5 ms·

> Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society. Is this a fact? States are monopolistic armed organisations, and democratic

> Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society. Is this a fact? States are monopolistic armed organisations, and democratic states mean that who to point this violent threat at is determined by popular vote - the mob decides. My claim is that this does not remove the moral evil of using violent threat to get your will. Re: your last paragraph: lobbying exists just because of the state - if you can convince those closest to the trigger who to use force against and who to leave alone, you can succeed at your competitors cost. It is a natural reaction to lobby, like a child of a violent family may convince the parent to spank a sibling instead

emteycz 6y ago
> Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society. It's not a fact, but it's parroted so often that people take it as one. Disagreeing with it immediately makes you a fascist. Sadly. I can't understand how voting about other people is supposed to be freedom, but somehow this question is also fascist.
- brnt 6y ago
  Those that disagree usually argue for a far less democratic way to influence what goes on. What's an improvement on representative democracy?
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Not influencing what is going on this way - not everything has to be standard and decided by a majority, multiple options can be done at the same time. Second thing is reducing the size of government - not everything has to be the same for literally millions of people and thousands of square kilometers, and especially not for hundreds of millions of people and entire continents. Some things shouldn't ever be voted about.
    - brnt 6y ago
      Subsidiarity of responsibility/scope between layers of government seems orthogonal to the way we (s)elect people in charge. > Some things shouldn't ever be voted about. In many democracies, certain things are codified into constitutions and are hard to change, and typically not frequently, if ever, voted on. Is that what you mean?
      - emteycz 6y ago
        Democracy is not just the way we s/elect people in charge, it's also the idea of having people in charge and having a single way of life for millions. The country where I live (Czechia) was praised for having one of the strongest constitutions ever written. Now its been destroyed by a populist government for a decade, with the destruction rate multiplied with the pandemic which this government is unable to do anything about while constantly trying to shift money into their pockets. Thanks to the pandemic they can do anything regardless of the constitution or law, but even before the pandemic we found out the constitution is worthless if there isn't anyone with the power to protect it, and that any wording (specific or broad, doesn't matter) will bend to the will of the judge. If constitution is what you rely on you're in for a bad ride, you need ordinary people with guns ready to defend it. I will not trust a constitution to protect me or my property ever again.
        brnt 6y ago
        I think you're mixing up a few things. Young democracies usually have a period in which both politicians and the people need to get used to a new way of doing things, and defining the new way of doing things. This can take a while, e.g. see the Napoleonic period and its aftermath. A nice feature about the French republic is the tradition of the reboot: they're at v5 of the Republic now, with fully revised constitutions and significantly changed shapes (parliamentary to presidential systems for instance), something many countries could learn from I think. A defacto dictatorial period is often one of the first phases of new democracies. Secondly, a problem common to quite a few eastern European countries is an unclear separation of powers (trias politica) and even unclarity about the need for it among many voters. Such an instance could (and should) be able to overrule certain kinds of fundamental changes. Some scholars describe democracies as inherent experiments, which I think is very fitting and something we need to emphasize more. Obviously trying to organize things in a cooperative, or not that cooperatively, is a ongoing affair. There is no way to guarantee anything, but the people's continued involvement. I'd hope they typically wouldn't need guns, but can use tools like constitutionals courts, and, of course the ballot box at various levels of government. Like you say, a more regionalist design can make more local autonomy possible, see Germanys states vs highly centralized French style of governing.
  - jeofken 6y ago
    Legitimate ownership of property can be gained in the following ways: • Purchase/trade with a legitimate owner • Receiving as gift from a legitimate owner • Creation of discovery where there is no legitimate owner Otherwise, we call gaining property “theft”. For example by using threats of violence to coerce others to give you what they legitimately own. The sin of democratic governments is that they are all about gaining property in non-voluntary ways. When I vote for a candidate who promises my interest group money taken from others, I am just stealing with a proxy. That is why representative democracy is not ethical or good. Note that this does not make kings or emperors ethical either. The right way to resolve disputes and protect property without a state would be with agreements between clients, insurance companies, and dispute resolution companies, just like how businesses in their contracts write that in case of dispute, company X will decide who is in the right. Those who think they can plan other people’s lives, and who today aspire to work in government and centrally plan on behalf of others against their will, should instead open advice columns in newspapers. If they are so good at planning for others, they’ll be widely successful, but I have my doubts. Case in point: Norway has 10x the amount of oil as America, and infinitely more than Switzerland, a country devoid of natural resources. Norway has a huge coastline and many ports - Switzerland is land locked. Yet you’re 4x as likely to be a millionaire, the average person makes more in CH before and after taxes. This is clearly due to Norwegians choosing high regulation, high tax, and limited personal freedom. With their head start of massive oil resources, the average Norwegian should live better than the average swiss. But incentives for central planners are inherently inefficient.

