Bitcoin Forum

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Would be so much fairer if it was 2 sheep and 1 wolf and if there was no vote?

Sigh.

Yes. The decision would be "grass".

Our vote hasn't decided anything, ie, there was no power given to it - therefore it is not a demonstration of democracy.

Well, according to liberals, with a majority of scientists saying that global warming is true makes it so.

So if a majority of Bitcoin forum users believe that democracy is a bad idea, then it is. You must accept it. Laws must be put in place based on it. Taxes must be passed to deal with it.

Well, according to liberals, with a majority of scientists saying that global warming is true makes it so.

So if a majority of Bitcoin forum users believe that democracy is a bad idea, then it is. You must accept it. Laws must be put in place based on it. Taxes must be passed to deal with it.

Alternatively you could live in the real world.

Tell that to the Iraqis. They supposedly have a democracy thanks to the Americans.

Yes.  And for all the crap they inflict on one another, there is a less oppression than under the dictatorship.  Thanks for reminding us that democracy is better than dictatorship.  Do let us know if the Pope really is a Catholic and where bears go for a shit...its bound to be equally surprising.

Yes.  And for all the crap they inflict on one another, there is a less oppression than under the dictatorship.  Thanks for reminding us that democracy is better than dictatorship.  Do let us know if the Pope really is a Catholic and where bears go for a shit...its bound to be equally surprising.

I never understood why the conservative party names themselves the Republicans, whereas the liberal party names themselves the Democrats.  Yet, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy.  Ironic...

led by Andrew Jackson, which became the Democratic party in 1844

DEMOCRACY IS BAD BUT I REFUSE TO OFFER UP AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE FAIRER - Every single poster on this forum, to be perfectly honest

DEMOCRACY IS BAD BUT I REFUSE TO OFFER UP AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE FAIRER - Every single poster on this forum, to be perfectly honest

It's an political artifact from the 1800s.

They were originally one party, the Democratic Republican party, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792, in opposition to the Federalist party led by Alexander Hamilton.

They split up in the 1820s into the Jackson Men (led by Andrew Jackson, which became the Democratic party in 1844) and the National Republican party (Led by Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams, which was absorbed by the Whig party in 1832 after Clay was defeated in the presidential election, which then became the modern Republican party in 1854).

DEMOCRACY IS BAD BUT I REFUSE TO OFFER UP AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE FAIRER - Every single poster on this forum, to be perfectly honest

DEMOCRACY IS BAD BUT I REFUSE TO OFFER UP AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE FAIRER - Every single poster on this forum, to be perfectly honest

Alternative system offered which would be fairer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46130.0

I don't think you want a system to be completely, 100% fair.  But I'll have to think about that... sometimes, the best thing for society isn't what is fair.

Regardless, a republic is the best system a government can use.  A true democracy would allow media to control the government - they could sway the people however they wanted just by publicizing garbage.

There should no longer be any support of democracy on this forum because it has been determined a bad idea by the majority.

Q E D

Voting has ended.

Democracy is a bad idea: 11 votes
Democracy is not a bad idea: 9 votes

If you like democracy then you must accept the outcome.

There should no longer be any support of democracy on this forum because it has been determined a bad idea by the majority.

Q E D

There's no free speech in your democracy?

Not unless you want to go against the majority. Which would be un-democratic.

Um no.  Democracy is a free market in ideas with everyone looking to win votes.

I think it is a good idea. Since the bronze age democracy has seen several important cultural flowering periods. These would have likely not happened without the input of citizens via democracy. But of course the devil is in the details. some governments around the world can only be called "democracies" if you are using air quotes.

And if you do not win a majority of votes...does that mean that your idea is not good?

It means it didn't win a majority of votes. You're still free to go on believing it and advocating for it. That's free speech.

In fact, its recommended you do keep advocating for it.  If you try to persuade people of your ideas, you often improve the ideas and even if you don't get what you want, you often get people part of the way towards your position.

So if your idea does not win a majority vote then you must improve your idea?

So if your idea does not win a majority vote then you must improve your idea?

