Democracy

[hugolp]

[1715580587]

1715580587

[1715580587]

1715580587

[1715580587]

1715580587

[grondilu]

Although I despise democracy as much as anyone, I don't get the point of this picture  

PS.  However, this thread might be a place where to collect pictures on this topic.

[paraipan]

[AyeYo]

[Hawker]

To be fair, that's what the libertarians here advocate.  Gollum looks like he has used his personal nuke already.

[Anonymous]

[Hawker]

Here's a link that probably confirms the worst fears of democracy.  After seeing the fate of the Christians of Iraq, Christians in Syria are supporting the regime as the alternative of majority rule is so terrifying for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/middleeast/fearing-change-syria-christians-back-bashar-al-assad.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Money quote:

“I am intrigued by your calls for freedom and for overthrowing the regime,” wrote a Syrian Christian woman on her Facebook page addressing Christian female protesters. “What does freedom mean? Every one of you does what she wants and is free to say what she wants. Do you think if the regime falls (God forbid) you will gain freedom? Then, each one of you will be locked in her house, lamenting those days.”

[hugolp]

Although I despise democracy as much as anyone, I don't get the point of this picture  

The idea of a lot of people supporting democracy is that if they vote "the right guy" (TM) it will do good for everybody and everything will be dandy. In reality what they mean is if you vote ME and do what I tell you everything will be perfect. If you ask a democratic person they always have this plan on what to change and what to do to solve all the problems in the world. A democratic guy is always a dictator with the need of justification to impose their will.

[Hunterbunter]

To be fair, that's what the libertarians here advocate.  Gollum looks like he has used his personal nuke already.

omg I lol'ed so hard at that....

[speeder]

Fun facts about "Democracy"

1: Most democratic countries use water fluoridation.
2: Most non-democratic countries, consider water fluoridation a serious crime...


Water fluoridation at 0.9 is known to cause lower IQ in adults that have been drinking it since childhood, sometimes even retardation.

Brazil (a democracy), mandatorily fluoridates all water to 0.8.




In Lybia, Ghadaffi government proposed elections several times, in fact proposed elections ran by UN, not by his own government, and the rebels refused...

A CNN reporter, found some Ghadaffi suporters by accident in a city already taken by rebels, when he asked why it was hard to find them, the reply was: "We do not like to talk when THEY are around. But I assure you, if those elections happened, Ghadaffi would be elected."


So, are you pro-democracy? Why the UN, that defends democracy so much, denied it to Ghadaffi?

Are the rebels pro-democracy? They they refused elections?


You think Ghadaffi is evil? Thus, what you do with the fact he was likely to win democratic elections?


If you think democracy would save Libya from Ghadaffi, you are wrong...


Interesting situation there, no? The one that actually democracy was the one that was actually being removed by force to have a democracy installed by force...


But woooray, democracy won! And the first thing announced by the new government is: We will use Sharia law! Go freedom! Kick out all christians!!!

[Rassah]

Damn glad we live in constitutional republics instead!

[NghtRppr]

Damn glad we live in constitutional republics instead!

Which is a form of liberal democracy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[hugolp]

Damn glad we live in constitutional republics instead!

Which is a form of liberal democracy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Well, it can be argued that a representative republic will always degenerate into a democracy, but from a theoretical point of view they are completely different (and exclusive).

[NghtRppr]

Liberal democracy, also known as constitutional democracy, is a common form of representative democracy. According to the principles of liberal democracy, elections should be free and fair, and the political process should be competitive. Political pluralism is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as the United States...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

[gopher]

It appears that I am one of the few supporters of democracy here...

Well not this democracy that everyone is talking about here, but democracy nevertheless.

I see that a lot of people get frustrated by the concept of democracy - and that I contribute to their own ignorance as well as the unrealistic expectations they set to themselves to see from the real democracies they live in.

