What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

heki66 — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:55:29 GMT

Hi...

When it comes to the issues of the global politics and the way it is perceived by the masses, a lot of things can be viewed as half-truth or false information wrapped into shiny paper to attract the attention and make people look away from the real problems. Unfortunately, most of us read only the headlines, and don't pay attention to what is really going on in the places like Africa, Gaza strip or the Balkans. Do we think about what is really done to improve the situation in those places by the organizations that are founded to interfere where it is needed and secure the lives of innocent people? Do we engage in dialogues only when we are the ones being endangered, or do we have a conscience that says that this world is a home to us all, and every nation suffering should be given a helping hand? We should understand that if some conflicts do not effect us directly, indirectly we are all effected as a species that seems to work hard against its own survival. I found some very interesting thoughts on this subject in the book called The Age of Nepotism, you should look it up and read about current affairs in the world from the perspective of Iranian American entrepreneur traveling through the Balkans. There is also a site www.theageofnepotism.com

free dating site

free dating site — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:40:19 GMT

Balls in the Air- ...

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

Brainpolice — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:06:49 GMT

The assumption that individual autonomy is "might makes right" makes no sense at all. The very point of the article here is that democracy reduces to "might makes right" in terms of numerical superiority. Individual autonomy is something that would be universally applied, since everyone is an individual. An autonamous individual is free FROM being clubbed over the head. That's the entire point of individual autonomy. And taxation is enforced under the threat of a club over the head (or being kidnapped and shot, to be more precise), so I don't buy into your argument there at all.

You have not proven that the state is an efficient or moral means to creating order and safety. You've merely asserted that and assumed, without proof, that in its absence there can be none. This is a very illogical view, as it assumes that society must be planned from above in order for there to be order. But, on the contrary, all genuine order is rather spontaneous. Social cooperation results from free interaction among people. People cannot be forced to be moral, they must choose to be moral. People cannot be forced to cooperate, they must choose to cooperate. Otherwise, the entire ballgame is self-contradictary, as you are using force in the name of peace.

The state, of course, is made up of human beings no better then anyone else. So all of your negative acessments of human beings in the absence of rulers would apply to the rulers themselves. Accept the rulers don't have rulers! Strickly speaking, within the state, they live in an anarchic state of existance, with no 3rd party arbiter above them, no institution above them to impose laws, and so on. It is for this reason that the Hobbesian notion of human nature should logically lead to an endorsement of anarchism, not statism. Hobbe's proposed solution contradicts his own premises and falls prey to the very problems that he accuses anarchism of having.

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

TomG — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:18 GMT

Ok, your points accepted - perhaps it's as good as it gets then! If we all maintained our full self-autonomy then wouldn't it merely result in survival of the brutest (go ahead and try to claim property rights amongst in the midst of barbarians). While at least a state - even one based on your dismal assessment of oligarchic control - allows for some semblance of order and safety (and last I checked, taxes beat a club over the head any day ;)

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

Brainpolice — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:19:03 GMT

Since I'm not going to regurgitate my entire post on why "Democracy Is Impossible", let me summarize why a true case of "participatory democracy", as in a state that is actually in the control of the people as a whole and has genuine participation is impossible: because in order for this to be realized every single person must literally be a member of the state appratus themselves and directly control everything. This is not how any state in history has ever worked because they are always oligarchal institutions directly controlled by an exclusive group. In the absence of every single person literally being inside of the state apparatus themselves and directly voting and deciding on all matters, a utopian impossibility if I've ever heard one, it cannot be said that the state can truly be representative of "the people" or that "the people" truly have a directly participatory say within the institution.

Cheers,

Brainpolice

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

TomG — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:25:14 GMT

If you bring 'participitory' process down to how it affects the individual participating, it of course means there's the risk that some of his/her votes and preferences will not go his/her way ... that's the cost of being part of any group where one has given up some personal autonomy to the will of a consensus in that group's decisions. If everyone pulled out of a group whenever they didn't get their own way on everything, then that group's viability would be zero. Which is why it was so easy for me to deem such as relegating man back to the level of hunters and yes, even 'silly straw' gatherers if you wish to be that specific ;) Cheers, Tom

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

Brainpolice — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:43:34 GMT

TomG:

If you want to, see my other earlier post "Democracy Is Impossible" for an explaination as to how it is impossible for a state to truly be participatory and representative. Because democratic states are neither genuinely participatory or representative in the real world. I won't get into it here because the theme of this post is "Democracy Is Slavery".

Furthermore, it hardly is that case that only anarchists have a problem with majoritarianism (and actually some self-proclaimed anarchists who I question actually seem to advocate it). Classical liberals have had a long history of being critical of majoritarian democracy, from Jefferson onwards. Democracy has often been critisized from a minarchist perspective.

Hunter Gatherers? Cavemen? Surely you have read up and debated enough about the philosophy of market anarchism, and anarchism in general, to know that that is a silly straw man. It makes no sense whatsoever to proclaim that primitivism is the only alternative to contemporary democracy, let alone any kind of statism. This claim isn't even worth addressing.

