Is Democracy a bad idea?

[Elwar]

Basic question. This will clear it up once and for all. Is Democracy a bad idea?

[jwzguy]

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

[Hawker]

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.

[Elwar]

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".

[Hawker]

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".

You haven't thought that through.  If there is no vote, the answer is mutton.

[Elwar]

From the democratic vote, democracy is losing.

Those who like democracy must accept that it is a bad idea.

[jwzguy]

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

[Elwar]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

Alternatively you could live in the real world.

[cbeast]

Maples and oaks.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

[Hawker]

...snip...

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.

[Explodicle]

Oh boy. Another round of "defend a complex real-world system vs a simple theoretical system".

[FredericBastiat]

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.

Less murder and plunder is no doubt better. Metaphorically speaking, I could explain to my wife that I'm faithful 95% of the time, but I don't think she'll be too pleased.

I would think I should at least get an A- for effort. Not...Fail.

[SgtSpike]

...snip...

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.

Lulz.

My opinion:
Republic > Democracy > Dictatorship/Communism/Marxism/Monarchy/Etc

Which is why I am glad I live in a republican nation.  A true Democracy would never work.

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...

[compro01]

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...

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).

[Elwar]

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

Jackson's opponents used the nickname of "Jackass" to demean Jackson. He went with it. That is why the Democrat Party mascot is a jackass.

[onesalt]

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

[NghtRppr]

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

Libertarianism is the most just system.

[The Script]

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

^^^  Proof someone doesn't read the forum.  A lot of people here have proposed alternatives to democracy, everything from anarcho-capitalism to a Republic to anarcho-socialism.  Besides, define "fair". 

[SgtSpike]

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...

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).

Interesting, thanks for the history.  Didn't know much about that.

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

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.

[netrin]

Democracy sounds like a great idea. Can you tell me where to find it?

[the joint]

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

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

[Elwar]

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

[onesalt]

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

This isn't an alternative system it's a democratic choice where in addition  you can buy more votes and untracably bribe voters, which makes it a terrible fucking system since the person with the most money will invariably win, or at least do far far better. Additionally the addition of a "time element" is just stupid and dumb. All it does is prolongs the results of a legitimate vote (if 51% of people voted for something that means the majority of people wanted it, hth) for no obvious reason, which just makes governing by that system both inefficient and stupid. inefficient

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.

so what you're saying is that because the media can influence people the system itself is at fault? That's a terrible argument, since it's not democracy or the voting system at fault but some other, third party.

Oh also, a republic is a type of democracy, Infact, the US is already Federal Republic, and most EU countries are a parliamentary republic.

[Elwar]

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

[FreeTrade]

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?

[NghtRppr]

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

LOL and I didn't even vote like usual...

[Elwar]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

[RodeoX]

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.

[Elwar]

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.

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

[FredericBastiat]

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.

Ha. That was a good one. When we start talking about democratic justice vs. justice we should just apply the air quotes.

[airquote]democratic[/airquote] justice is not justice.

Or better yet use '[]' and '[/]'. The more air the better, as in nothing there.

[FreeTrade]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

Unless of course your idea is bonkers.  For example some people advocate that they should not have to pay any tax.  Other people advocate state ownership of all property.  The less time you spent advocating ideas like that in elections, the more time you have for watching sport on TV and that's likely to be more productive.

[Elwar]

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?

[Hawker]

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?

Or improve your presentation of it.  Or sometimes simply times change and people wake up to the value of your idea.  And sometimes, you have to accept that it may be 50 years hard work for your idea to be accepted and knuckle down.  Look at Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.  Neither will ever be President but both are committed to a lifetime of fighting for their ideals.

Just because you lose an election doesn't mean you are wrong and have to give up.  

[FreeTrade]

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

Nope. That's not required either. You're quite free to continue believing in and advocating your bonkers idea.

[hmongotaku]

Democracy is not a bad thing. It's republics that are bad. The fate of the nation in the hands of a few. I wouldn't mind if these guys are like Einstiens but they're just soiled rich frat kids.