I think the reason for that is that the common people mix social and political structures, attributing certain faults of the society to the political structures they have adopted - the most adopted form of representative democracy today is also sometimes referred to as "dictatorship of the government"

From my perspective dictatorship is a dictatorship, irrespectively how the dictator was elected - but one thing is for sure - all dictatorships are characterised by a single feature - the lack of accountability and mechanisms to stop the elected dictators from acting in their own as well as their allies' interests and against the interest of the people they were elected to represent (...I remember some of the Mr Bush Jr's actions were some 75% unpopular with the US people at the time, but there was not a mechanism that could stop him from acting as there is no mechanism that could hold him accountable for those actions, so he went ahead and the rest as they say is a history...)

In a modern "democratic" society (you read "dictatorship of the government") there is nothing democratic - not even the elections are not democratic, the laws are not made by the people but against them, the police is not there to serve and protect the people but their rulers, and if you think that agencies such as IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA and the Pentagon are democratic, you need to some reality check - those are agencies of the government and not the people, as in a representative democracies the government will always put their own and their allies' interest against the interests of the people they govern. Always.

The only solution for this small problem is to change the representative democracy model with a direct democracy model. But you see, the government-dictator-mongers are clever - in million sessions of their parliaments and senates they made sure that there is no mechanism left that will see their "DEMOCRACY" overthrown and replaced with any other inferior political model.

Don't believe me - go ahead, research and find even the tiniest small legal quirk that will allow a society to abolish the representative democracy model for something else.

Doesn't matter what that will be - as long as the abolishment is a legal process though.  Coup d'état does not count.

But let me warn you - if you succeed finding such legality, and then decide to generously point it to the freedom loving world, I am sure you will be noted in the history of man kind as a the next proverbial "saviour".


So let me finish this with a quick quiz to determine ones level of naivety and if he/she understands the difference between social and political system.


Does the democratic society you live in is just and fair?

Are all people in the said society treated equally? If yes, are you sure? If yes again, really? If yes yet again,

Does the democratic society you live in treats equally, justly and fairly all the minorities (people with different ethnic/religious/racial/social etc. backgrounds)?

If 95% of the society is religious, who do you think should play leading social role in a society - the government or the religious organisations?

If you answer the government, why do you say that - because the religious organisations are too commercial and the government is not?

Do you believe in independent judiciary - going back to the equality question above

What does the rule-of-law means to you?

What about free market - do you believe the government has right to manipulate markets so to bring social balance in the society - even if that comes to the detriment of the justice in that society (do I hear "fuck the poor!").

Do you think the government owes you something - because you are a "taxpayer"? If the government abolishes taxes, would you still think they owe you something. What about providing protection from terrorists, real or implied? What if you discover that they HAVE been using your tax money to fund terrorist and supply them with weapons manufactured with your tax money for years and you did not even know, because they did not feel obliged to tell you (that info is classified)

When you old-man lost his service business to the newly outsourced call centre in India, why do you think the government did that - to choose foreign business to buy the service from instead of supporting it's own citizens. Did you felt that it is for the "greater good"?

I can continue this forever...

[speeder]

So, you defend direct democracy instead of broken democracy...

Brazil has a very broken democracy... democracy here never worked...

Anyway, if we place direct democracy here, you know what is the first thing that people will do?

All people living in southeast and south will vote for something like genocide of the "stupid lazy people" on northeast.

Then, knowing brazillians, and stuff that they already stated, the second thing they will do is tax everyone that is not themselves, and give lots of free money to themselves.

And also some other "rights".

Brazil more than half of the population is black or black-leaning mixed race, they will probably vote that white people institutions (like, private universities) are to have huge black people quotas (more than it already exists), and so on...




It will NOT work... direct democracy like I said earlier, only make sense in some contexts, and a multi-cultural country is NOT one of them....

And let's remember, that most people here are from such countries, even the US has several different cultures (like, Quakers, Hillibilies, Playboys, Californians, Texans, people that live near Canada on some crazy frozen lands... the almost isolated populations in places like North Dakota... the latinos in Florida, and so the list goes on...)

[hugolp]

Liberal democracy, also known as constitutional democracy, is a common form of representative democracy. According to the principles of liberal democracy, elections should be free and fair, and the political process should be competitive. Political pluralism is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as the United States...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Yes, thats why wikipedia is not a reliable source.

