developed gradually if your starting point is a violent primitive society. It is the most optimal for a society built around positive sum games and mutual benefits and hence will proliferate as long as humans are increasingly empathetic towards sentient beings (much historical and scientific evidence that empathy is not innate. It has been developed by heterogeneous cultural proximities and gathered momentum with the invention of the printed novel) and utility maximizing. There is no point of perfection, only a trajectory.
    The end is nigh

  22. #22
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    There is the chaotic mico-despotism of primtive societies (constant violence, lack of liberalism, rampant theft, little conception of property rights, etc.) and the modern homogenized state. The state is the result of the gradual pacification and regularization of the violent/despotic elements of society into an increasingly (on average) contained, despised, and regulated entity. Humans can and do use philosophical technology towards utilitarian ends. The benefits of personal autonomy with respect towards other's personal autonomy is increasingly instilled in subsequent generations and as long as this is the case the trajectory of civilizations will be towards anarchism.

    Apes living in violent, constantly warring, raping clans -> Nomadic tribes doing the same -> Agricultural societies begin formalizing tribal violence into social-proprietary hierarchy, legitimized by religion and direct force -> As population size increases due to agriculture, power is increasingly delegated and divided creating bureaucracies -> The governing body becomes an abstraction based on commitments and shared beliefs, leading to increased need for philosophical justification -> science disproves religious beliefs, increased literacy rate, benefits of the liberal free-market society understood -> the justification for coercive, institutional monopolies becomes more difficult -> During this time humans become more averse to violence, death, suffering. Extend rights to more and more minorities even amazingly to other species to the extent that it is justifiable. -> The non-aggression principle gradually becomes the basis of social ethics -> At some point the support for the non-aggression principle reaches a critical mass and it is popularly declared as the new paradigm of civilization with all the ensuing reforms (similar to the democratic revolution in the western world) -> humans lives in a heterogeneous, technological, leisurely society with little fear of violence/slavery on any significant scale. There are still issues, but institutionalized slavery is not one of them. I classify the state as violent because it is, extorting because it is, enslaving because it is, no matter your "necessity arguments."

    Anarchism is a technology that has to be developed gradually if your starting point is a violent primitive society. It is the most optimal for a society built around positive sum games and mutual benefits and hence will proliferate as long as humans are increasingly empathetic towards sentient beings (much historical and scientific evidence that empathy is not innate. It has been developed by heterogeneous cultural proximities and gathered momentum with the invention of the printed novel) and utility maximizing. There is no point of perfection, only a trajectory.
    What are you getting at? Violence is bad? Anarchy is good? What are you goals with society? I don't have a "necessity" argument, merely establish that government matters today and for the foreseeable future. What I believe is in division of power between economic and political entities(as well as religious entities). And I tell you right now, this is a really good idea. Separation of economic power and political power is a really good idea. The anarchy you espouse would actually not be anarchy but governance by private entities, where private entities have sovereignty over it's property and a monopoly on the use of force within it's property. It would end up feudal warlords and the like because violence is not going away, and that control of violence, even in a imperfect manner is useful. Your espouse a utopia, not because it's perfect, but because it's a fantasy. Unfortunately, once a entity has the capacity for violence or can control violence it can turn despotic and aggressive, especially as it degenerates. It's sad that you rationalize the foundation of the society you see as occuring based on moral sentiment, "the non-aggression principle?". Absolute fantasy.

    What I believe is governance by all participants within a society, rather then merely the owners and holders of property or warlords or priests. If you don't understand why this is a more preferable system to many, then you should find out.

    The state/government is just a organization, it exists and it has the capacity for violence. Let's stop using this whole government is bad, private is good bullshit, because it's fundamentally meaningless. Who has sovereignty, who has political power, how moral decisions are made, and how does the system organize that political power is what matters.

    I don't think the owners or politicians or priests should have all the power, because this is what would happen if property rights or political control would be the supreme ruler of the land.

    This is fundamentally against my personal beliefs because in my opinion property rights and political power are secondary to many other rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all higher rights.

    Libertarian ideas of property rights and the primacy of these rights are outdated, and existed in a world where the oppressive forces were religion and totalitarian rule and property rights were a mechanism to overcome those even more oppressive mechanisms.

    America was founded on some very wonderful principles, namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's not about property rights, or political power, or religious dogma, it's all about balancing these potentially oppressive mechanisms against each other so that the real substantial benefits that we can all enjoy will be unimpeded.

    Modern democratic states is based on the idea that balancing political, economic and social/religious authorities so none of these oppressive mechanisms will achieve supreme control over the lives of it's participants. Unfortunately people choose to advocate the primacy of some of these mechanisms against other mechanism. Such as state vs business, or religious vs state, when it is none of these values that are primary in a modern democratic state, and are secondary to pursuing a high quality of life.

    It's unfortunately that a high quality of life may not be sustainable in perpetuity, which is largely the downfall of all democratic systems. However generally these systems fail where one part of the population are unwilling to sacrifice their quality of life/property/etc in a situation where the overall quality of life must decrease for the entire organization.

    I believe in sustainable systems, but I would never advocate a system that is sustainable in perpetuity(fantasy) in exchange for a system that allows for a very high quality of life that would only last for a reasonably long period of time.

    I believe the world is already in anarchy, but not the fantasy of anarchy you espouse, but one where organizations of power compete, and that politeness and regulation are merely covers for our desire for violence, wealth and power. And I don't think this is going to change, and no moral revolution will change this. However it's possible to insulate the vast majority of the population from the direct consequences of these conflicts in successful societies.