There is no such thing as democracy in the real world. It is an abstract ideal that can't be upheld by corrupt filthy humans.

I'm an American. The American democracy is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible (even what you do with your sex organs). American politicians stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media (CNN, ABC), a single party that is often marked by personality cultism (Republocrats or Demopublican - doesn't matter, they're all the same), control over the economy (unless we make a new one), regulation and restriction of speech (too numerous to list), mass surveillance (Department of Homeland Security), and widespread use of terror (FBI - can you say "Waco"!).

Unfortunately, this is also the Wikipedia definition of Totalitarianism. I don't know if democracy is preferable to the alternatives. I've never lived in a democracy - what's that like?

Unfortunately, this is also the Wikipedia definition of Totalitarianism. I don't know if democracy is preferable to the alternatives. I've never lived in a democracy - what's that like?

Many years ago a distinguished congressman (D) accompanied an acquaintance of mine for a dinner at my place. 

He enjoyed the drinks and food I served him, delighted that I tolerated his anti-religious remarks, I am an atheist, but I do respect the choice of religious people as long us they don't try to convince me to join them  ;)  and generally was very pleased with the dinner until when the conversation turned to the Democracy being the most popular political system on Earth.

Besides his main argument that the democracy is not perfect but there is no better alternative therefore we must stay with it as it is, he battled to come up with anything rational. Toward the end, entangled in his own confused arguments, he anded up stating that majority of the population are not capable of making their own decision and heavily rely on a social entity that could make those decisions for them and in effect, control their lives.

I was hugely amused!

But the one thing that choked him and made him leave with a bitter after-taste was when I compared all the features of a modern "democratic" society to a classical autocratic society, and I took a blend of European fascist states as an example.

Surprisingly (for him) there was not a single difference between a political systems some 50-70 years ago and the "progressive" system he proudly preached to the world we should support.

Not one!

I'm an American. The American democracy is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible (even what you do with your sex organs). American politicians stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media (CNN, ABC), a single party that is often marked by personality cultism (Republocrats or Demopublican - doesn't matter, they're all the same), control over the economy (unless we make a new one), regulation and restriction of speech (too numerous to list), mass surveillance (Department of Homeland Security), and widespread use of terror (FBI - can you say "Waco"!).

Unfortunately, this is also the Wikipedia definition of Totalitarianism. I don't know if democracy is preferable to the alternatives. I've never lived in a democracy - what's that like?

...snip...
No, I know you, your the fuckin idiot that hides his head in the sand, lets his government shit on people and then defends it. Wake the fuck up dude and read a newspaper once in a while.

So you believe you live in totalitarian state yet you want to use the free press in that state to reinforce your position.

Way to go contradicting yourself.  

Free press? What free press!?

No, I'm a former Branch Davidian. Please don't kill us and set fire to our homes. / No, I'm Rosa Parks. Can I please sit in the front of the bus? / No, I'm a student at Kent State. Can I put a flower in your gun before you shoot me? / No, I'm a Guantanamo prisoner with no criminal history. Please don't hold me for years without a trial. / No, I'm a detainee at Abu Ghraib. Please don't strip me naked and beat me. / No, I'm George W. Bush and I think Waterboarding prisoners ain't no torture. / No, I'm John H. Gass. Has anybody seen my Drivers License? / No, I'm an American citizen living outside the United States. Please don't kill me with an Extrajudicial Drone. / No, I'm a pot smoker in America. Please don't spray paraquat on Mexican pot farms even if you don't mind killing Mexicans because I'm smoking it here. / No, I'm a solder in Vietnam. Please don't use Agent Orange. I don't want to be sick if I get to go home. / No, I'm a homeless person. Please stop making nuclear weapons material. That Superfund money could be used to feed me and 1.56 million other people like me. / No, I'm a citizen of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Please don't be the only country in the world that has used a nuclear bomb on human beings TWICE. / No, I'm a Desert Storm soldier. Please don't experiment with bioweapons and give me Gulf War Syndrome. / No, I'm a CDC employee. My boss told me those 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles that were given an "experimental" measles vaccine signed a waver of consent! / No, I'm Dr. Garth Nicolson. Maybe it's ok to test biological agents on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections. / No, I'm Troy Davis. Oh My GOD! He was a cop. I'm fucked.