As I said, it can be argued that a reperesentative republic will degenerate into a democracy (thats what I believe), so they can seem similar, but from a theoretical point of view they are very different.

In a democracy the decission of the majority is the rule of the country. What the majority decides its what happens. A republic is the opposite. In a republic there are a certian set of rules that are supposed to be inmutable, the constitution, including equality in from of the law, etc..

[NghtRppr]

Yes, thats why wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Grab an encyclopedia or do a Google search then. The number of credible sources is limited unless you have access to some non-free sources. Simply saying "it's Wikipedia" isn't going to cut it. It's more reliable than you are, clearly, since you're wrong.

[hugolp]

Yes, thats why wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Grab an encyclopedia or do a Google search then. The number of credible sources is limited unless you have access to some non-free sources. Simply saying "it's Wikipedia" isn't going to cut it. It's more reliable than you are, clearly, since you're wrong.

Wow, where did the anomisity came from?

There is a big debate about this issue, because the progressive liberals have always wanted to portray the USA system as a democracy, while in reality the founding fathers always were very wary of democracy and wanted to have a republic. Thats why you find a lot of sources saying that republic and democracies are compatible.

[TiagoTiago]

People are stupid, no wonder things are way far from perfect when they are the ones making the decisions, on the other hand individuals often also are quite flawed as well...i'm not sure where i'm going with this, TBH i'm not sure where we are going at all...

[paraipan]

People are stupid...

i quit reading from there. Uneducated, living in an artificial society that rewards ignorance would be more correct.

[TiagoTiago]

People are stupid...

i quit reading from there. Uneducated, living in an artificial society that rewards ignorance would be more correct.

There are plenty of booksmart people out there doing stupid things all the time...

[gopher]

People are stupid...

i quit reading from there. Uneducated, living in an artificial society that rewards ignorance would be more correct.

+1

but also disguising a dictatorship as a democracy does not help them.

In the world we live demagogy is king, hypocrisy is the lingua franca and the puppet-masters have a field day every day

But in the long term, the democracy (excluding the perverted versions) is the only sustainable political system - all others sooner or later will be overthrown by the masses.

When they do so, will they get it right by choosing the only right political system? I doubt it - historically masses have always failed to choose the right system.

But there is a hope - the technology advances that has been made in the last 20 years may just have managed to educate the masses to a critical point where they can make the rational decision.

[speeder]

I believe solely in small states, the smallest as possible, to reach the maximum efficiency and whatnot, that way, there are no "masses" only a cohesive group of likeminded people, that do not have to decide stuff for other people hell far away and unknown... And that way, people can choose whatever government they like, be it direct democracy, depotism, monarchy or whatever.


I believe Singapore is a model to follow, and I do not mean imitate everything they do, or even their government, but follow what they did: Build a powerful military inside a single city, declare independence, do whatever you want and screw the UN.

[Elwar]

[hugolp]

I believe solely in small states, the smallest as possible, to reach the maximum efficiency and whatnot, that way, there are no "masses" only a cohesive group of likeminded people, that do not have to decide stuff for other people hell far away and unknown... And that way, people can choose whatever government they like, be it direct democracy, depotism, monarchy or whatever.


I believe Singapore is a model to follow, and I do not mean imitate everything they do, or even their government, but follow what they did: Build a powerful military inside a single city, declare independence, do whatever you want and screw the UN.

I think the same. Democracy could only work in very reduced circles and with some restraints.

When you start adding too many people democracy, any kind, just becomes a circus of manipulation and demagoguery. All the talk about democracy being the voice of the people and all the rest is bullshit. There is no perfect information and there are too many issues for everybody to be informed. Democracy is just government by manipulation of the masses.

[grondilu]

It's not just two wolves and a sheep, it's also the idea that democracy allows majority to vote for stuffs that should have no reason to be voted for in a first place.

Imagine how stupid a vote would be if it consisted in deciding which drink should people have for breakfast (tee or coffee that is).   Well, that's democracy.

