Democracy: Good, bad, or ugly?

Sorry in advance if this is the wrong place for this thread, there seem to be a lot of sub forums and I wasn't quite sure which one this belongs in. I'm sure I'll find my way around eventually...

I'd like to present a small part of a manifesto that I'm working on. The following section of the document lays out why I think democracy is something to fear, which I've tentatively titled "A Critique of Democracy". Later parts of the manifesto (which I will happily post separately) deal with other solutions that I see as being more ethically justifiable, but the general gist is that people shouldn't have a right to micro manage each other's lives, even if they vote on it.

A Critique of Democracy

Democracy assumes that one group of people have an inherent right to control any smaller group that disagrees with them. This is fundamentally unethical and unjustifiable.

Democracy on a national scale relies on constant threat of state sponsored violence, kidnapping, and extortion in order to enforce and sustain itself. This is an inescapable truth that many choose to ignore, but few would attempt to refute with any sort of factual argument. Even if you are fully aware that your government has used your tax money for illegal or illegitimate purposes, you will still be faced with violent arrest, imprisonment, and state sponsored kidnapping of any children you may have if you refuse to comply with their financial demands. Without threat and use of such tactics, democracy in its current form would cease to exist. It may well be the case that a majority of voters support such actions, but that serves no purpose in attempting to ethically legitimize them. Violent aggression is still violent aggression, even if you vote for it democratically.

If anyone reading this would like to refute this point, I challenge you to find a "democracy" anywhere in the world that doesn't officially resort to violence and imprisonment as its default punishment for non-violent non-compliance with requests to fund its existence. By definition, this is extortion, and is the key foundation from which democratic societies are funded.
Democracy by itself offers no protection for minorities, or anyone other than those aligned to the ruling party. In a pure democracy 51% of people could opt to kill the other 49% in gas chambers, as long as they take a vote on it. Remember what you learned as a kid about how two wrongs don't make a right? Well, forget about that if you live in a democracy. Two wrongs will make rights all day long in any truly democratic nation, as long as people are willing to vote. That is the very essence of democracy; mob rule, pack mentality, strength in numbers to oppress those with fewer numbers than you. Fortunately, nations have realized this, and rely on undemocratic constitutions and acts of parliament as backstops. While they never outright admit that democracy would be utterly horrific without wholly undemocratic foundations, in practice it is something that is rarely argued against. This in itself can be seen as strong evidence of the failings of democratic principle.

Democracy on a large scale is in the best interests of no one. Humans are diverse, and have a wide variety of complex preferences and beliefs with regards to how life should be lived. As such, it is unreasonable and unrealistic to assume that there would ever be a situation where 51% of people in an entire nation would agree on the finer points of important public issues such as fiscal planning, health care, education and so on. The result is that in order for any of a person's individual beliefs to be represented, they are forced to sacrifice others to form a collective majority, resulting in what is known as "tactical voting". This is basically a lose-lose scenario, where you are forced to vote for someone that you know from the outset doesn't represent your beliefs, simply for the sake of self preservation and avoidance of worst case scenarios. The practical implications of being the the minority in a democracy are the same as they would be in a dictatorship.

It is a common fallacy that democracy represents individual freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democracy is founded on the assumption that you have whatever freedom the voting majority chooses to give you. Historically people have voted to kill or enslave each other with alarmingly high frequency whenever they are given the choice to do so.

Click to expand...

I would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, or criticisms. The reason I'm specifically asking for feedback about this is that while I was trying to do some research, I realized that there actually isn't that much discussion on the topic. People just seem to think that democracy is a good thing and that seems to be the end of it. Have I lost my mind, or are my concerns legitimate?

HumanBeing said:

Sorry in advance if this is the wrong place for this thread, there seem to be a lot of sub forums and I wasn't quite sure which one this belongs in. I'm sure I'll find my way around eventually...

I'd like to present a small part of a manifesto that I'm working on. The following section of the document lays out why I think democracy is something to fear, which I've tentatively titled "A Critique of Democracy". Later parts of the manifesto (which I will happily post separately) deal with other solutions that I see as being more ethically justifiable, but the general gist is that people shouldn't have a right to micro manage each other's lives, even if they vote on it.



I would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, or criticisms. The reason I'm specifically asking for feedback about this is that while I was trying to do some research, I realized that there actually isn't that much discussion on the topic. People just seem to think that democracy is a good thing and that seems to be the end of it. Have I lost my mind, or are my concerns legitimate?

Click to expand...

I hardly know where to start. If you're going to concentrate on the evils of democracy, the first question anyone reading it is going to ask: "Whatcha' got that's better?"

MaggieD said:

I hardly know where to start. If you're going to concentrate on the evils of democracy, the first question anyone reading it is going to ask: "Whatcha' got that's better?"

Click to expand...

As I noted in the OP, this is part of a larger document that goes into details which I also plan to post when it's trimmed down a bit, but the general idea is promotion of a voluntary society. If people choose to vote and participate and reap the supposed benefits of it, let them sign a contract agreeing to it, like an actual physical social contract. If they don't, they don't, and you don't automatically get to put them in a cage and kidnap their children just because they didn't agree to your rules.

Without government monopolies on public services there is no good reason why this couldn't be implemented.

I'd also be inclined to turn your question around. We're talking about serious acts of long term kidnapping and extortion. You need to be able to justify your basis for claiming jurisdiction over people's lives before asking them to provide an alternative. That's how the law has always worked, establishment of jurisdiction is always the first thing that needs to happen.

Or I could just turn the question on its head and ask: Whacha' got that's worse? Many of the most horrific regimes in modern history (including but not limited to the Nazis) were democratically elected.

HumanBeing said:

Sorry in advance if this is the wrong place for this thread, there seem to be a lot of sub forums and I wasn't quite sure which one this belongs in. I'm sure I'll find my way around eventually...

I'd like to present a small part of a manifesto that I'm working on. The following section of the document lays out why I think democracy is something to fear, which I've tentatively titled "A Critique of Democracy". Later parts of the manifesto (which I will happily post separately) deal with other solutions that I see as being more ethically justifiable, but the general gist is that people shouldn't have a right to micro manage each other's lives, even if they vote on it.



I would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, or criticisms. The reason I'm specifically asking for feedback about this is that while I was trying to do some research, I realized that there actually isn't that much discussion on the topic. People just seem to think that democracy is a good thing and that seems to be the end of it. Have I lost my mind, or are my concerns legitimate?

Click to expand...

Before I even attempt at responding, it would like to know what your definition of the democracy you refer to is. Know that, I can address what you've posted adequately and in proper context.

Juiposa said:

Before I even attempt at responding, it would like to know what your definition of the democracy you refer to is. Know that, I can address what you've posted adequately and in proper context.

Click to expand...

The definition of democracy I refer to is the standard dictionary definition, in the context of establishing rule of law and total geographical jurisdiction over an entire nation of people, and whether it should be considered to be an unethical practice to claim legitimate jurisdiction over other people's lives simply because you and your group took a vote on it, even if the other person didn't.

I'm interested because it isn't something that people often question. Democracy is given a whole load of positive propaganda where we're told it means freedom and liberty and justice and whatnot. The point I'm trying to make is that democracy gives us none of those things and is in fact designed to limit them. In the case of US citizens, you are not granted your freedom, justice or liberty by the voting public, you are granted it by the constitution, which is an inherently undemocratic document (also one of the greatest documents ever written imo, but that's for another topic).

My position is that I do not believe that I have the right to vote on how other people live their lives, or what percentage of their income they can keep, and that voting on such issues is a morally reprehensible form of oppression. Questions regarding how people should "control" each other should only be asked in cases of response to external aggression, otherwise I argue that such control is invalid, even if you voted for it.

Honestly, to me it sounds like you are scared to death of people. It seems like you think the vast majority of all people are inherently evil and only do what is in their own best interest and would have absolutely no regard for the best interests of a minority, even a large minority of 49%. Do you really think 51% of a population would really vote to gas the other 49%? Do you really think people are that unreasonable and have no morality whatsoever? What if 100% or even a majority agree on the basic human rights so that anything that deprives even a single person of those basic human rights is against the wishes of the people to all have basic human rights?

Anyway, democracy at its core means that people should have a say or a vote in the things that affect their lives. That's it. If you don't want any say in how your life is governed, move to an undemocratic country. North Korea comes to mind. If you want a very limited say in government, chose to live a representative democracy where you can choose the people who you would like to determine what is best for you. The US comes to mind. If you want more say in how your life is governed, then you need to move to a country which allows direct voting on issues, like Switzerland.

Not A Representative democracy, but Mixed government

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html

kenc said:

Honestly, to me it sounds like you are scared to death of people. It seems like you think the vast majority of all people are inherently evil and only do what is in their own best interest and would have absolutely no regard for the best interests of a minority, even a large minority of 49%. Do you really think 51% of a population would really vote to gas the other 49%? Do you really think people are that unreasonable and have no morality whatsoever? What if 100% or even a majority agree on the basic human rights so that anything that deprives even a single person of those basic human rights is against the wishes of the people to all have basic human rights?

Click to expand...

Yep, you just about summed it up. It's not based on paranoia though, it's based on facts. People voted for the Nazi's, the gas chamber example wasn't hypothetical. Granted, Jews, blacks and gays didn't account for 49% of the population, but the point still stands. This is why the constitution of the United States of America isn't something that people get to vote on, because if it was, you'd all be completely screwed.

The 51% thing is an oversimplification anyway, because it assumes that there are only two options. The fact is in most countries a government can be elected by less than 50% of people voting for them.

kenc said:

Anyway, democracy at its core means that people should have a say or a vote in the things that affect their lives. That's it.

Click to expand...

Having a say and having a vote are two very different things, and that was a large part of what I was attempting to convey. Having a vote means having no say if your vote happens to land in the minority. That is what democracy means by definition.

kenc said:

If you don't want any say in how your life is governed, move to an undemocratic country. North Korea comes to mind.

Click to expand...

And this is what I'm getting at. Why the hell should I have to move half way around the world just so I don't have to be oppressed? And where in the world would I go?

At the moment I live in Cambodia. It has good points and bad. We have a "democratically elected" leader who's been in power for almost 30 years (see what happens without that wonderful constitution of yours?), corruption is rampant, and life is tough for people who aren't rich or part of the ruling elite. It's all a steaming pile of bull****. The only thing that makes it better than where I'm from (the UK) is that with enough money, one can basically purchase 2nd amendment rights for personal use, which as a former victim of violent crime, is very important to me. If I could choose where to live, it would be on a small ranch in some very remote part of the US where I can live by the constitution without being in constant non-voluntary contact with voters, socialists and commies. Sadly, despite having enough money to be able to actually afford said ranch and lifestyle, it's still almost impossible for me to get a visa to live there, let alone US citizenship.

kenc said:

If you want a very limited say in government, chose to live a representative democracy where you can choose the people who you would like to determine what is best for you. The US comes to mind. If you want more say in how your life is governed, then you need to move to a country which allows direct voting on issues, like Switzerland.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't mean to be rude, but it seems like you're sidestepping my point. I don't feel like you, or people in Switzerland or the UK or Cambodia, or anywhere else should have any sort of right to vote on my life. My initial post was an attempt to justify this opinion. If the opinion is incorrect and you feel that people really should get to vote on each other's lives, and that two wrongs really do make a right as long as democratically elected officials say so, how about coming out with some logical reasons? Just saying "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" doesn't really do much to invalidate my original point.

MaggieD said:

I hardly know where to start. If you're going to concentrate on the evils of democracy, the first question anyone reading it is going to ask: "Whatcha' got that's better?"

Click to expand...

Caesar Augustus... no wait... Cincinnatus. Fix everything, then relinquish all power.

You can have a say as a minority % and still not get what you want. With a say, or better a vote, at least you have the chance to express your desires. You seem paranoid about being a minority against the majority. Everyone is so afraid on the tyranny of the majority to realize they are probably already under the tyranny of the minority. If the minority wealthy class is also the ruling class, as is usually the case, then the majority has to suffer at the hands of the minority.

As for other people not having any right to vote for things that impact your life, again it suggests to me that you are antisocial in nature. You have to have some form of Social Contract in place or chaos results. Now, would you like just one person to determine what the Social Contract is, or a ruling minority, or would you like more say in your Social Contract and leave it up to a popular vote?

Are your rights suppressed now? By a majority rule, or a minority rule? As I get along in my middle years, I have learned that the theory and ideology often make very little sense in a society where an increasing number of people are corrupt. The fact that people are not always reasonable and morally just, means that it would be better to be in a society with majority rule rather than minority rule. Because, in reality, those that promote minority rule probably aren't doing it to protect the basic rights of excluded minorities, it is more likely that they are promoting their own selfish desires that oppress the majority.

As a perfect example, the Nazi's came into a power by votes, and only initially won something like 35%, but the German president found it impossible to govern without making Hitler Chancellor. The president died soon after and Hitler was made both President and Chancellor. Before any other election could take place, the German parliament burned down and there were no other elections afterwards. From that point on all democracy was lost. That's how that regime was able to do the evil things it did. I'm pretty confident that the atrocities by the Nazi's weren't exactly what that minority of people voted for initially. And, most importantly, this describes the rise of a minority that oppressed the majority.

kenc said:

You can have a say as a minority % and still not get what you want. With a say, or better a vote, at least you have the chance to express your desires. You seem paranoid about being a minority against the majority. Everyone is so afraid on the tyranny of the majority to realize they are probably already under the tyranny of the minority. If the minority wealthy class is also the ruling class, as is usually the case, then the majority has to suffer at the hands of the minority

Click to expand...

Please re read the penultimate paragraph of what I wrote about democracy in my initial post. Everyone is a minority against the majority, even if that sounds like an oxymoron. The reason is that democracy is used to govern on such a wide range of issues that it is almost impossible for anyone to be in the majority on all of them. The result is that no one ends up getting what they want.

Also, please note that I'm questioning the ethical basis for establishing jurisdiction over people simply by taking a vote that they may have chosen not to be a part of. While your points may be valid, they don't really address the actual issue at hand, they just address my motivation for stating it.

kenc said:

As for other people not having any right to vote for things that impact your life, again it suggests to me that you are antisocial in nature.

Click to expand...

I'm autistic (aspergers). I'm not anti social in the sense of not wanting to socialize with people, but I don't think people should have the right to force others into situations that they aren't comfortable with. I don't think that questioning your right to vote on how much of my income I get to keep makes me anti social. I think it makes you anti social that you think you can just vote that I have to give you 60% of my income, and that it's ethically just as long as enough of your buddies agree with you (I don't know what the tax rates are in the US, but 60% is the highest I've been forced to pay anywhere so far).

kenc said:

You have to have some form of Social Contract in place or chaos results. Now, would you like just one person to determine what the Social Contract is, or a ruling minority, or would you like more say in your Social Contract and leave it up to a popular vote?

Click to expand...

"Contract
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them"

Your definition of contract seems to differ from what the dictionary and wikipedia describes it as. I haven't voluntarily entered into anything, so there is no contract, and by definition of the term "voluntarily", you can't force me to agree to it.

You don't need any form of social contract. You simply need to have a basic understanding and agreement of natural rights. In another recent thread, I laid out roughly what I think pretty much everyone could agree that these rights should be and the laws that should follow from them:

- Respect other people and their property
- All trade, transactions and agreements must be made voluntarily, without use of coercion, fraud, or force
- If you intend to commit actions that may negatively affect others around you, you must gain their permission first

The only one of those that needs expanding on a little is the last of the three. Upholding these rights is in the best interests of everyone, and a logical debate against that statement is something I have yet to see or hear.

What I don't understand is why you think the world would be "chaos" if there weren't more rules than that.

kenc said:

Are your rights suppressed now? By a majority rule, or a minority rule?

Click to expand...

I already said I live in Cambodia, so I assume the question of whether my rights are being suppressed is hypothetical. There is only one man who can run this country without it slipping into civil war, so everyone votes for him. I guess in that sense you could say "by a majority", though it's a debatable point.

But in any case, yes, that natural right to defend yourself and your property by force is something that is oppressed almost everywhere in the world, with the exception of the USA. And that isn't due to democracy. Quite the opposite, if democracy had its way you'd all be disarmed, sitting ducks waiting to get robbed at gun point like I was when I lived in the UK. The constitution is what upholds your natural rights, not democracy (and a wonderful constitution it is too )

kenc said:

As a perfect example, the Nazi's came into a power by votes, and only initially won something like 35%, but the German president found it impossible to govern without making Hitler Chancellor. The president died soon after and Hitler was made both President and Chancellor. Before any other election could take place, the German parliament burned down and there were no other elections afterwards. From that point on all democracy was lost. That's how that regime was able to do the evil things it did. I'm pretty confident that the atrocities by the Nazi's weren't exactly what that minority of people voted for initially. And, most importantly, this describes the rise of a minority that oppressed the majority.

Click to expand...

Hindenburg initially said he didn't want a second term, as he knew he was in poor health. He specifically stated that the only reason he was running was because the Nazi's would be elected if he didn't. People who voted for him weren't trying to pick a leader who they thought would do a good job of running the country, it was obvious he was on the verge of death, they were simply voting for the one guy who wasn't running on a platform of mass genocide.

Your point also completely sidesteps the issue at hand: Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor because the Nazi's democratically won the most seats in the Reichstag. They were the majority given the representative structure of the German democratic mechanism at the time, despite having received less votes overall.

All of this is a side issue anyway, as so far no one has said anything to justify the ethical basis for democracy on a national scale, whether it be enforced by communists, socialists, democrats, conservatives, republicans, whoever. If it contradicts my natural right to live a peaceful life of voluntary social interaction, then I'm not buying it.

Again, in case my message has been lost in all of this, I'd like to state that all I'm proposing is that participation in society be made voluntary. If one group of people want to live as communists, just let them, as long as they don't force anyone else into it. If another group wants to live as socialists, again, they are free to sit around taxing each other all day long and planning what to do with the money, they just can't force people into it. And if a bunch of conservatives want to get together and pay each other minimal taxes but not have access to education or health care from their own group, then let them do that too.

I don't understand why allowing people to live the way they want would cause chaos. As long as we all agree on a few very basic principles, I don't see why we can't just leave each other alone.

I'd also like to request that the forum add "Voluntaryist" to the list of boxes where you choose your political affiliation. We may account for a tiny minority of people, but our proposed method of governance is the only one out there that allows for all the other methods of governance to exist within it, assuming you have enough people who agree with your methods to make it viable. The whole political philosophy is founded on the concept of non aggressive behavior, and for that reason alone I think it deserves it's own little tick box

HumanBeing said:

- Respect other people and their property
- All trade, transactions and agreements must be made voluntarily, without use of coercion, fraud, or force
- If you intend to commit actions that may negatively affect others around you, you must gain their permission first

Click to expand...

That, my friend, is the basis of a real Social Contract. Let me explain:

The sad fact is that very few of us are capable of doing everything we need to survive. I personally can't build a car from raw materials, or a house, or even a cell phone for that matter. I can't generate electricity either and I am not a very capable doctor. I need other people to help me live a life better than that of the solitary cave dweller. So, in order to have a functioning society that generates a high standard of living, we are going to need a large number of people cooperating closely to achieve that goal. This will naturally mean that some individuals will have to curtail some selfish desires in order for that to happen. I prefer to do it through a Social Contract, because it is a voluntary contract. A Social Contract is an unwritten agreement between individuals in a society to behave in socially acceptable manners. It can be as simple as I agree not to kill you and you agree not to kill me. But what a good Social Contract really does is encourage us to curtail our individual selfish desires that may be too distasteful or disruptive to our necessary society.

I think that is a fair trade off and I can't imagine how many freedoms we really have to give up to achieve that. Certainly many less than we currently have given up in our corrupt undemocratic governments. Now I can't imagine what activity you wish to do that seems to be socially unacceptable, but I personally really don't care if you want to be a heroin addict and I shouldn't even have a vote on it. If that is what you want to do with your life then I say go for it. I would be concerned if you were a heroin addict and a school bus driver and probably would ask for a vote to not allowing heroin addicts to drive school buses. See the difference? What you do outside of the public square is of no concern to me or society. Now, if you want to be the only pure communist in a neoliberal capitalist nutjob society, instead of fighting the masses, for which you will always lose, you may have to respect their social contract and find a society that has a social contract that you agree with. And when you find that society let me know where it is, as I will move there too.

Sorry, but this is reality. Theory is great until you put real people in it.

"Democracy" gains its legitimacy because the people, as a body, ought to have input on how they are governed.

There have only been a handful of "direct democratic" governments in human history. Ancient Athens comes to mind, but that's about it. Their track record was actually pretty decent. Not perfect, but decent.

One problem with a direct democracy is that (as noted) it doesn't protect minority rights. And in larger societies, it's horribly inefficient, even with all the whiz-bang communication tools at our disposal today.

Structural mechanisms can help protect minorities -- but we should also keep in mind that those structures only work as well, ultimately, as society wants them to work. The US has several mechanisms to protect minorities, such as elected representatives, indirect democratic structures and a non-elected Supreme Court that reviews legislation. Despite this, homosexuals have been the victims of discrimination for decades. Public opinion has needed to change before the political systems even considered repealing sodomy laws or allowing same-sex marriage. And even in that respect, the SCOTUS recently punted on the issue. Instead of ruling on whether current marriage laws are discriminatory, they are letting the public decide.

And perhaps that's not always a bad plan. Although it has some rather obvious downsides, it's very difficult to impose social changes like this in the face of majority opposition. A Supreme Court ruling that strikes down all laws against same-sex marriage might accomplish one short-term goal, but produce a backlash that sets back the acceptance of homosexuality by the society.


A "voluntary society" is simply not viable. I mean, really, how would it work? Would you present citizens with a contract at age 18 (or 14? or 12? when is fair?), and if they don't sign it, they are kicked out of the country? I'm supposed to leave my family and friends behind? What if no other nation offers me exactly the kind of governance I want? How does that not amount to duress? If I sign the contract, do I give up the power to alter government policies, or the structure of government itself? If we decide to change the contract, does everyone have to re-sign?

It's also not "kidnapping and extortion" for a citizen to stay in the nation of their birth, as long as citizens have the ability to leave and give up citizenship. We're talking about democracies, not Hotel California. You want to leave? Leave.

Most of the "horrific regimes" were not democracies, they were/are autocracies. USSR under Stalin? China under Mao? Mubarak, Khmer Rouge, Vietnamese Communists, Mugabe, Mobutu? All autocracies.

And yeah, the Nazis dismantled the Weimar democracy in the early 1930s, long before they did their worst. Nazi rule was not a "democracy," nor would any legal structures have held them back -- since they basically took over and ignored any constitutional restrictions on their powers. I find it difficult to imagine any plausible counterfactual scenario in which Weimar did not succumb to the massive economic, political and social pressures of that time. What governmental system could have stopped Germany from declaring war?

Nor is it clear who, in your system, would be in charge. Do we disregard the will of the majority in all cases? Does that mean we explicitly grant power to certain minorities? Should we have a dictator who ignores all popular opinion, and rules according to what he or she believes is the proper policy? Where's the accountability? Who can remove the dictator?

At the moment I live in Cambodia. It has good points and bad. We have a "democratically elected" leader who's been in power for almost 30 years (see what happens without that wonderful constitution of yours?), corruption is rampant, and life is tough for people who aren't rich or part of the ruling elite.

Click to expand...

And how would a different system actually change that situation?

The problem with Cambodia is not that it has a democratic government. It's that the government (and society) is corrupt, and in the grip of a complex history and set of social, economic and political conditions. You look at China or Myanmar, and you see the same type of corruption and inefficiency -- and in those cases, the governments are not accountable, and bash anyone who criticizes the problems.

I could choose where to live, it would be on a small ranch in some very remote part of the US where I can live by the constitution without being in constant non-voluntary contact with voters, socialists and commies. Sadly, despite having enough money to be able to actually afford said ranch and lifestyle, it's still almost impossible for me to get a visa to live there, let alone US citizenship.

Click to expand...

So it's the job of the US government to, uh... indulge your desire to be a hermit?

I don't feel like you, or people in Switzerland or the UK or Cambodia, or anywhere else should have any sort of right to vote on my life.

Click to expand...

If you're going to live in a society, someone somewhere is going to decide the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

If you lived in a ranch in the middle of nowhere in the US, you would have less social contact -- but plenty of laws. You'll have restrictions on how you can use your land, how you can build your house, how you treat your dogs and cats, whether you can assault someone, how you can legally settle disputes with your neighbors, what kind of emissions your car can produce, how your tax dollars are used, how much you have to pay in taxes....

It is simply not possible to live in a society of a few million people, and let every single person have radical freedom.

yes, that natural right to defend yourself and your property by force is something that is oppressed almost everywhere in the world....

Click to expand...

Incorrect. You can defend yourself almost anywhere, including the UK. You just don't always have the ability to use a gun as part of that process.

By the way, the homicide rate in the UK is about 1/4 of that in the US. Most of Europe is much safer than the US.

If one group of people want to live as communists, just let them, as long as they don't force anyone else into it. If another group wants to live as socialists, again, they are free to sit around taxing each other all day long and planning what to do with the money, they just can't force people into it. And if a bunch of conservatives want to get together and pay each other minimal taxes but not have access to education or health care from their own group, then let them do that too.

Click to expand...

We already have that. It's called "naturalization."

Maybe your problem isn't with "democracy." It's with immigration policies.

Speaking of which: Who, in your opinion, ought to decide an immigration policy? Should it be the majority of the citizens? Should it be a privileged minority? Should it be one individual, or a small group of oligarchs, who have no formal accountability? Or perhaps it should be the foreigners, who don't live in the country yet, who get to decide?

kenc said:

That, my friend, is the basis of a real Social Contract. Let me explain:

The sad fact is that very few of us are capable of doing everything we need to survive. I personally can't build a car from raw materials, or a house, or even a cell phone for that matter. I can't generate electricity either and I am not a very capable doctor. I need other people to help me live a life better than that of the solitary cave dweller. So, in order to have a functioning society that generates a high standard of living, we are going to need a large number of people cooperating closely to achieve that goal. This will naturally mean that some individuals will have to curtail some selfish desires in order for that to happen.

Click to expand...

I was with you right up to the last sentance. Until that point, everything you listed could be achieved through voluntary trade and interactions without forcing anyone into anything. What selfish desires need to be curtailed in order for it to remain voluntary? If I don't agree to be a part of your system but I also agree not to reap any of its benefits or interfere with the people who live within it, then what's the problem, why do you feel the need to curtail my stuff, and what gives you the right?

I'm happy to get my own health insurance, private defense insurance, pay a reasonable fee to use your roads if you insist on maintaining monopoly over geographical access etc. The only thing you lose by not letting me do my own thing is my money, and I don't gain anything by letting you steal it, other than the knowledge that you will cease threats of violence and imprisonment against me until the next financial year.

Why should you get to do that to me? I'm a human being. I never did anything to you or tried to take your money, what makes you think it's ok to do it to me? I'm not a stingy person, I take the first opportunity to donate money to worthy causes, especially if I plan to make use of their services, but if people try to force me I walk away no matter what the cause is. I believe I should have the right to do that.

Natural rights differ from a social contract, in that there is no misuse of the word "contract" They are simply inalienable rights that everyone has a natural interest in defending.

I would actually prefer to live in a society with a few more rules than that, but they aren't rules that I would try to impose on you or anyone else. The rules I'd like to live by are basically the first few amendments of the US constitution, but in the context of a group of people who have literally signed a contract agreeing to live by it, of their own free will. If you liked those rules, you could sign the contract, pay our taxes, and live by our internal "laws". There could be a bunch of commies living the North Korean dream one block down the road for all I care, as long as they all entered into it voluntarily and they respect our natural rights.

You made the assumption that I want to do something socially unacceptable, my objections are mostly to socialist fiscal policies and aggressive, violent foreign policies. In my opinion, government officials frequently abuse their power and money, and their funds are often used to commit mass violence that only serves to increase hostility against our own people. I don't consider continual funding of these people to be acceptable, given that until now I've always lived in countries that don't even allow me to defend myself from criminals, let alone provide me with protection so that such defense isn't needed.

Here's the funny part: If I could voluntarily become a US citizen, I would in a heartbeat, and I've gone to great efforts to try to do so. I'd follow all the laws as long as I lived in Colorado or Washington (would prefer Texas for the mass recognition of second amendment rights, but I smoke what I smoke and Texas will probably be the last state to legalize it). I'd pay the taxes, despite my concerns about how the money would be used, for the indefensibly selfish reason of wanting to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the constitution. But it would be voluntary, literally. The process of becoming a citizen involves signing a lot of documents, agreeing to a lot of stuff, and no one will be threatening me if I don't agree to it, they just won't give me citizenship, and I won't get to have those rights.

kenc said:

I prefer to do it through a Social Contract, because it is a voluntary contract. A Social Contract is an unwritten agreement between individuals in a society to behave in socially acceptable manners. It can be as simple as I agree not to kill you and you agree not to kill me. But what a good Social Contract really does is encourage us to curtail our individual selfish desires that may be too distasteful or disruptive to our necessary society.

Click to expand...

If there was a society with a social contract as you described, I'd be living in it. The fact is every society out there has more oppressive "social contracts", which are actually just unilateral statements that haven't been agreed to by many of those that they claim jurisdiction over. You say its voluntary, but you threaten me with violent imprisonment if I don't agree to it. Doesn't seem very voluntary to me.

kenc said:

I would be concerned if you were a heroin addict and a school bus driver and probably would ask for a vote to not allowing heroin addicts to drive school buses

Click to expand...

Seriously? You would ask for a vote on whether heroin addicts should be allowed to drive school buses? And I guess you're going to threaten me until I agree to pay for you to conduct the vote? What happens if you live in an area with high heroin addiction rates, and by some chance 51% of people vote that it's fine and dandy, and that in fact it should be a requirement for all school bus drivers to smoke at least 5 grams of smack before they even get on the bus?

The thing is, as highly unlikely as that scenario is, it can happen in a democracy. It can happen because the school is funded by the government, and the government can demand your money whether you like it or not. It can't happen in a voluntary society, because there is no government that can control you other than the one with rules that you already chose to abide by, and therefore you have agreed to a system of dispute resolution to abide by in relation to solving the issue in the example, as set out by whatever group of people you've chosen to live among. If you haven't chosen to live among any of them, then you are free to simply send your child to a different school that doesn't employ junkies to drive its buses.

This is all setting aside the fact that the junkie buss driver has already broken the third natural law that I listed by engaging in an activity that could have a negative affect (in this case death) for those around him, and as such any response you take is simply a defense of your natural rights, you aren't the aggressor.

Visbek said:

"Democracy" gains its legitimacy because the people, as a body, ought to have input on how they are governed.

Click to expand...

Given that almost your entire post seems to rely on this statement being applicable, I'm simply going to repeat that as long as they aren't breaking basic natural laws, there is no reason for anyone to claim the sort of jurisdiction over people's lives that all modern governments claim to have. If people do break natural laws, then they are considered the aggressor, and you begin to have an ethical basis for attempting to claim jurisdiction over them. Until then, you're just a very popular dictatorship, which is essentially what a democratic government amounts to in practical terms after it has been elected.

The only issue you raised that isn't covered by the above statement was what you said about Cambodia and the root of its issues. FYI, until the 60's it was the fastest growing economy in South East Asia, and living standards were pretty good (partly thanks to French colonialism). It changed when the US dropped three times more bombs on Cambodia during a short span in the late 60's than it did on Japan during the whole of world war two*, systematically destroying the nation's infrastructure, killing tens of thousands of people, and creating a horrific and desperate situation. This was supposedly in retaliation for harboring Vietnamese soldiers, who also posed no threat to your nation and were running as far as they could from agent orange (which you ended up using over here anyway). After that the other "superpower" China (for the record, I think communism is worse than democracy) came and gave all the desperate survivors of your violence a bunch of ak47 clones, they marched on Phnom Penh, and, well, we all know what happened next. It's ironic, they had a functioning democracy before you bombed the country, and only a few short years later there were a bunch of commies in charge and 20% of the population was dead.

So, lets not over simplify the problems here. Things are getting better, thanks mainly to international groups coming in and demanding certain natural rights be respected regardless of the democratic process. That doesn't mean the natural rights are being respected, but there are at least people fighting for them.

*Source: http://www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf

HumanBeing said:

I'm happy to get my own health insurance, private defense insurance, pay a reasonable fee to use your roads if you insist on maintaining monopoly over geographical access etc. The only thing you lose by not letting me do my own thing is my money....

Click to expand...

Ah yes, radical libertarianism, on the Internets. How unique.

You may be in a position to pay everything as an "insurance," but like it or not, we live in a world where billions of people cannot afford health insurance, cannot afford to voluntarily pay for a privatized police force, and don't want to pay a toll every time one pulls out of a driveway. Like it or not, distributing those costs winds up benefitting everyone, in the form of a more stable society.

Why should you get to do that to me?

Click to expand...

You mean, "why should I be taxed?" It's because you live in a society. Like it or not, there are collective aspects to being alive. It is not possible for every single person to collect the water they need, generate their own electricity, hire their own police force, maintain the roads used by thousands of others every day, inspect your food, ensure that your clothes were not made using child labor, and so forth.

Natural rights differ from a social contract, in that there is no misuse of the word "contract" They are simply inalienable rights that everyone has a natural interest in defending.

Click to expand...

That's nice, but I don't share a belief in "natural rights." They're just fictions that we use to lash the Leviathan as much as possible.

The rules I'd like to live by are basically the first few amendments of the US constitution, but in the context of a group of people who have literally signed a contract agreeing to live by it, of their own free will.

Click to expand...

Nice in theory, completely impractical in actual use.

Maybe it would be great if we lived in a world that was so fluid that we could change our political allegiances at the drop of a hat, but that's not how it works. Imagine if you could spend 40 years in a minimal-government state, paying your taxes, and then retire to a socialist state that promises to cover all of your housing and medical expenses. What do you think would happen?

In my opinion, government officials frequently abuse their power and money, and their funds are often used to commit mass violence that only serves to increase hostility against our own people.

Click to expand...

Actually, interstate wars are on the decline; they are significantly rarer than they were even 60 years ago. E.g. Europe spent well over a thousand years locked in states of warfare and living in highly unsafe countries. For all the tussling and struggle in the Euro Zone, the chances that France and Germany will engage in a military conflict is exceedingly small.

What happens if you live in an area with high heroin addiction rates, and by some chance 51% of people vote that it's fine and dandy, and that in fact it should be a requirement for all school bus drivers to smoke at least 5 grams of smack before they even get on the bus? The thing is, as highly unlikely as that scenario is, it can happen in a democracy.

Click to expand...

It can happen anywhere.

For example, consider your hypothetical contract-country. You're still going to need to decide how you want to handle drugs like heroin and cocaine. How do you come to a decision about that? Who makes the laws? Is it better for a panel of unelected individuals, who do not care about the opinions of any of the citizens, to decide?

It can't happen in a voluntary society, because there is no government that can control you other than the one with rules that you already chose to abide by, and therefore you have agreed to a system of dispute resolution to abide by in relation to solving the issue in the example, as set out by whatever group of people you've chosen to live among.

Click to expand...

How is that not just another word for majority rule?

If anything, you're demanding something that would be nearly impossible -- namely a society that comes to 100% agreement on 100% of the issues. It can't possibly work.

as long as they aren't breaking basic natural laws, there is no reason for anyone to claim the sort of jurisdiction over people's lives that all modern governments claim to have.

Click to expand...

What "natural laws?" Who declares which laws are natural, and which are not? By what process do we determine the status of a law?

FYI, until the 60's it was the fastest growing economy in South East Asia...

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but your analysis isn't completely off -- but there's too many errors for me to deal with here.

The critical point is: I don't see how a non-democratic system would have changed anything. There's hardly a record of non-democratic states sitting on the sidelines. Nor do I see any guarantee that your mini-states would remain isolated from international affairs. You are, after all, stipulating a series of small states whose citizens choose to be there; what's to stop a mini-totalitarian state from conscripting everyone, and invading your Libertarian Paradise or the Socialist Sweehearts next door?

The US also spent years sticking its head in the proverbial sand. In the lead-ups to WWI and WWII, the US was strongly isolationist and anti-interventionist. And yet, the US wound up involved in both of those wars, including the massive out-of-the-blue attack on Pearl Harbor.


And again: Why does the fact that you personally want to live in the US grant you the right to live in the US? Why isn't it up to the American people, or the American government, to decide the standards and limitations on those who want to live in it? And who should get to decide these matters?

Visbek said:

You mean, "why should I be taxed?" It's because you live in a society. Like it or not, there are collective aspects to being alive. It is not possible for every single person to collect the water they need, generate their own electricity, hire their own police force, maintain the roads used by thousands of others every day, inspect your food, ensure that your clothes were not made using child labor, and so forth.

Click to expand...

There is nothing about this that requires threat of violence or imprisonment, nor is there anything about the society I described that prevents you from getting a big group together so you can all tax the living crap out of each other and spend it all on socialist parades all day long if it makes you happy. There is nothing ethical about stealing my money for a parade I want nothing to do with and never signed up for.

Visbek said:

That's nice, but I don't share a belief in "natural rights." They're just fictions that we use to lash the Leviathan as much as possible.

Click to expand...

You may not call them natural rights, but are you really telling me that those three "rules" I listed are not in the best interests of everyone to follow? If not, do you have any logical reasons you could state to back up the opinion?

Visbek said:

Nice in theory, completely impractical in actual use.

Maybe it would be great if we lived in a world that was so fluid that we could change our political allegiances at the drop of a hat, but that's not how it works. Imagine if you could spend 40 years in a minimal-government state, paying your taxes, and then retire to a socialist state that promises to cover all of your housing and medical expenses. What do you think would happen?

Click to expand...

You wouldn't be able to, because the socialist state would tell you that you hadn't contributed enough to be eligible for their public services. The British NHS says the same thing about me, I'm no longer entitled to free treatment in the UK despite having paid more taxes than most people would pay in a lifetime. It's funny how their side of the deal is voluntary but mine isn't.

Visbek said:

consider your hypothetical contract-country. You're still going to need to decide how you want to handle drugs like heroin and cocaine. How do you come to a decision about that? Who makes the laws? Is it better for a panel of unelected individuals, who do not care about the opinions of any of the citizens, to decide?

Click to expand...

If a person's actions violate someone else's natural rights (or whatever you wish to define said rights as), then you have an ethical basis with which you can claim jurisdiction. If they are choosing to harm themselves, that's up to them. People do dumb legal stuff all the time, you can't legislate everything.

Visbek said:

How is that not just another word for majority rule?

If anything, you're demanding something that would be nearly impossible -- namely a society that comes to 100% agreement on 100% of the issues. It can't possibly work.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're getting at with this point, or why you came to the conclusion that it requires agreement from anyone over anything. It doesn't, that's the whole point. If you choose to sign a contract to abide by the laws of a certain group, that's fine. They can make their own laws for their own people, as long as the people signed a contract voluntarily, agreeing to accept the consequences (good and bad) of that group. Not sure if you've ever studied the concept of consensual non-consent, but clauses of that nature would likely exist in the rules of most groups looking to establish internal rules and structures, or they would simply exist by default if the contracts were permanent.

Visbek said:

Nor do I see any guarantee that your mini-states would remain isolated from international affairs. You are, after all, stipulating a series of small states whose citizens choose to be there; what's to stop a mini-totalitarian state from conscripting everyone, and invading your Libertarian Paradise or the Socialist Sweehearts next door?

Click to expand...

1. In a voluntary society, one would expect a "mini totalitarian" group to be seriously mini compared with the general population around them, given the alternatives its citizens would be faced with.
2. "My libertarian paradise and the socialist sweethearts next door" would both recognize that we have a common interest in protecting each other's natural rights from our common would-be oppressor.
3. Any other mini societies that see what's going on also have an inherant interest in defending our natural rights, by reason of the fact that the rights are universally beneficial (I have yet to hear your reasons why they aren't).
4. Large scale wars are generally fought with money that doesn't actually exist. Without government manipulation of currency and economics, you'd have a pretty hard time amassing an army of conscripts and sending them out into battle on a regular basis.

Visbek said:

And again: Why does the fact that you personally want to live in the US grant you the right to live in the US? Why isn't it up to the American people, or the American government, to decide the standards and limitations on those who want to live in it? And who should get to decide these matters?

Click to expand...

I didn't say I should have the right. I simply said I'd like and appreciate the right. I'm not demanding anything from anyone, other than the freedom to live in peace without threat of violence or imprisonment, as long as I agree not to do anything that would have any adverse affect on those around me. I'd even give up that demand in return for the ability to live in the US.

As for who would get to decide on immigration issues in a voluntary society? The answer should be pretty obvious; without a government claiming monopoly on geographical jurisdiction, people are free to come and go as they please as long as they don't infringe upon the natural rights of others.

I dunno man, it sounds like you just want to live on a ranch with your guns and your money. It also sounds like your nose is out of joint because you feel entitled to live in a country that for whatever reason, doesn't want you. And rather than figure out an alternative, you want the whole world to change, regardless of how other people might be affected.

I don't think the real problem here is government or society.

Visbek said:

I dunno man, it sounds like you just want to live on a ranch with your guns and your money. It also sounds like your nose is out of joint because you feel entitled to live in a country that for whatever reason, doesn't want you. And rather than figure out an alternative, you want the whole world to change, regardless of how other people might be affected.

I don't think the real problem here is government or society.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure where you got this idea that I think I'm entitled to live in the US, but it's not something I've stated or that I believe. It's just an idea of something that I want to do because I think I would be happy. And yeah, I just want to live with what's mine, I don't see what's wrong with that, though as I've said, I'd personally be willing to sacrifice some of the liberties I desire and even go along with their taxes if it somehow magically meant I could get a US citizenship. That isn't the same thing as saying I'm simply entitled to receive it, evidently I'm not.

I've spent my life figuring out alternatives. I've been driven from my homeland by criminals and politicians, lived in three different continents in the past 10 years, and each time it's the same story; they take a large percentage of my income, but when I'm sick I still have to provide my own healthcare, when I get robbed in the street no one does anything to help, so what am I paying for? The right to simply be alive? There was a kid at school who sometimes used to take my lunch money because he said he was fatter than me so he needed to eat more. This doesn't feel much different than that did.

Also, my problem isn't just taxes, it's monopolies. I believe in free market economics. Free markets can't exist in areas where governments maintain monopolies over public services. I'm very strongly against all forms of market coercion and the resultant artificial monopolies that emerge from it.

But anyways, the problem here isn't society is it, the problem is me and my unreasonable demand for those who forcibly take what's mine and use it for violence to be held accountable, right? Damn me and my unreasonable demands to live in peace. No wonder everyone hates me.

HumanBeing said:

Sorry in advance if this is the wrong place for this thread, there seem to be a lot of sub forums and I wasn't quite sure which one this belongs in. I'm sure I'll find my way around eventually...

I'd like to present a small part of a manifesto that I'm working on. The following section of the document lays out why I think democracy is something to fear, which I've tentatively titled "A Critique of Democracy". Later parts of the manifesto (which I will happily post separately) deal with other solutions that I see as being more ethically justifiable, but the general gist is that people shouldn't have a right to micro manage each other's lives, even if they vote on it.



I would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, or criticisms. The reason I'm specifically asking for feedback about this is that while I was trying to do some research, I realized that there actually isn't that much discussion on the topic. People just seem to think that democracy is a good thing and that seems to be the end of it. Have I lost my mind, or are my concerns legitimate?

Click to expand...

I do not subscribe to the chaos method of governance by disorganized crowds of people aka mob and I'm glad, we don't have a democracy in the US

ric27 said:

I do not subscribe to the chaos method of governance by disorganized crowds of people aka mob and I'm glad, we don't have a democracy in the US

Click to expand...

Chaos, by definition isn't a method of governance, it's also not what I proposed. I did however point out that mob rule is exactly what democracy equates to. I also said that I want to live in the US, and noted that my primary motive is your constitution which people don't get to vote on (in theory, though you could substitute the word "vote" in place of "ratify" without changing the reality of how it works).

To me it seems you are still wrestling with what it means to be a citizen of a community. You seem to be self-interested and don't understand why you would also have to support (pay taxes, etc.) a society that contains people who do not see things the way you do. Well, I have an interesting exercise for you to help you understand your position better. Get married to another hard right libertarian. Have kids. You will learn all about democracy and how to live and let live. You also learn in a marriage that the only way marriage works is if you work together and respect each other's opinions and wishes, even if they are not in your own selfish interest. Then, raising kids is a whole other experience. I guarantee you (from 18 years of marriage and a 14yo daughter) that your hard line "me, me, me" approach to life will change and you will find that your hard right libertarian views start to slide over to the hard left libertarian.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I wanted to strangle my wife. I think my daughter is an alien from outer space sometimes, but I love her and support her in her personal development. I mean really, why should I have to support her listening to Justin Bieber and my wife who sometimes disagrees with me and I don't get what I want? The answer is, by supporting their wishes I have a strong family that gives me much more value than if I was single. I think this is what you are missing with your views of society. In many ways marriage and family is like a mini community. Scale that up and you will see why you have to be tolerant, and sometimes supportive, of people who are not like you.

kenc said:

To me it seems you are still wrestling with what it means to be a citizen of a community. You seem to be self-interested and don't understand why you would also have to support (pay taxes, etc.) a society that contains people who do not see things the way you do.

Click to expand...

I don't see why not wanting to pay for people other people's violent utopias makes me self interested. I want to allow everyone, from communists and liberals to the hard right to do whatever the hell they want, whether I like it or not, as long as they allow others the same courtesy. You're the one exercising self interest by trying to justify taking other people's property to fund your socialist fantasies. My "hardline me me me approach"? Are you kidding me? I have a hardline "do whatever the hell makes you happy as long as it doesn't affect me" approach, and I take the same approach towards others. You suggest marrying "another hard right" person, but you seem to have missed the point that I'm neither right nor left. Gay marriage? Fine, as long as I don't have to watch. Drugs? Again, you can walk around with white powder all over your nose and needles sticking out of your arms and forehead for all I care, just don't come anywhere near me. Abortion? Seeds aren't trees, anti logging laws don't apply. I'm universally hated by both the left and the right because I believe in personal responsibility AND freedom of choice.

You talk about being tolerant of people who aren't like me. I just can't get over the irony. I'm talking about a system in which anyone can live any way that they want as long as they don't harm others around them. What could possibly be more tolerant than that? Getting a bunch of my mates together and voting to go to your house and take all your stuff so it can be "redistributed" in accordance with our beliefs? Yeah, sounds real tolerant [/sarcasm]

I wrote about the underlying ethical basis for why people claim to have political and economic juristiction over each other's lives, and so far all the arguments are just irrelevant ad hominem attacks in which I'm labeled as being anti social, irrational, self interested, and intolerant. It's nothing new and it just sidesteps the issues.

I'd like to refer you to a short quote taken from a very fine set of essays written roughly thirty years ago, when people were still responding exactly the same boring, predictable way to undeniable logic:

Neither Bullets Nor Ballots - Wendy McElroy said:

Somewhere in the history of libertarianism, this rejection of the State has been eroded to the point that anarchists are now aspiring politicians and can hear the words "anarchist Senator" without flinching. No longer is libertarianism directed against the positions of power, against the offices through which the State is manifested; the modern message - complete with straw hats, campaign rhetoric and strategic evasion - is "elect my man to office" as if it were the man disgracing the office and not the other way around. Those who point out that no one has the right to such a position, that such power is anathema to the concept of rights itself, are dismissed as negative, reactionary or crackpot. They are subject to ad hominem attacks which divert attention from the substantive issues being raised

Click to expand...

Did you ever stop and think that your particular views are nothing more than an anthropophobic utopia? Do you really think 7 billion people can coexist on this planet with the "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" approach? Especially if they are all untrusting of people and afraid of what could happen when a group got big enough to control the lives of others? How do you deal with a group of rogues in that utopia? At that point you need to organize another group that is bigger and more powerful to keep them at bay. Which brings you right back to democracy being the key to keeping 7 billion people from killing each other due to fear of each other.

You think of democracy as mob rule, while I see it as a just social tool that aims to respect the well-being of others while keeping those who do not respect the well-being of others held at bay for the overall benefit of the society. Its not about stealing property and denying a minority the right to live a decent life, its about guaranteeing that those who do embrace the well-being others can continue to do so without tyrants and despots rising to erode the well-being of the masses for the selfish pleasure of one or a few. Like what's happening all over the world today. That is the real power of democracy. That is what people who believe in democracy want from democracy, freedom. Not oppression of others as you seem to think. You have it all backwards in reality, those who do not want democracy embrace the oppressive governments of the world, while those who want democracy want to do away with these oppressive governments.

You seem to be getting very defensive and are not really contemplating other possibilities, so I'll leave you to your thoughts. I thought it would be helpful to your manifesto to consider real situations and include the nature of people in it. It's evidently not working.

Have fun with your manifesto.

kenc said:

Did you ever stop and think that your particular views are nothing more than an anthropophobic utopia? Do you really think 7 billion people can coexist on this planet with the "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" approach? Especially if they are all untrusting of people and afraid of what could happen when a group got big enough to control the lives of others? How do you deal with a group of rogues in that utopia? At that point you need to organize another group that is bigger and more powerful to keep them at bay. Which brings you right back to democracy being the key to keeping 7 billion people from killing each other due to fear of each other.

You think of democracy as mob rule, while I see it as a just social tool that aims to respect the well-being of others while keeping those who do not respect the well-being of others held at bay for the overall benefit of the society. Its not about stealing property and denying a minority the right to live a decent life, its about guaranteeing that those who do embrace the well-being others can continue to do so without tyrants and despots rising to erode the well-being of the masses for the selfish pleasure of one or a few. Like what's happening all over the world today. That is the real power of democracy. That is what people who believe in democracy want from democracy, freedom. Not oppression of others as you seem to think. You have it all backwards in reality, those who do not want democracy embrace the oppressive governments of the world, while those who want democracy want to do away with these oppressive governments.

You seem to be getting very defensive and are not really contemplating other possibilities, so I'll leave you to your thoughts. I thought it would be helpful to your manifesto to consider real situations and include the nature of people in it. It's evidently not working.

Have fun with your manifesto.

Click to expand...

I do appreciate the input. It's just frustrating that it still doesn't seem like anyone is willing to take on the basic question of what gives them an ethical right to control other people if other people aren't harming them. When you talk about the freedoms of democracy it's as if you haven't even looked at what has been going on in places like the middle east with their newfound democratic freedoms. How does democracy work if people vote for dictators?

I just want to know what you're so afraid of. I'm the one coming out in favor of the NAP and have never committed an act of violence in my life. The structure you are defending has been responsible for mass violence on an international scale.

I'm not trying to stop you and your society living exactly the way you want. I just don't understand why you feel the need to force others to participate against their will, or why you think it's ethical to do that. Without answering those two fundamental points, all this "well, it's better than nothing" stuff is irrelevant, because you haven't established jurisdiction to make such a declaration.

And while your final comment may or may not have been sarcastic, I am having fun with it, even if no one agrees with it. That's their right, and I'm not going to throw them in a cage and take their property just because they don't want to live the same way as I do

MaggieD said:

I hardly know where to start. If you're going to concentrate on the evils of democracy, the first question anyone reading it is going to ask: "Whatcha' got that's better?"

Click to expand...

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the rest."
- Winston Churchill.