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

TomG — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:13:58 GMT

Yes, collectivism is built on lies - while democracy at least allows for the individual's theoretical 2-cent's worth in a participatory process (the fact that the latter in its aggregate outcome becomes the "will of the majority" seems to be an issue with many self-affirmed anarchists - even though it's the only way any large societal projects and threats get dealt with successfully (the alternative being an arrested state of hunters and gatherers living in caves)).

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

Kate — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:23:48 GMT

The problem is not with democracy...its with people. Humans *** up whatever they are in-charge of. I have some complaints but overall I would take democracy over say, communist Russia.

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

TomG — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:54:19 GMT

Why must it be "all or nothing" when we know that we live in an imperfect universe - where even human actions and motivations are flawed and often quite irrational (which is why, by the way, I contend that there will *always* be some form of government system - if only as an insurance policy to protect the weaker from the stronger, in a social contract that ensures everyone at least gets a booby prize (ie. safety net), but that will also require an informed populace that keeps abuses of the law in check and in a continuous struggle to maintain each nation’s rendered freedoms.

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

David Ipperciel — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:36:23 GMT

Attackdonkey is getting at the heart of the problem: any idea must be confronted to point of views held by people outside a like minded group. If not, they are doomed to linger in oblivion. You believe democracy is slavery and we should get rid of it? Then why is it that anarchic systems are nowhere to be found? Is everybody out there an idiot? I have long figured out that when I assume someone to have an IQ of a third grader, I usually am making a mistake. The world is complex, and any easy solution usually misses important factors. In the logic presented, since sovereignty is not absolute, it is slavery. This important statement needs to be worked out, since non-A is not necessarily B. It also assumes that absolutes are possible. However, wherever I look, I can never find absolutes. Everything I look at has to be contextualized. Everywhere but here? Why does democracy need such a strong criteria as absolute sovereignty? Why couldn't partial sovereignty be sufficient? I am not supporting the view that the governed gives consent to the state. What I am supporting is that a government can govern because of the perceived legitimacy of the ruling body. Time and time again, illegitimate government have eventually been thrown out. In our time, this legitimacy exists because players see rules of fairness. If your right to property is being trampled, are there rules to compensate you? When the majority passes a law, will it take into consideration what the minority thinks about it? To use the slave analogy, do you compensate a slave when the will of his master is imposed upon him? Can a slave by called a slave if he can change his master when he perceives him to be illegitimate (as the US did with the British, or the Ukrainians to Russia)? When someone complains about his taxes being to high, is he complaining about the principle of taxes (no taxes are justifiable) or just their level (they're too high)? If its the latter, there are no solutions, it becomes a matter of opinion, and the level will fall wherever the political process will push it. If its the former, then one has to clearly explain how a society can minimally exist without at least some form of police protection. If your answer is a private police, you'll have to explain how it will not fall into the same problem faced by the Romans who hired Germans that eventually turned against them, or the Samourais against their emperors. If a minimal public police becomes acceptable, then taxes are not to be excluded in principles. If a police is necessary, then the state becomes a construction, something build. That construction is what allows one to have property (without a police, nothing stops my neighbor from stealing my belongings, and property ceases to exists, replaced by temporary holdings). If property exists because of the State, and the States does not run on goodwill but on resources, than taxes becomes legitimate and becomes the prerequisite to property (let's not complain here on the level but principle of taxes). The questions then shifts from having a gvt to having a good gvt. Many of these questions must be addressed for your ideas to become acceptable to most.

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

Attackdonkey — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:49:43 GMT

okay I got to read it now...

to david, to say we are not slaves because we can vote, debate etc., is just ridiculous, complain all you want but the IRS is going to take up to 40% of your money every year. the state will take some, and the city will take close to 10 cents for every dollar you spend.

(and to brain) and it will continue to be this way so long as the people who see it for what it is stay bottled up in missian blogs and their noses in Rothbard. This is what david is talking about brain,

you're arguements apply very much to the real world, but they aren't in the real world. they are on here. and you have painted yourself in the eyes of the outside world as a nut. Ron Paul is called a nut and he believes govt can be legitimate! you have to soften your tone! let your message be that government is evil, but necessary.

this was the success of our constitution. that our men were educated. and our constitution held for a generation or two. but today the masses are ignorant.

we must educate them.

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

Attackdonkey — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:38:52 GMT

hey very nice, I dont know if I am ready to come out against government as far as in practice. But I see more and mroe every day that it is evil.

In the meantime, can you tell me how to write a blog?

either I am an idiot and cant remeber/Something has changed and I cant find it/Or they have revoked my blogging capabilities due to inactivity.

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

Spideynw — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:35:46 GMT

This post is in response to David.

Just because someone can voice their opinion does not mean they are not a slave.

The Constitution hardly restrains the government of the United States.

When the government can force minorities to give up their property without their consent, they are being made slaves to the majority.

re: What Is Democracy? Part One: Democracy Is Slavery

Brainpolice — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:33:24 GMT

Oh, and some clarification for David: I don't consider this writting of mine to be an "Austrian" take. It does not deal with economics at all. It is more of a philosophical, ethical take on democracy. One need not have even heard of Austrian economics to understand the points.