Democracy implicitly assumes that everyone can mess with other people's business, as long as they behave like the herd.

[Bind]

this.

A Constitutional Republic with unalienable birth-rights is a well-armed sheep disputing the vote.

[speeder]

this.

A Constitutional Republic with unalienable birth-rights is a well-armed sheep disputing the vote.

And then, that sheep decides that is the wolves did not existed, that sheep live would be a lot easier.

[onesalt]

From this thread all I've managed to gather is that "if there was a 2:1 ratio of murderers to civilians then all the civilians will be exterminated by a majority vote" or something

[grondilu]

From this thread all I've managed to gather is that "if there was a 2:1 ratio of murderers to civilians then all the civilians will be exterminated by a majority vote" or something

It's a metaphor.   Change "murderers" to "thieves" and you'll get a better idea of the reason why democracy tends towards socialism, as everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

[onesalt]

From this thread all I've managed to gather is that "if there was a 2:1 ratio of murderers to civilians then all the civilians will be exterminated by a majority vote" or something

It's a metaphor.   Change "murderers" to "thieves" and you'll get a better idea of the reason why democracy tends towards socialism, as everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

If this was indeed the case why isn't every country a socialist utopia.

[speeder]

From this thread all I've managed to gather is that "if there was a 2:1 ratio of murderers to civilians then all the civilians will be exterminated by a majority vote" or something

You do not need murderers and civilians... You only need people with different backgrounds, that is usually sufficient for some hate.

For example, in Brazil, although black people are not racism target as they claim, there ARE a clear divide between south and north. In the north we have mostly blacks, native americans and mixed race people.

In south, we have mostly caucasians, specially from Germany, Italy and Portugal, and some good amount of asians (Brazil has the biggest japanese colony of the world).


Black and mixed race people living in the south, like, co-workers for example, are usually treated in a neutral manner...

But if you look comments on internet (specially twitter and 4chan) there are a very clear hate between north and south... north people say southerners are gays and playboys, and southerners say north people are lazy, stupid and ugly...

And the we have things like "Baiano"

"Baiano" is a guy from "Bahia" (a state in the north that has a considerable population).

But in the south, "Baiano" also means something that is so fancy that it looks ridiculous.... or means dark skinned low-worker immigrant...





So, what you think it would happen in a pure democracy? I am sure quickly south and north would try to vote each other out of existence.

[grondilu]

If this was indeed the case why isn't every country a socialist utopia.

It is, more or less. Most western countries are currently an heaven Lenin could not have dreamed of.

Of course, the current economic crisis is bringing all this to reality.  Welfare state is, as you said, an utopia.

[speeder]

States in general, are kinda doomed to fail as they get too big.

Just look at history, every 2000 thousand years, a major civilization fail, and minor civilizations fail a lot, and they all fail in the same manner:

As the state become more and more powerful, and start to do more and more what families should be doing (security, education, self-sustenance), people get lazy, individualistic and start to demand lots of rights. Those states soon become indebted, and fail to pay the police and army. Without the police and army, people have to fend for themselves, unfortunately, they do not know how to do that, since they relied on police and army... And that civilization then is destroyed.

[hugolp]

From this thread all I've managed to gather is that "if there was a 2:1 ratio of murderers to civilians then all the civilians will be exterminated by a majority vote" or something

It's a metaphor.   Change "murderers" to "thieves" and you'll get a better idea of the reason why democracy tends towards socialism, as everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

If this was indeed the case why isn't every country a socialist utopia.

Because "state socialism" does not work, its just a scheme to get power by a few, and it has to cut back regularly to avoid collapse.

[Elwar]

why isn't every country a socialist utopia.

Why isn't every country a rainbow colored unicorn?

[hugolp]

why isn't every country a socialist utopia.

Why isn't every country a rainbow colored unicorn?

Hahahahaha.

[FredericBastiat]

If this was indeed the case why isn't every country a socialist utopia.

