Bitcoin Forum

the exact amount you are willing to put up with.

7

It's 42, right?

Actually, it's the exact amount the majority of other people are willing to put up with. Which wouldn't be so bad but for the fact that the majority of other people just don't give a damn about their freedom. >:(

I'm willing to live under the "Tyranny of the Majority" (direct democracy), but only if it's limited by a constitution. It was actually a factor in my decision to move to California.

Every time I say this, some wise guy reponds "Direct democracy in California is terrible! What about gay rights? Nice budget you got there lolz!" so I'll respond preemptively. Yes, it has its flaws, but it's a step in the right direction. DD allows legislation that doesn't already have a big supporting corporation to get passed, like medical cannabis. Ideally I'd prefer to do away with elected representatives entirely, replacing them with futarchy and delegated voting.

And yes, I would still prefer EVEN LESS tyranny than democracy, but majority rule is the worst I will tolerate for now. No "Tyranny of the Minority" for me, thank you - that rules out the corporatism brought about by a purely representative democracy. I demand an actual say, not filtered through some Republocrat slimeball.

Tyranny is such a strong word. The more people you cram into a state (ahem, CA) the more "tyranny" youre going to need. Less elbow room, less resources, less privacy for everyone simply because theres so many people trying to get along with each other, so more regulation of what you can and can't do. By contrast lets head over to North Dakota where there is miles and miles of nothing and no one. Who is gonna care if you do 90 mph down an empty highway, or light some firecrackers, or build a 25 ft tall wind turbine? Who is around to even notice? I guess my point is: population density leads to "tyranny", and it might actually be necessary to force everyone to get along.

So a 7? ;)

*sigh*... this

I am the tyranny, so... none.
But seriously, I ignore rules that I don't agree with.So... none. Oppression happens in your mind not the perpetrator. That is why some people can be brought to their knees with a few words while others can live free in a prison cell.

I'm not so sure being a prison cell is really living free...

Not a great definition, but consider Nelson Mandela or Aung San Su Kyi.  At some level you are free until your broken.

I'd rather live under laws I don't agree with outside of a prison cell than under laws I do agree with inside of a prison cell.

Explodicile, what exactly is a direct democracy, and how is it implemented in California?  Whenever state politics come up, California is always (in my mind) the worst example of a working state government.

And I don't see why a majority-rule democracy wouldn't just tax the **** out of the top 10%?  Or 49%, for that matter?  I've never thought that a true democracy was a good idea...

In the West, democracy is whatever side you want to win...   Democracy of what the elites like is a true democracy, democracy what they don't like is dictatorship. Read the nauseous paens to democracy in rags like Newsweek in that light and it is clear.

This made no sense to me whatsoever.

Sorry, I was assuming a large knowledge of local and foreign political developments that not everyone might be up to speed on.  For a specific examples, see media complaints about the democracies of Russia, Venezuala, and Turkey for the who they think the "correct" democracy should be like and which are "politically incorrect."

You are conditioned by their use of the term Democracy in the news, in speeches, print, radio and video. Democracy is simply Mob Rules. The majority forcing their will on the minority. The majority stealing from the minority. Not once is the term "democracy" anywhere in our founding documents or ever spoken or written about by them, but you sure see it in Russian documents and in the writings and speeches of well known Marxist Communists. We have a constitutional Republic. Not a democracy, but how often do you hear the term constitutional republic in the news or from our leaders?

You are being conditioned to accept their Democracy so you will not revolt.

Without our birth rights, the most important of which are codified and ratified in the constitution, we are slaves.

All we need to do is stand up and exert our rights to live truly free. Take them. Whats the worse that can happen? They will cage or kill us so we can be Martyrs for our loved ones, to set that example that will be burned in their minds and hearts so that they may remember and carry the torch?

The problems are the conditioning, ignorance, fear, apathy and disinterest in our own enslavement.