Those pommey fat caeser type people eating up all the pizza and deciding the fate of rome ushering commands without a whim of thought. Something we have here and now in the US. Rich politics helping rich people get richer, just preying on 3rd world country for their resources.  Our 2 party system playing the blame game. America fears too much socialism and communism. But we have something worst: Fascism. When we can't have sunflowers in our backyard and pit-pull as pets. When we need to be told what to think, how to ask and what to do.

[Hawker]

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.

You could say the same about monarchy and authoritarianism.  The question is whether democracy is preferable to the alternatives.

[Hawker]

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?

If you want to call America a totalitarian state, what do you want to call the states that we now call totalitarian?  And do you want to find a new use for the word "democratic" since you don't want to use it for states where people choose their government by a free vote?

[FirstAscent]

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?

Well, I guess it would be pretty crummy.

Anyway, tell me all about how you felt so imprisoned and restrained this past week (being an American and all).

[gopher]

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!

[Hawker]

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!

Someone got drunk

Anyway, your story does have a factual basis.  Since about 1930, the Soviet Union had a far more fair constitution and laws than the UK with way more protections against state oppression.  Yet only a fool would say that life in the Soviet Union was anything other than oppressive while the UK bumbled along with very clear freedoms. 

[onesalt]

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?

yeah you're right it must be like nazi germany over there, people being rounded up for their beliefs, dudes being shot in the streets for speaking up against the state, neighbours snitching on neighbours to avoid being carted off to the death camps, food, drink and labour being rationed off and completely state controlled while everyone works for less than it is possible to live on.



Wait no! it's not like that at all!! You're just too stupid to realise a good situation and compare it to a bad one.

[Hawker]

...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.  

[gopher]

...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!?

[Hawker]

...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!?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63907.html

Ron Suskind "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President"

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Denial:_Bush_at_War,_Part_III

That's two Presidents in a row eviscerated by the free press...not many totalitarian states tolerate books that abusive about the head of state.  

In the US, both these authors make millions from their scoops and have endless access to free news outlets.

In Syria, the authors would literally be castrated and then beaten to death - here is someone caught making a political graffiti earlier this year: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c7a_1306811237

Do you see the difference?  

[onesalt]

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?

yeah you're right it must be like nazi germany over there, people being rounded up for their beliefs, dudes being shot in the streets for speaking up against the state, neighbours snitching on neighbours to avoid being carted off to the death camps, food, drink and labour being rationed off and completely state controlled while everyone works for less than it is possible to live on.



Wait no! it's not like that at all!! You're just too stupid to realise a good situation and compare it to a bad one.

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.

I forgot how all these happen to average americans on a daily basis. Your country being pretty reprehensible in terms of their foreign policy doesn't mean that it's a shit country to live in.

[Hawker]

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!

Go where?  Your point has been refuted.  This is the part where you make a counterpoint or attempt to justify your position.

[netrin]

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.

Having lived in both China and the United States I can not quite agree with you. In the United States the people are incredibly polarized politically and so while the information gets out, the 'juice' is often lost in abundance. Most disturbingly, large factions of people (be they Republican/Democrat or more subtle distinctions) are not reading the same news. Everyone is reading their own consistent fraction of the big picture.

In China on the other hand, the people generally have the same world view. They share the same larger fraction. Very few people are aware that there is even a fraction to which they are unexposed. Even those who are aware generally believe that censorship is protecting them.

People are ignorant everywhere, but in the United States it is much easier to turn off the TV and perform proper research. The material is simply unavailable in China. Obtaining dissenting information is technologically difficult provided you even know where to begin, what topics are even worthy of research.

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.

[cbeast]

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.

What narrow worldview do the people in China hold?

[Hawker]

...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).

Absolutely.  Huge percentages of the population are "illegal" in the cities and treated one step up from slaves.  Police walk about in groups of 6 or so with batons drawn near railway stations.  I only spent a few weeks there but China really is hideous for the non-elite.