No, I know you, your the fuckin idiot that hides his head in the sand, lets his government shit on people and then defends it. Wake the fuck up dude and read a newspaper once in a while.

Excellent, that's what I was looking for. Keep going.

Here's some more fuel:

Even China has an underground press and it's one of the most oppressive countries in the world. Our method of letting you have partial information and then confusing the idiot citizenry with conflicting stories is much easier to maintain than total censorship.

Ok, GO!

Even China has an underground press and it's one of the most oppressive countries in the world. Our method of letting you have partial information and then confusing the idiot citizenry with conflicting stories is much easier to maintain than total censorship.

It is sad that Americans fall into containable fractions and know very little about the world. But we can place most of the blame on the Americans themselves. It is equally sad that Chinese know much about the world but have a narrow world view. But we can place the blame on the State.

...snip...

Facinating that you lived in China. Tell me do the Chinese people get oppressed daily by the government as a previous poster seems to believe. I mean does the government send the military over to everyones house and poke them with sticks every day or do they essentially live like we do (work, eat, shit, sleep and get up and do it again tomorrow).

That is also facinating. How do these low paid workers afford Wal-Mart and Starbucks (read the link). Oh, wait a minute they have Wal-Marts in Alabama too. Nevermind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/18/wal-marts-new-market-smal_n_135842.html

That does sound like fun. LOL

By elite do you mean people with money? My best friends parents are living with him now in a small apartment. They are not the American elite. They lost their home recently due to forclosure. Her husband is a disabled war era veteran that lives on a very small fixed govt. retirement. The mother was working packing boxes for a small company but lost her job during the recession. They have very high prescription costs that eat up much of the money they do have. They all live in about 800 square feet and live off of almost no money. They may as well live in a dormitory. I couldn't stand it anymore so I brought a few bags of food over to his house last week. I remember thinking to myself at the time, "what fucking country do I live in." I think Americans need to wake up and realize the path we are on or we are going to slip down a hole that we can't climb out of.

"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." -- H. L Mencken

How does one get power there. Is it bestowed to you at birth?

Wal-Mart is a pretty savvy company (look how they have wrapped up America - Americans are Wal-Marts bitch). I'm pretty sure they wouldn't invest that much money in a country where no one can shop or spend without being punished.

+1 Exactly! Democracy itself is not the problem but it's implementation is.

DEMOCRACY IS BAD BUT I REFUSE TO OFFER UP AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE FAIRER - Every single poster on this forum, to be perfectly honest

Welcome to anarchy. :)

EDIT: In case you didn't get it, that's your alternative system right there.

Anarchy is great for the guys who start off rich enough to own the police and courts or for guys who can get military assistance from foreign governments.  But after a while, it would become a dictatorship as there can only be one guy who wins.

Anarchism is not an implemented governmental system, it's a state of being desiring the absence of enforced government.

Is there any form of anarchy in which its member ensure the state of anarchy. Or is that just called libertarian - minimal government to enforce property rights and foreign invasion?

Anarchy is nothingness. It's a state comprised of nothing.

What part of 'no enforced government' do you not understand?

What part of "rich guys with private armies are a bad idea" do you not understand?

What would a 'private army' do exactly? They cannot exercise force (after all, no enforced government), so what exactly would the purpose of said army be?

What would a 'private army' do exactly? They cannot exercise force (after all, no enforced government), so what exactly would the purpose of said army be?

Why couldn't they exercise force?

If someone has the power to kill you, its pointless to say that they cannot exercise force.  They can do as they please and you'd best hope they stop at taking your possessions.

...snip...
Because that is the whole point of anarchism. No initiation of force.

...snip...

So there won't be any violence in an anarchist society ?

Will there be violence? Probably.
Is there supposed to be violence? No.