emteycz 6y ago

> Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society. It's not a fact, but it's parroted so often that people take it as one. Disagreeing with it immediately makes you a fascist. Sadly. I can't understand how voting about other people is supposed to be freedom, but somehow this question is also fascist.

brnt 6y ago
Those that disagree usually argue for a far less democratic way to influence what goes on. What's an improvement on representative democracy?
- emteycz 6y ago
  Not influencing what is going on this way - not everything has to be standard and decided by a majority, multiple options can be done at the same time. Second thing is reducing the size of government - not everything has to be the same for literally millions of people and thousands of square kilometers, and especially not for hundreds of millions of people and entire continents. Some things shouldn't ever be voted about.
  - brnt 6y ago
    Subsidiarity of responsibility/scope between layers of government seems orthogonal to the way we (s)elect people in charge. > Some things shouldn't ever be voted about. In many democracies, certain things are codified into constitutions and are hard to change, and typically not frequently, if ever, voted on. Is that what you mean?
    - emteycz 6y ago
      Democracy is not just the way we s/elect people in charge, it's also the idea of having people in charge and having a single way of life for millions. The country where I live (Czechia) was praised for having one of the strongest constitutions ever written. Now its been destroyed by a populist government for a decade, with the destruction rate multiplied with the pandemic which this government is unable to do anything about while constantly trying to shift money into their pockets. Thanks to the pandemic they can do anything regardless of the constitution or law, but even before the pandemic we found out the constitution is worthless if there isn't anyone with the power to protect it, and that any wording (specific or broad, doesn't matter) will bend to the will of the judge. If constitution is what you rely on you're in for a bad ride, you need ordinary people with guns ready to defend it. I will not trust a constitution to protect me or my property ever again.
      - brnt 6y ago
        I think you're mixing up a few things. Young democracies usually have a period in which both politicians and the people need to get used to a new way of doing things, and defining the new way of doing things. This can take a while, e.g. see the Napoleonic period and its aftermath. A nice feature about the French republic is the tradition of the reboot: they're at v5 of the Republic now, with fully revised constitutions and significantly changed shapes (parliamentary to presidential systems for instance), something many countries could learn from I think. A defacto dictatorial period is often one of the first phases of new democracies. Secondly, a problem common to quite a few eastern European countries is an unclear separation of powers (trias politica) and even unclarity about the need for it among many voters. Such an instance could (and should) be able to overrule certain kinds of fundamental changes. Some scholars describe democracies as inherent experiments, which I think is very fitting and something we need to emphasize more. Obviously trying to organize things in a cooperative, or not that cooperatively, is a ongoing affair. There is no way to guarantee anything, but the people's continued involvement. I'd hope they typically wouldn't need guns, but can use tools like constitutionals courts, and, of course the ballot box at various levels of government. Like you say, a more regionalist design can make more local autonomy possible, see Germanys states vs highly centralized French style of governing.
- jeofken 6y ago
  Legitimate ownership of property can be gained in the following ways: • Purchase/trade with a legitimate owner • Receiving as gift from a legitimate owner • Creation of discovery where there is no legitimate owner Otherwise, we call gaining property “theft”. For example by using threats of violence to coerce others to give you what they legitimately own. The sin of democratic governments is that they are all about gaining property in non-voluntary ways. When I vote for a candidate who promises my interest group money taken from others, I am just stealing with a proxy. That is why representative democracy is not ethical or good. Note that this does not make kings or emperors ethical either. The right way to resolve disputes and protect property without a state would be with agreements between clients, insurance companies, and dispute resolution companies, just like how businesses in their contracts write that in case of dispute, company X will decide who is in the right. Those who think they can plan other people’s lives, and who today aspire to work in government and centrally plan on behalf of others against their will, should instead open advice columns in newspapers. If they are so good at planning for others, they’ll be widely successful, but I have my doubts. Case in point: Norway has 10x the amount of oil as America, and infinitely more than Switzerland, a country devoid of natural resources. Norway has a huge coastline and many ports - Switzerland is land locked. Yet you’re 4x as likely to be a millionaire, the average person makes more in CH before and after taxes. This is clearly due to Norwegians choosing high regulation, high tax, and limited personal freedom. With their head start of massive oil resources, the average Norwegian should live better than the average swiss. But incentives for central planners are inherently inefficient.