That's a contradiction in terms. You can't be socialist and have a utopia, unless you're the only one doing the plundering or the gun pointing and you believe there are no such things as moral scruples.

[paraipan]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law 

[FredericBastiat]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law 

You confuse cooperation with democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Democratic governments have a monopoly on force thru majority rule. They tax and so forth. Bitcoin doesn't resemble that in the least. You are free to contribute or refrain from participating. Bitcoin doesn't levy taxes and enforces no law.

It has rules, not unlike a board game. It can't take your property and it can't imprison you. At the most, it might impose some form of contract, which depending on whether you breach it or not, you could be prosecuted in the geographical political climate in which you may have committed the "crime". Bit of a stretch it would seem.

[paraipan]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law  

You confuse cooperation with democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Democratic governments have a monopoly on force thru majority rule. They tax and so forth. Bitcoin doesn't resemble that in the least. You are free to contribute or refrain from participating. Bitcoin doesn't levy taxes and enforces no law.

It has rules, not unlike a board game. It can't take your property and it can't imprison you. At the most, it might impose some form of contract, which depending on whether you breach it or not, you could be prosecuted in the geographical political climate in which you may have committed the "crime". Bit of a stretch it would seem.

hehe i don't want to start a debate but democracy is by definition the cooperation between the largest group of persons...

by def. bitcoin = democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law... " wiki

if don't accept the rules of the majority you can fork the chain and go your own way, nice feature of this system if you ask me

[TiagoTiago]

People who know how to code actually have a bigger say in Bitcoin than people that don't...

[onesalt]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law  

You confuse cooperation with democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Democratic governments have a monopoly on force thru majority rule. They tax and so forth. Bitcoin doesn't resemble that in the least. You are free to contribute or refrain from participating. Bitcoin doesn't levy taxes and enforces no law.

It has rules, not unlike a board game. It can't take your property and it can't imprison you. At the most, it might impose some form of contract, which depending on whether you breach it or not, you could be prosecuted in the geographical political climate in which you may have committed the "crime". Bit of a stretch it would seem.

hehe i don't want to start a debate but democracy is by definition the cooperation between the largest group of persons...

by def. bitcoin = democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law... " wiki

if don't accept the rules of the majority you can fork the chain and go your own way, nice feature of this system if you ask me

Indeed, a democracy doesn't work if everyone is an entitled prick whos argument is basically "WELL MY CHOICE OF X DIDN'T WIN THAT MEANS IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ME", while failing to provide a better choice that attempts to cater to everyone as well.

[FredericBastiat]

by def. bitcoin = democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law... " wiki

if don't accept the rules of the majority you can fork the chain and go your own way, nice feature of this system if you ask me

I highlighted what you wrote. Bitcoin is not a form of government. Read what you quote first before you use the '=' sign please.

[paraipan]

What most people fail to realize or don't want too is taxation to maintain public service could be done very easily by creating a government pool of miners or local community one.
Every person mining there would do a public service and be rewarded for it, taxes would be increased pool fees, that everyone agrees, and network transactions that get into their blocks. The same bitcoin address you have registered to receive payouts would be your social security number and you will be required to provide one if you want to have access to any public services available.
The individuals that are not able to mine would have a registered address in the official exchanges that would be taxed equally as the miners if they ever wanted to get physical money in their hands. The third added option would be having a public donation address of every service to have people contribute if they want to be taken into account in every aspect.

Sorry for this personal rant, but as you can see public services and government would be possible in case we choose to have bitcoin as store of value and us in control of our wealth. We will have to adapt to bitcoin not the other way around because it works as concept and in real life too.

[hugolp]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law 

Bitcoin is not a government. You can stop using it if you want to. "Democratic" voluntary associations are fine. The problem is democratic governments, where you are forced to do what the majority decides whether you like it or not.