And yet again, I fail to see how this relates to anarchy - it's an issue with practically any system in existence.

Its an issue if you propose a system that allows people to form private armies and they decide to take you as a slave.  If you have allowed them to form an army and there is no state, all you are left with by way of defence is saying "Is there supposed to be violence? No."

That's a very poor alternative to democracy.

[...]
Because that is the whole point of anarchism. No initiation of force.
[...]

I think you missed this part:

EDIT: Also, what is there in the current system to prevent people from forming private armies? Oh, wait....

Forgive me for bringing anarchism with adjectives into the mix, but there are differing perspectives for how an anarchist society would deal with high-status members being abusive. Crypto-anarchists (common here) often suggest assassination markets. Other options include powerful unions and local-scale direct democracy. Pretty much any solution without rulers can potentially qualify.

The very notion that I can go down the market and pay to have someone killed is intriguing.  It sounds so much better than the money I wasted on divorce lawyers :P

Sadly, it would not defeat a well trained army.  They can cope just fine with losing officers.

And, as a way to run a community, its certainly not better than democracy. 

The very notion that I can go down the market and pay to have someone killed is intriguing.  It sounds so much better than the money I wasted on divorce lawyers :P

You can already do this, especially if you're wealthy. Based on your posts you don't sound like a murderer to me; you would probably only do this to fight off oppressors. And you needn't just assassinate people; any weak point could become a target. You could even short sell "evil army victory" and surprise them with your own profitable guerilla strike to supply lines.

This isn't an argument for good and bad, however...

Democracy -->  filtered through bell curve --> average decisions

The problem is that its the rich will have the money for paying killers.  So if you get into a dispute with your mortgage provider, he can have you killed.  Or your employer.  Or even if a sibling wants to settle a inheritance dispute with you. 

That's not really an attractive prospect.  Our existing system, with the right to kill reserved to the State and even then used rarely, is better.

Murder isn't allowed under libertarianism anymore than it is now.

The problem is that its the rich will have the money for paying killers.  So if you get into a dispute with your mortgage provider, he can have you killed.  Or your employer.  Or even if a sibling wants to settle a inheritance dispute with you. 

That's not really an attractive prospect.  Our existing system, with the right to kill reserved to the State and even then used rarely, is better.

So?  If you own the court and you own the police, its not murder when you kill people is it?

The rich can already pay to kill someone. The only thing that assassination markets change is that they allow large groups of disorganized people to pay to kill someone. FWIW I'm pro-democracy too and agree that law enforcement should capture murderers and those who fund them, but we can't just vote market forces away.

Yes it most certainly is! Murder is murder no matter who tells you it's ok!

Only if they can hide that fact.  If its known that someone paid for a contract killing, that person will spend a great many years as a guest of the Queen.

In a libertarian society they can go to a market and buy a contract killing the way you and I would buy a butchered pig.  Or have I misunderstood this whole "market in assassinations" concept?

Yes. I'm sorry, I should have provided a link to avoid this confusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market

So its like life insurance limited to covering death by assassination? 

That fantastic if you are rich in a libertarian paradise.  You get the assassination insurance on someone you dislike and get paid when they die. You kill them. You own the court and you own the police.  You won't be arrested and even if you were your employee, the prosecutor, would accept self-defence and drop the case.

Remind me again how this is an improvement on what we have now?

Because immediately afterwards, the peasants who are getting knocked off by this rich guy pool THEIR money together and kill HIM. The fact that he has most of the power, owns the cops, owns the law... Won't protect him.

Um no.  He has the army.  As Stalin said of the Pope, "How may divisions does he have?"  If you can't defeat the army, you are dead.  If you kill the leader, he will be replaced by his second in command.  Its not realistic to arm people and hope that a shifty assassination will deter them from tyranny.

What you're describing sounds more like a dictator than a random rich person. Why would he even bother with anonymous markets when he can overtly order hits anyways? Besides, we don't even need assassination markets to deal with such blatant abuse of power - the Arab spring proved that.