  23. #23
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mostly because I just see so many things that would go wrong.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  24. #24
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    All things being equal, would you rather stick with something that you already know doesn't work?
    Well it's not that simple. We know dictatorship doesn't work, and has historically caused more death and been responsible for less technological and social progress, and yet you advocate it over democracy, so forgive me if I hesitate to take your criticisms seriously; I can see the ways in which it is clearly more effectual in affecting necessary drastic changes in its operation, but unfortunately that is hardly the only factor worth considering.

    I'm not saying that anarchy doesn't have its merits, and I can see it functioning under certain conditions, and I can see how the modern US might fit some of those criterion and could clearly reap massively on some of the benefits inherent to anarchy, but when I think about everything that the lack of a central government implies, I can't help but feel like people aren't ready for that kind of responsibility.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  25. #25
    LauriesCrusador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    TIM
    α-ω
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyone ever read "They Thought They Were Free The Germans, 1933-45" by Milton Mayer? It's worth reading and definitely now more relevant than it was when is was published. Here's an excerpt

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    What about a meritocracy a group of people who select who gets to rule and make decisions, such as the anceint Roman senate during the Roman empire did, rather than (though I beleive they were democratically elected too, not everyone in Rome was allowed citizenship. In fact, most werent) everyone being able to make a "difference" by voting? Or is complaining about the government that your right to vote grants you worth too much? Do we just want a society comprised of upset complainers, rather than contributors? What power does democracy allow the average person to have in the end, and is the average really worth being given the final say?
    This isn't meritocracy at all. Heh, to say ancient Rome was a meritocracy is pretty hilarious although I'm sure slaves were allowed to vote in yout version of history.

    Wrong terminology ye Sunday intellectuals.

  27. #27
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default


  28. #28
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Problem of meritocracy, how does one determine merit? Examination? Money? Property? Force? Birth? Caste?

    Also, it's impossible to efficiently determine merit objectively and thus tyranny of some sort of occur. Democracy is just a system where people are given the opportunity to prove their merit via multiple means, it is certainly not the most resource efficient system, since it attempts to protect all it's members and not only a small group.

    All systems fail, because of many reasons, but not all societies can thrive as democracies can and utilized as fully the productive capabilities of all its citizens. I believe if one democracy falls, another will rise. The tyranny and the brutality of man is ever present, but man's desire for freedom, justice, benevolence is still worth fighting for.

    What do most meritocrat really ask for, it's simple, the tyranny of a test, money, property, force, birth and/or caste or any number of vague disputable proclamations. There is no true meritocracy, maybe just the Peter Principle.

    Hey it's not that bad, you can still have money, education, property, titles, etc. Why not just enjoy that.

  29. #29
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    When and where did I advocate dictatorship? I don't believe I ever said that.
    You didn't advocate it, but you claimed it was preferable to democracy.



    That's a cognitively dissonant premise, or at least it should be. If people can't handle the responsibility of governing themselves, what makes you think they can handle the responsibility of governing others? Are the competent adults supposed to rise to the top and do the governing? Because that obviously isn't happening.
    Well the illusion worked for a while...
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  30. #30
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,629
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Nah, I just mentioned that a guy named Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a book explaining how democracy is a fundamentally awful form of government for a variety of reasons...
    Thanks for the Link!
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  31. #31
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,791
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The PDF is downloaded, but it says the file is broken. Why is this? Anyone else experiencing this?

    On a side note Im taking some time to do research on the author. It says he is a professor emeritus at the university of Las Vegas. Both my parents used to teach there.: Huh.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  32. #32
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    The PDF is downloaded, but it says the file is broken. Why is this? Anyone else experiencing this?
    nope. it works fine for me.

  33. #33
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,791
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Try this link instead. The other PDF renders crappily slow, this one's faster and will probably work for you.
    Oh it works thanks man . Im bout' to start some reading.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  34. #34
    Grand Inquisitor Bardia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    1,251
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Really interesting thoughts from that video.
    “No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov

    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
    http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0

  35. #35
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,084
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the founding fathers realized the flaw in democracy, as was the reasons of drafting the bill of rights and other aspects of the constitution. The bigger portions of our problems have come from throwing aside the constitution and replacing it with pure democracy. The constitution probably has it's flaws as well, but it's much better than what we have now and actually stipulated a much more stable base for running the US.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  36. #36
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    that video almost pissed me off because it had some static. i thought that my new headphones were taking a shit after only owning them a week.

    on topic: I found myself wondering how many people would truly be shocked or surprised by the things in his "what if?" rant. it always surprises me that everyone isn't pessimistic about the political system.
    Last edited by bg; 01-07-2012 at 09:32 PM.

  37. #37
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,776
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bionicgerbil View Post
    it always surprises me that everyone isn't pessimistic about the political system.
    Panem et circenses
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  38. #38
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    yeah. i guess after a bit of thought, you're right. i shouldn't be surprised. a lot of people would just write off that stuff. sigh.

  39. #39
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bardia View Post
    I'm not sure that any form of government can succeed for a long period of time without someone corrupt and selfish getting into the mix and ruining it for everyone.
    Yeah, but unfortunately we couldn't exist sans government without some other uber-powerful group attaining sufficient power to force its ideals on us.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  40. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    When some action takes place?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •