Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I case you have read some of my earlier threads you can probably guess that I am have some bad things to say about democracy in the past. But generally these have just been thoughts or sometimes suggestions on how it can be improved. But I am now at a point where I have just given up on the idea completely. I will just say this outright: I think democracy is a piece of crap that should die in a fire. I think its a terrible, extremely overrated system that doesn't deliver on most of it's promises and in fact creates many of the evils it claims to stop.
I think probably the biggest lie we are told about democracy (or republics, before anybody brings up the democracy vs republic argument) is that it is better than autocracy because unlike the evil autocracy which we are told is anti-individualist and collectivist, democracy generally is pro-individualist and pro-liberty. Well, this is giant load of ass.
For starts, let's take a look at how the individual can make his voice be heard in a democracy. He does this by voting. Either a leader (republic), or specific policy (direct democracy). But the thing is, an individual's vote doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things. You can be the smartest person in the world, but your voice/vote will always only be one out of countless others, and once smart votes and dumb votes have balanced each other out every voting result will be some kind of a mediocre average. You as an individual and what you think, doesn't matter. There is no democratic will of the individual, only the will of the collective. This is anti-individualist.
But it isn't just anti-individualist, it's also anti-rationalist as well. Not everybody is as good at making a educated guess at what would be good for society. Some voters are smart, others are dumb, and some or so so. But the end result is always the same: Once all voter groups have balanced each other out the end result is the mediocre average of all groups aka mediocrity.
I know what some of you may be thinking. "Who are you to talk about others being dumb, are you so much smarter eh?". Yes. Call me elitist all you want, but the fact of the matter is I actually care about the world I live in. I won't claim to be the smartest person in the world or that my opinions are always correct, but even if nothing else I at least try to stay reasonably informed about economic and social issues, which is more than what can be said about most people it seems. Most people just don't give a ****...
But ok, so democracy may be anti-rationlist and anti-individualist, but at least it does well when it comes to protecting liberty and property right? Nope.
It has come to my attention that the people who scream the most for moar democracy are generally the same people who lust for other peoples stuff. For the greedy, democracy is a trojan horse which they use to justify the stealing of other peoples wealth and property without justification other than pure greed. And even in a society where democracy isn't direct, it's always very tempting for politicians to buy voters with other people's wealth. The end result, is that it really sucks to own decent property or wealth in a democracy, and that fiscal policy becomes very very bad. Democracy eats itself from within in the long term as the mob gets more and more greedy and people see a less of a reason to build wealth and property for themselves knowing it will just be taken away.
I know this might sound extreme to some, but I honestly think strong property rights are more important than a democracy. In a literal sense. If my society decided right now to abolish private property but make everything 100% democratic instead, I would rather just move to China. The reason for this, is that political freedom without economic freedom is worthless. Why be a slave to the collective in a collectivist democracy when I could be more free in a individualist dictatorship? Property rights matter more than political rights.
This is the moment in time where someone will come and say "well if democracy sucks so hard what do you want instead? Dictatorship? Democracy may be flawed but it's the best thing we have!". This is a logical fallacy. Yes, it's the best thing we have RIGHT NOW. But we seriously need a third alternative. If we don't find one, then democracy will suicide itself.
What I want, is a hybrid between democracy and dictatorship where organization is autocratic since it makes it less likely that populist politicians or greedy mobs will ruin everything with bad fiscal policy and greed, but still feature some kind of separation of powers and individual accountability for bad leaders.
Do you share my sentiments?
I don't suppose we are simpatico in our sentiments? Although I bet there are at least some similarities.
I think folks who are disappointed by democracy are most likely disappointed in a similar way to those who believe in the 'Invisible Hand' of the market, that is - those who have faith-based beliefs rather than reality-based ones. 'Invisible Hand' believers are those who experience the 'Market as God' phenomenon. Folks acting in their own self-interest somehow reflect or are driven to act in ways that are somehow beneficial to all the individual members of a community, & hence somehow to the community as a whole. Somehow is the influence of the 'Invisible Hand.'
All the libertarians I know are quite sincere. Many of them are anti-military, because big military = big government.
That's true, but most of them stop at the military when it comes to criticizing the government. In practice the libertarian brand of minarchy would resemble Pinochet's Chile, IMO. Being as serious about property rights as libertarians are would require a lot of suspension of liberties, particularly those of lower classes and people who wanted something more "socialist".
That's true, but most of them stop at the military when it comes to criticizing the government. In practice the libertarian brand of minarchy would resemble Pinochet's Chile, IMO. Being as serious about property rights as libertarians are would require a lot of suspension of liberties, particularly those of lower classes and people who wanted something more "socialist".
Oh there are good reasons why I don't belong to the Libertarian Party. I think that a pure free-market economy leads pretty directly to oligarchy and even feudalism. A reasonably strong democratic government, for all its very real shortcomings, is a necessary counter-balance to crony capitalism.
The world tried Communism. That was a farce. The world tried Fascism. That was war by racism. The Italians saying that they were the greatest he men in the world. Hitler had his Aryan ideal. This led to the near extermination of a group that could have brought Germany into the space age by 1950.
Expressing our views is one of the characteristics of a Democracy.
I will ask you this in closing. Are you testing the waters to see if an American dialect of Fascism is within the mores and norms of our modern American culture?
Actually, there has never been a communist country, not even close. If you are going to discuss types of government, you need to learn the difference.
Before people can start working on alternatives, people must first must be made to understand that the pre-existing system is bad. Trying to create a working alternative before that is a futile exercise. First people need to accept the existence of the problem, and only afterward can we seek a solution to it.
I think there are many folks who recognize problems in our systems. Many people even agree on identified problems. Sometimes where folks differ is on proposed solutions.
I think most folks would see the value in having systems that work. That might seem like 'stating the obvious' although solutions are best imho when they are plausible, pragmatic, possible.
Seeking solutions to problems in a system is akin to 'fixing' it which can be different than proposing alternatives. Personally, I like democracy. I saw this posted on a sign in a store in Manhattan:
Quote:
Democracy is like sex - it works best when you participate.
-Anonymous
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
No democracy can ever limit the power of it's people in the long term. The moment the greedy mob realizes it has the power to expand it's own power via democratic means it will continue to do so. Democracy is like a cancel cell that grows until it has consumed it's entire host body, at which point the host dies as well as the cancer as there nothing left for it to eat.
Democracy can be a healthy functional process:
Quote:
The democratic process obviously could not exist unless it were self-limiting, that is, unless it limited itself to decisions that did not destroy the conditions necessary to its own existence. (p154)
The substantive right or good is external to the democratic process but necessary to it. By "external" I mean that it is not a part of the conception of the process itself, yet it is essential to the proper functioning of the process. For example, from Aristotle onward political theorists have recognized that the function of democratic processes will be impaired if citizens are vastly unequal in economic means or in other crucial resources. (p.167)
-Robert A. Dahl, Democracy & Its Critics, 1989
Which powers (of the people) should be limited? What about substantive rights or goods?
I don't suppose we are simpatico in our sentiments? Although I bet there are at least some similarities.
I think folks who are disappointed by democracy are most likely disappointed in a similar way to those who believe in the 'Invisible Hand' of the market, that is - those who have faith-based beliefs rather than reality-based ones. 'Invisible Hand' believers are those who experience the 'Market as God' phenomenon. Folks acting in their own self-interest somehow reflect or are driven to act in ways that are somehow beneficial to all the individual members of a community, & hence somehow to the community as a whole. Somehow is the influence of the 'Invisible Hand.'
The "Invisible Hand as religion" argument...it isn't analogous to religion at all. Saying that somehow it will work means you just don't understand how the market works. If you understand it, it isn't just blind faith that the market is some magic thing that solves every problem (and no knowledgeable person claims that it solves all problems).
You have voluntary interaction or you have forced interaction. If both parties are interacting voluntarily, that is a free market, and both parties win. If one party is forced to interact against their will, one person wins and the other loses. If both parties want to interact, but a third party is preventing it, both parties lose. The free market is simply getting rid of all involuntary transactions and allowing people to make the decision that they think is in their best interest. That is beneficial to every individual.
Historically, the wealth of a society always grows when people are allowed to create freely, trade freely, compete, and don't have someone restricting economic activity. That's why the poor of today are much better off than many of the rich nobles hundreds of years ago. When total wealth increases, everyone wins. It's better for people to make more pie than to spend all that time and energy arguing over how much of the existing pie everyone "deserves". The pie only exists in the first place because of the free market. Everything else is parasitical to that.
The "Invisible Hand as religion" argument...it isn't analogous to religion at all. Saying that somehow it will work means you just don't understand how the market works. If you understand it, it isn't just blind faith that the market is some magic thing that solves every problem (and no knowledgeable person claims that it solves all problems).
You have voluntary interaction or you have forced interaction. If both parties are interacting voluntarily, that is a free market, and both parties win. If one party is forced to interact against their will, one person wins and the other loses. If both parties want to interact, but a third party is preventing it, both parties lose. The free market is simply getting rid of all involuntary transactions and allowing people to make the decision that they think is in their best interest. That is beneficial to every individual. Historically, the wealth of a society always grows when people are allowed to create freely, trade freely, compete, and don't have someone restricting economic activity.
Voluntary interactions between 2 individuals are beneficial yes although that doesn't mean the interaction is beneficial to all the individuals in the community or to the community as a whole is all I'm saying. & there's no such thing as a free market (like taanstaafl).
As in the many 'tragedy of the commons' examples. Individuals acting voluntarily, independently, & rationally according to their own self-interest are not necessarily acting in the best interests of the whole group, community, state, et cetera is another way of saying.
Adam Smith used the Invisible Hand as a metaphor to describe unintended benefits resulting from individual actions. Although he, unlike many of his followers, was aware of some of the limitations of the market.
In a democracy, each person can use their individual voice to express their own self-interest & attempt to influence the direction. There's no magic there either, it doesn't necessarily mean the individual voice/action will benefit all of individuals in the community or the community as a whole.
Voluntary interactions between 2 individuals are beneficial yes although that doesn't mean the interaction is beneficial to all the individuals in the community or to the community as a whole is all I'm saying. & there's no such thing as a free market (like taanstaafl).
As in the many 'tragedy of the commons' examples. Individuals acting voluntarily, independently, & rationally according to their own self-interest are not necessarily acting in the best interests of the whole group, community, state, et cetera is another way of saying.
Adam Smith used the Invisible Hand as a metaphor to describe unintended benefits resulting from individual actions. Although he, unlike many of his followers, was aware of some of the limitations of the market.
In a democracy, each person can use their individual voice to express their own self-interest & attempt to influence the direction. There's no magic there either, it doesn't necessarily mean the individual voice/action will benefit all of individuals in the community or the community as a whole.
The free market is anywhere that people are interacting voluntarily, so it actually exists all around us. The goal is to maximize the amount of that going on in all areas of life.
Someone referenced this article in a video I watched and it's one of the best I've seen on the topic. Feel free to refute any of it...but it probably explains things better than I would here. If you're not interested, that's fine too. This is a free market of ideas after all.
The free market is anywhere that people are interacting voluntarily, so it actually exists all around us. The goal is to maximize the amount of that going on in all areas of life.
Someone referenced this article in a video I watched and it's one of the best I've seen on the topic. Feel free to refute any of it...but it probably explains things better than I would here. If you're not interested, that's fine too. This is a free market of ideas after all.
That was the first time I saw libertarians compared to Mother Teresa!
This is also a democracy, isn't it? What are your thoughts on democracy? Do you agree Democracy is collectivist, anti-individualist, anti-rational, & anti-property?
That was the first time I saw libertarians compared to Mother Teresa!
This is also a democracy, isn't it? What are your thoughts on democracy? Do you agree Democracy is collectivist, anti-individualist, anti-rational, & anti-property?
Yes, it is all of those things. Collectivist and anti-individualist are the same thing, and democracy is inherently collectivist. It allows the collective to overrule the individual. It's anti-property because 50%+1 can simply vote to take what belongs to you. It can be anti-rational for a number of reasons...if you're against theft and believe in peaceful interaction with others, it would be irrational to support democracy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