You're still confusing me with sentences like this.  I don't know what you're trying to say, beyond look at complaints of democracies in Russia.  You need to proof-read a little more, or something.

Also, I fail to see how looking at complaints of democracies in other countries would answer my question of, "why wouldn't the majority tax the bejeezers out of the minority in a true democracy?"

I don't know who you are talking to, but I myself am well aware of what a true democracy is, and just as much aware that the US is a republic, not a democracy like everyone likes to call it.

Also, I'm not sure whether you condone the republic or rebuke it?  Are you a fan of true democracy?  It sounds like you don't like our current government setup, but you also seem to use aggressive wording against democracy.

Now you're not making sense either.

First you say that you are against all democracy, then go on to say that "there is no reason every citizen shouldn't be able to vote in this fashion".  Uh, maybe I had a brain fart, but isn't the very definition of democracy the idea of every person being able to vote on every issue?

Roughly 2 inches +/- 1 cm.

You can still vote in a Republic form of government on various issues and concerns. The hingepin is none of it means squat if it violates our rights. When it becomes a representative form of government and the people have no say other than voting in their representatives, means the people have no real voice.

For instance, how many citizens would vote in legislation that allows our President to shut down the internet or kill a citizen without due process versus how many compromised representatives who would do the same?

Instead of thinking in terms of how it is now, think of the design that was originally proposed to the people.

Government doesnt need to be a career job. It should be everyday people, for the people.

Voting is not a democracy if the votes violate our rights. Mob rules voting with no concern for our rights is a democracy.

EDITED to correct context.

Ok, I think I understand your viewpoint now.  You support a republic government system without corruption.  Me too.  I think far too many politicians are far too removed from the "real world" to know the best way of handling things... not to mention the number of viewpoints that are simply bought in a variety of government positions.

The House just passed CISPA.

The kind that protects me from the libertarians :D

I'm flexible; I will go where the chances are the best.
Most people just stay put out of habit.

Right now I'm in a rich country with low corruption, decent freedom and high bureaucracy.
If something better was available I would go there.

I have thought about going to one of those oil boom towns you hear about... maybe I will in the future after taking some chances here first.

I'd loosely define a DD as one in which the populace has direct initiative and referendum power. So even though California is a hybrid system, IMHO it still counts.

But part of the reason it doesn't work so well (yet! yet! ;)) is because the majority isn't terribly well informed. For example, I recently refused to sign a recent petition for an inititative that would raise income taxes on people who make over $250,000. I think most folks don't consider deadweight losses, the race to the bottom, and other econ basics that tell us that the rich aren't just a magical source of infinite free money. We're shooting OURSELVES in the foot by telling them not to work here, even counting the tax revenue... a rational direct democracy would support efficient taxes like pigovian, land, and pollution taxes. That's part of the reason I advocate voting reform - in spirit the system is less unjust than representative democracy, but in practice has almost as many bugs to work out as anarchy.

Sometimes I feel like an anarchist living in Somalia, and everyone keeps reminding me about the crime.

You pointed out exactly why I think a republic is better than a democracy: because the majority public is largely uninformed and stupid.  Like I said, the majority would vote to raise taxes on those with high incomes, because they want to lower inequality (or whatever other lame reason they choose).  Electing officials who are well educated and experienced, who know what laws to make that will benefit society as a whole, is the better route to go.

But, obviously, corruption comes in to play in a republican government, and that is exactly what we see today...

There's certainly no easy solution.

If a Democracy cannot be trusted because the people are uneducated, I think it is foolish to believe that this same uneducated group will vote for educated and experienced officials in a Republic.

Exactly. Garbage in = garbage out. I don't think there's much we can do to reduce voter ignorance.

That's where futarchy comes in... we can have citizens/representatives "vote on values, bet on beliefs". The average person can't be expected to understand the complexities of government, but they can much more easily define what consequences they want to see.

I live in China - it's ok actually. Cigs and beer are cheap.