[gopher]

What most people fail to realize or don't want too is taxation to maintain public service could be done very easily by creating a government pool of miners or local community one.
Every person mining there would do a public service and be rewarded for it, taxes would be increased pool fees, that everyone agrees, and network transactions that get into their blocks. The same bitcoin address you have registered to receive payouts would be your social security number and you will be required to provide one if you want to have access to any public services available.
The individuals that are not able to mine would have a registered address in the official exchanges that would be taxed equally as the miners if they ever wanted to get physical money in their hands. The third added option would be having a public donation address of every service to have people contribute if they want to be taken into account in every aspect.

Sorry for this personal rant, but as you can see public services and government would be possible in case we choose to have bitcoin as store of value and us in control of our wealth. We will have to adapt to bitcoin not the other way around because it works as concept and in real life too.

Good point.

I have been thinking along similar lines for some time.

All governments today are inherently conservative (even the most liberal ones), as they consistently neglect/refuse to use technology to enhance their function as well as provide their services more efficiently.

PKI has been available for how many years? Have you heard of any government even remotely contemplating the use of it? Bitcoin is just one trivial implementation of PKI. But have you heard of any other?

If the government spends 1% of what they spend on military and armament, they will end-up with the most secure and capable real-time voting system that could be effectively used for real-time referendums (in effect converting the current representative-democracy system into direct-democracy), social security numbers, passports, visas, etc.

But that will require the government to loosen up its power grip over the population.

Not nice, they must be thinking...

[paraipan]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law  

Bitcoin is not a government. You can stop using it if you want to. "Democratic" voluntary associations are fine. The problem is democratic governments, where you are forced to do what the majority decides whether you like it or not.

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

[hugolp]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

[onesalt]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

But you can already do this. If you don't like your countries governance becuase you're in the (by definition) minority that didn't get what they want, move somewhere else.

[NghtRppr]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

But you can already do this. If you don't like your countries governance becuase you're in the (by definition) minority that didn't get what they want, move somewhere else.

Learn the difference between secession and emigration.

[speeder]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

But you can already do this. If you don't like your countries governance becuase you're in the (by definition) minority that didn't get what they want, move somewhere else.

Learn the difference between secession and emigration.

Also remember that emigration in UN controlled world does not properly work... I am Brazillian, I hate my government, but I feel I have nowhere to go... most countries will not accept a Brazillian moving there.

[paraipan]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

a little bit more understandable, yes and we actually agree on main issue here, that bitcoin = democracy = government
Governments as we know them today had been promoted and put in place to impose a set of rules chosen by majority onto the rest that didn't agree, creating a more totalitarian system, the "evil" one as you say. I think we actually say the same things with different words 

[FredericBastiat]

a little bit more understandable, yes and we actually agree on main issue here, that bitcoin = democracy = government
Governments as we know them today had been promoted and put in place to impose a set of rules chosen by majority onto the rest that didn't agree, creating a more totalitarian system, the "evil" one as you say. I think we actually say the same things with different words  

Why don't we stop using the word 'democracy' and 'democratic' for describing things that are essentially solidarity associations (shareholder w/voting rights). The above words are associated with governments. Governments of that type have a monopoly on force thru majority rule (force legalized). They typically have many laws that are not based on justice, or are not designed to prevent aggression. You cannot withdraw freely from those political environs without relinquishing your property.

Of course you can say we can leave. Why should I leave if I haven't caused anybody harm? Why should I be forced to leave under external circumstances not related to injurious behavior? Does bitcoin do this? I think not. If you conflate bitcoin and democracy, you obfuscate and mislead your reader into believing that the two are in some way positively related when they are not. Bitcoin is probably a good thing, democracies, not so much. I could just as well say that the algorithms that bitcoin uses enslaves us to a fixed set of rules, and that this type of slavery works, it involves human participation, therefore it is a lot like human slavery, so slavery is good.

The world is a better place with a lot more bitcoin and a lot less democratic governance. Please refrain.

[Bind]

this.

A Constitutional Republic with unalienable birth-rights is a well-armed sheep disputing the vote.

And then, that sheep decides that is the wolves did not existed, that sheep live would be a lot easier.

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

[NghtRppr]

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

Those birthrights can be amended with enough votes.

