So, let's say this is a matter of faith...

[LokeRundt]

Poll needs another option:  local despotism.

....what about divine monarchy while we're at it?

Both are very similar to democracy.

The only difference is in democracy you get to choose the PR every 4 years.

Heh, riiiiiiight. . . .man, they're not even trying.  Not even getting crypto-security on that

[1713300290]

1713300290

[westkybitcoins]

I believe if there will ever be any hope for humanity, it will be in its inherent and voluntary form.

False choice.  People working together who work together and elect a government fall under both options.

Only if those people elect a government over themselves only. The instant they try to expand that government to some other non-consenting person, then that contradicts the "freely" part of the first option of the poll.

[newMeat1]

I work for a small engineering company of driven people who take charge of their own products. It's amazing to see how much more we get done than the large bureaucratic companies who we contract for. Small and self-motivated is the way to go.

[myrkul]

I work for a small engineering company of driven people who take charge of their own products. It's amazing to see how much more we get done than the large bureaucratic companies who we contract for. Small and self-motivated is the way to go.

You can do big and self-motivated, too. Look at Google.

[Rassah]

Why not both? This hard-line shit is just childish. Regulation is required for some things, but where this line is drawn is a matter of debate.

Some rape is alright but where we draw the line is a matter of debate?

I think tentacle-based is alright... But I guess that's also up for debate.

[myrkul]

Why not both? This hard-line shit is just childish. Regulation is required for some things, but where this line is drawn is a matter of debate.

Some rape is alright but where we draw the line is a matter of debate?

I think tentacle-based is alright... But I guess that's also up for debate.

I think you may have used the wrong word there.

[Rassah]

Why not both? This hard-line shit is just childish. Regulation is required for some things, but where this line is drawn is a matter of debate.

Some rape is alright but where we draw the line is a matter of debate?

I think tentacle-based is alright... But I guess that's also up for debate.

I think you may have used the wrong word there.

Should it be detailed, scrutinizing review, perhaps followed by a nap?

[myrkul]

Why not both? This hard-line shit is just childish. Regulation is required for some things, but where this line is drawn is a matter of debate.

Some rape is alright but where we draw the line is a matter of debate?

I think tentacle-based is alright... But I guess that's also up for debate.

I think you may have used the wrong word there.

Should it be detailed, scrutinizing review, perhaps followed by a nap?

I was going for a more succinct term but yeah, that works.

[Timo Y]

If humans can't govern themselves then what hope do they have to govern others?

If doctors can't treat themselves then what hope to they have to treat others?

If (most) humans can't build passenger aircraft what hope to they have to let others build aircraft for them?

see the flaw?

Politicians are supposed to be representatives of the people and they are supposed to be competent and informed enough to make decisions about public goods that the average joe is too ignorant and incompetent to make.  Not saying that this is always true in practice though...

[myrkul]

Politicians are supposed to be representatives of the people and they are supposed to be competent and informed enough to make decisions about public goods that the average joe is too ignorant and incompetent to make.  Not saying that this is always true in practice though...

Here's the flaw in your argument: If people can not be trusted to govern themselves, then how can they be trusted to choose good governors?

[Timo Y]

How can you grant someone the right to do something that you don't have the right to do yourself?

Actually, you are not granting a person the right to do something that you don't have the right to do yourself.  

You are surrendering some of your rights to an abstract entity called democratic government , and you are only surrendering them under the condition that every other person living under this governments also surrenders their rights.

Even the leaders working for that government have surrendered their rights just like you. They are not privileged as individuals. They cannot exert power arbitrarily. They can only do so as a collective.

[Timo Y]

Here's the flaw in your argument: If people can not be trusted to govern themselves, then how can they be trusted to choose good governors?

If people can not be trusted to build airplanes that won't fall out of the sky, then how can they be trusted to choose good airplane manufacturers?

[Rassah]

If humans can't govern themselves then what hope do they have to govern others?

If doctors can't treat themselves then what hope to they have to treat others?

If (most) humans can't build passenger aircraft what hope to they have to let others build aircraft for them?

see the flaw?

Another problem with this is, if a doctor or an airplane maker screws up, I can abandon them and go for a replacement immediately. With politicians I'm pretty much stuck until the ignorant masses change their minds.

[myrkul]

How can you grant someone the right to do something that you don't have the right to do yourself?

You are surrendering some of your rights to an abstract entity called democratic government , and you are only surrendering them under the condition that every other person living under this governments also surrenders their rights.

You can't surrender a right you don't have either.

Here's the flaw in your argument: If people can not be trusted to govern themselves, then how can they be trusted to choose good governors?

If people can not be trusted to build airplanes that won't fall out of the sky, then how can they be trusted to choose good airplane manufacturers?

And should I let you select which airplane manufacturer I fly on? Would you let me pick yours?

[Timo Y]

Another problem with this is, if a doctor or an airplane maker screws up, I can abandon them and go for a replacement immediately. With politicians I'm pretty much stuck until the ignorant masses change their minds.

That's why I'm a believer in highly federated, localized "competitive government".  

I agree that democracy fails when it becomes too large and too centralized.

[myrkul]

Another problem with this is, if a doctor or an airplane maker screws up, I can abandon them and go for a replacement immediately. With politicians I'm pretty much stuck until the ignorant masses change their minds.

That's why I'm a believer in highly federated, localized "competitive government".  

So am I. We only differ in scale.

[bjorn]

Another problem with this is, if a doctor or an airplane maker screws up, I can abandon them and go for a replacement immediately. With politicians I'm pretty much stuck until the ignorant masses change their minds.

That's why I'm a believer in highly federated, localized "competitive government".  

I agree that democracy fails when it becomes too large and too centralized.

That's a cool idea. Competitive government can also be considered "scientific government" in a way, since different systems will be experimented with and the outcomes observed. I wish states would consider using something like charter cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city); cede some land to an organization and let them organize it on their own terms.

[Timo Y]

Another problem with this is, if a doctor or an airplane maker screws up, I can abandon them and go for a replacement immediately. With politicians I'm pretty much stuck until the ignorant masses change their minds.

That's why I'm a believer in highly federated, localized "competitive government".  

So am I. We only differ in scale.

In principle I agree with you, I just think that your scale is not practicable.  Democratic government is a necessary evil, because without it, the stronger members of society start bullying the weaker members of society until a mafia emerges that doesn't give a shit about the non-aggression principle.

I would love to be proven wrong though...

[myrkul]

In principle I agree with you, I just think that your scale is not practicable.  Democratic government is a necessary evil, because without it, the stronger members of society start bullying the weaker members of society until a mafia emerges that doesn't give a shit about the non-aggression principle.

I would love to be proven wrong though...

Democratic government is the stronger members of society bullying the weak.

Look at the US fight over Gay marriage. Because they're in the minority, they are denied the right to sign a contract!

[Rassah]

That's why I'm a believer in highly federated, localized "competitive government".  

I agree that democracy fails when it becomes too large and too centralized.

I'm actually for that except for specific things where "customers" don't have a choice, nor rights in their choices. Specifically, public education, where customers are kids. I'm for it being highly federalized, and believe the main reason it's failing so horribly here in US is because it is very fragmented by state, and because America is too proud (stuck-up) to even take lessons from other countries, preferring to screw things up and learn from it's own mistakes instead.