But for fun let's run with this scenario. Let's say each peasant would gain 50 BTC worth of utility from "evil army loses City X" or something. They each bet 50 BTC that the evil army will hold the city. If the city falls, then it's a fair deal for everyone who lost money, their utility remains constant. If the army stands, the peasants are reimbursed and can bet again the next week/month/whenever. Meanwhile, Evil Dictator may bet against them to keep the potential profit margin down. He must choose between continually reimbursing peasants for their suffering, or gradually increasing chances of rebel attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

This is what happens when real peasants bet against a real bastard with a militia.  Indiscriminate slaughter followed by a generation of exploitation.

I'd ask you to contrast how police handle political opponents here and then see democracy is better than dictatorship.

Your scheme of allowing the rich to have their own armies, courts and police can end in one guy dominating an area exactly as thoroughly as Assad dominates Syria.  So the potential downside is huge.

And I have yet to see a potential upside :S

No one used anonymous electronic markets in that village. They did not employ any technological capitalist solution similar to the one described here.

I'm not disputing that democracy is the best system, and certainly never meant to imply dictatorship even comes close, although I'm of the opinion that crypto-anarchy wouldn't be so bad. They might not even send political opponents to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured without trial.

The potential downside of representative democracy is that our representatives can be bought by corporations and wealthy people who write their own laws, strip away our freedoms, and poison the Earth. They are killing all of us right now. The potential upside of crypto-anarchy is to end that.

Then we are in agreement.

Any system will suffer from regulatory capture [except libertarian].  All you can do is mistrust every regulatory institution.  Good governance requires a cynical public :)

Don't forget the Libs. I mistrust everyone who doesn't agree with the NAP in principle.

Libertarianism is only a stepping stone to dictatorship so not really worth taking seriously.

Try doing your homework before you respond. True libertarianism cannot possibly lead to dictatorship. Epic fail.

From what we have established so far, true libertarianism means that you can make your own army.  You can get tanks and aircraft from a foreign power.  You can make your own laws and your own courts.  Only if someone else has a more powerful army, can you lose.  Otherwise, true libertarianism means that you are a dictator.  

If I have missed something here, feel free to tell me.

so from your quote: republicans are dictators and democrats are socialist!?!~

From what we have established so far, true libertarianism means that you can make your own army.  You can get tanks and aircraft from a foreign power.  You can make your own laws and your own courts.  Only if someone else has a more powerful army, can you lose.  Otherwise, true libertarianism means that you are a dictator.  

If I have missed something here, feel free to tell me.

Try again.  I made no mention of republicans or socialists. 

Self-defense and all the contractual consensual behavior that leads up to it, does not produce a dictatorship except and unless you violate the NAP. Amassing all the various protections and weapons that could possibly be invented in the advent of potential threat also does not create a dictatorship.

Your confusing individual or group defensive preparedness with collective conscription.

Correct me if I am wrong.  The NAP is voluntary.  The guy with an army may not agree to it.  Your whole argument is based on the assumption that having fought his way to being the most powerful army, he will then decide to start following the NAP.  If he doesn't, then you have replaced democracy with dictatorship.  

Uh, NAP is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle ?

True libertarianism cannot possibly lead to dictatorship. Epic fail.

Neither can True Communism.

I still find it funny that this thread continues on.

If you support democracy, then you should realize that this thread has already determined that democracy is a bad idea via a democratic vote.

The majority has decided.

I still find it funny that this thread continues on.

If you support democracy, then you should realize that this thread has already determined that democracy is a bad idea via a democratic vote.

The majority has decided.

I still find it funny that this thread continues on.

If you support democracy, then you should realize that this thread has already determined that democracy is a bad idea via a democratic vote.

The majority has decided.

You've repeated this enough to make me worry that you may actually be serious, that you may actually think an anonymous poll on a libertarian forum means anything. Perhaps we should ask the Ubuntu forums if Microsoft Windows is a good idea?

There are plenty of smart objections against democracy. Read them. Frederic and I might not agree but at least he has engaged in intelligent, good-faith discussion. Not this wiseass strawman argument ad nauseum.