[Bind]

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

Those birthrights can be amended with enough votes.

which is why we will never give up our arms and will die defending those birth-rights, for the health, welfare, survival, and prosperity of our descendents, so that they may be free.

if history has proven anything time after time after time is that tyrannical and oppressive leadership and laws will be revolted against and overthrown.

might not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen, and my kids will remember my example, never forget, and pass on the torch.

I would happily die today so that my kids can have a good life if it was required.

I certainly hope it does not come to my death or anyones bloodshed, which is why education and debates like this exist.

[Hawker]

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

Those birthrights can be amended with enough votes.

which is why we will never give up our arms and will die defending those birth-rights, for the health, welfare, survival, and prosperity of our descendents, so that they may be free.

if history has proven anything time after time after time is that tyrannical and oppressive leadership and laws will be revolted against and overthrown.

might not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen, and my kids will remember my example, never forget, and pass on the torch.

I would happily die today so that my kids can have a good life if it was required.

I certainly hope it does not come to my death or anyones bloodshed, which is why education and debates like this exist.

Which is nice but the problem arises when you person wants to die for a liberty that another person regards as an intolerable intrusion into their liberty.  That's where democracy comes in...the abolition of slavery being a classic example.  The majority wanted rid of it but a hard minority swore to defend their "liberty" and "property rights" regardless of the majority.

[Bind]

Every human being should enjoy the same birth rights, as they should have back then. Hard to say much more about that deporable episode in time other than to say that slavery is thousands of years old and included every race...not jsut blacks. At the time though, freedom was a new concept and its implimentation left alot to be desired. Not the concept and the wording. Every human.

[Hawker]

Every human being should enjoy the same birth rights, as they should have back then. Hard to say much more about that deporable episode in time other than to say that slavery is thousands of years old and included every race...not jsut blacks. At the time though, freedom was a new concept and its implimentation left alot to be desired. Not the concept and the wording. Every human.

Times change and the concept of what is right changes with them.

1000 years ago slavery was regarded as normal and abortion as a crime akin to murder.

Now the situation is reversed. 

Its important not to think that there is some everlasting law on these things.  What we do reflects what the majority of people finds acceptable.  That's why democracy works.

[NghtRppr]

Every human being should enjoy the same birth rights, as they should have back then. Hard to say much more about that deporable episode in time other than to say that slavery is thousands of years old and included every race...not jsut blacks. At the time though, freedom was a new concept and its implimentation left alot to be desired. Not the concept and the wording. Every human.

Times change and the concept of what is right changes with them.

1000 years ago slavery was regarded as normal and abortion as a crime akin to murder.

Now the situation is reversed. 

Its important not to think that there is some everlasting law on these things.  What we do reflects what the majority of people finds acceptable.  That's why democracy works.

So are you saying that slavery was actually moral back then just because it was acceptable to a majority of people?

[Bind]

no, thats why democracy does not work.

if enough people vote on it, they can bring back public executions, slavery, heresy, or kill you because you spoke out against the government.

with stated un-a-lien-able rights, they cant do that, because it violates those basic birth-rights everyone enjoys.

thats the beautiy of birth-rights.

they are automatic and last forever.

[Hawker]

Every human being should enjoy the same birth rights, as they should have back then. Hard to say much more about that deporable episode in time other than to say that slavery is thousands of years old and included every race...not jsut blacks. At the time though, freedom was a new concept and its implimentation left alot to be desired. Not the concept and the wording. Every human.

Times change and the concept of what is right changes with them.

1000 years ago slavery was regarded as normal and abortion as a crime akin to murder.

Now the situation is reversed.  

Its important not to think that there is some everlasting law on these things.  What we do reflects what the majority of people finds acceptable.  That's why democracy works.

So are you saying that slavery was actually moral back then just because it was acceptable to a majority of people?

Morality is a social convention.  The very ideas of slavery being immoral and abortion being OK didn't appear until relatively recently.  Jesus had no problem with slavery.  God instructs the Jews to take slaves in the Old Testament.  Do you think he was immoral? 

[NghtRppr]

Do you think he was immoral?

Yes.

[Hawker]

Do you think he was immoral?

Yes.

1000 years ago you'd have disagreed.  And who knows what people will regard as immoral in 1000 more years.  Its sensible to get things in perspective.  Morals change with time.  That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are.

[NghtRppr]

That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are.

Yes it does.

[Hawker]

That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are.

Yes it does.

Nonsense.  What it means is that you feel superior.  That's just based on your subjective emotions.  Its fine for your but its no reason to set aside democracy.

[NghtRppr]

That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are.

Yes it does.

Nonsense.  What it means is that you feel superior.  That's just based on your subjective emotions.  Its fine for your but its no reason to set aside democracy.

Why not?

[Hawker]

That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are.

Yes it does.

Nonsense.  What it means is that you feel superior.  That's just based on your subjective emotions.  Its fine for your but its no reason to set aside democracy.

Why not?

Because people are going to organise to improve their lives and will not allow one guy with irrational views to make things worse.

[NghtRppr]

That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are.

Yes it does.

Nonsense.  What it means is that you feel superior.  That's just based on your subjective emotions.  Its fine for your but its no reason to set aside democracy.

Why not?

Because people are going to organise to improve their lives and will not allow one guy with irrational views to make things worse.

So the reason is because people won't allow it?

[Hawker]

Because people are going to organise to improve their lives and will not allow one guy with irrational views to make things worse.

So the reason is because people won't allow it?

I know there are some forms of abortion you are OK with and that you are opposed to "normal" abortion where the unborn is killed as part of the process.  On things like abortion, where there are a variety of strongly held views, the sensible thing is to choose a law that the majority can live with.  You may disagree furiously but so does everyone who looks at abortion so your disagreement is no reason for people not to allow it.

The alternative is a law that the majority cannot live with and you end up with violence.  So yes, its because people won't allow it.

You'll find the same logic applies to a lot of issues.

[Hawker]

no, thats why democracy does not work.

if enough people vote on it, they can bring back public executions, slavery, heresy, or kill you because you spoke out against the government.

with stated un-a-lien-able rights, they cant do that, because it violates those basic birth-rights everyone enjoys.

thats the beautiy of birth-rights.

they are automatic and last forever.

Lovely idea but then you have to have agreement as to what birth-rights are.  It used be that the right to own human beings was a birth-right.  Then it changed.  So birth-rights do not last forever.

[NghtRppr]

It is true that we will never have 100% agreement on anything. The only question is, when is it acceptable to use violence to force your will on the rest of the people that disagree? For libertarians, it is simple. Violence is only acceptable in self-defense of person or property. For everyone else, they would extend it to allow the use of violence for other things beyond merely self-defense.

[Bind]

Lovely idea but then you have to have agreement as to what birth-rights are.  It used be that the right to own human beings was a birth-right.  Then it changed.  So birth-rights do not last forever.

I think it can be boiled down to not being infringed upon. Human fetus is a human life. No human has the right to infringe upon another human life without their permission. A fetus is a human life incapable of giving their permission.

[Hawker]

Lovely idea but then you have to have agreement as to what birth-rights are.  It used be that the right to own human beings was a birth-right.  Then it changed.  So birth-rights do not last forever.

I think it can be boiled down to not being infringed upon. Human fetus is a human life. No human has the right to infringe upon another human life without their permission. A fetus is a human life incapable of giving their permission.

Those who advocate abortion sincerely believe that an unborn child is not a human life. 

I'm not interested in an abortion debate.  The point I am trying to get across is that "birth-rights" are an arbitrary concept if you do not have 100% agreement on a list of the rights and that the list will change with time.

[Hawker]

It is true that we will never have 100% agreement on anything. The only question is, when is it acceptable to use violence to force your will on the rest of the people that disagree? For libertarians, it is simple. Violence is only acceptable in self-defense of person or property. For everyone else, they would extend it to allow the use of violence for other things beyond merely self-defense.

So you think abortion is taking a human life but as a libertarian you would never try to prevent it as its not defending your person or property?