One factory I visited had about 1500 workers on $80 per month.  And the MD was on $4 million per year.  There is only one Communist Party member in the factory.  See if you can gues shis job title...

[Hawker]

...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).

Absolutely.  Huge percentages of the population are "illegal" in the cities and treated one step up from slaves.  Police walk about in groups of 6 or so with batons drawn near railway stations.  I only spent a few weeks there but China really is hideous for the non-elite.

One factory I visited had about 1500 workers on $80 per month.  And the MD was on $4 million per year.  There is only one Communist Party member in the factory.  See if you can gues shis job title...

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

The workers live in the factories and get all their food from the factory shops.  The factories have big dormitories and stuff.  The elite and live in apartments in the cities.  My bags were stolen and I found myself going to shop after shop where shoes were over $200 a pair.  Then I went down a back street and got a pair for about $5

I assume there is a middle class but I never met them as I was buying TVs and only meeting the factory owners.

[Hawker]

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

No.  Power.  Money means little in China if you don't have the ability to spend it without being arrested for "tax evasion" or "corruption"

[Elwar]

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

Everyone is born with inalienable rights.

How quickly they are suppressed is another question.

[Hawker]

...snip...

No.  Power.  Money means little in China if you don't have the ability to spend it without being arrested for "tax evasion" or "corruption"

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.

Why not?  The Party will only intervene if its threatened politically.  The Chinese know that if they speak out, they risk being disappeared.  A few brave souls do speak out every year and duly disappear.  A billion of so people keep away from politics and concentrate on getting rich.  Its going to be a HUGE market.  When you drive in the countryside, you see they are building freeways.  The Chinese have every intention of getting a market economy without political freedom working.

[Boussac]

There is no problem with democracy, there is one with uncontrolled exercise of power.
At least democracy offers some opportunities to set controls in place.
The problem gets real difficult when democracies let a small group of people control wealth and money flows: its called Wall street and the City.

Bitcoin is all about taking back the monetary power from this two evils.
Meanwhile I will go back to reading Tocqueville and John Rawls.

[netrin]

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

Representative democracy is democracy by proxy. An uninformed, apathetic populous can not maintain true democracy. Aristocracy represent the demos in so far as the people vote with pitchforks. I hardly see the difference today. Democracy is a perfect system among equals.

[joepie91]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

[joepie91]

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.

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

[netrin]

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?

[joepie91]

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.

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

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

Fixed that for you.

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 by it's definition means no enforced government - that means that in a state of anarchy noone has the right to enforce government over another, thus self-sustaining the state of anarchy.

[netrin]

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

Oh like nirvana. Sounds nice.

[Hawker]

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.

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?

[netrin]

http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm

New York City Police Foundation — New York Beginning in 2010, JPMorgan Chase donated technology, time and resources valued at $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation, including 1,000 new patrol car laptops. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon a note expressing "profound gratitude" for the company's donation. "These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe," Dimon said. "We're incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know how much we value their hard work."

[joepie91]

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.

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?

[SgtSpike]

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.

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?

Why couldn't they exercise force?

[Hawker]

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.

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?

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.

[wareen]

Democracy is a good idea - it's the practical realizations that suck for the most part...

[joepie91]

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.

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?

Why couldn't they exercise force?

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

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.

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?

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.

And what is the difference with how that works now? You can be killed and robbed anyway, private army or no private army. I fail to see how your criticism has anything to do with anarchism at all.

[Hawker]

...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 ?

[joepie91]

...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.

[Hawker]

...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.

[joepie91]

...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.

I think you missed this part:

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

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

[Hawker]

...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.

I think you missed this part:

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

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

The present system prevents military grade weapons getting into private hands.  Try buying a combat aircraft or a tank or SAM tomorrow.

Do you want to replace that with anarchy and then count on the bad guys not initiating force. 

[Explodicle]

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.

[Hawker]

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

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. 

[Explodicle]

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

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. 

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.

[netrin]

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

Hey Hawker, are you in the market for a necromorphic curse? Perhaps it's entirely within the law, even if effective.

[Hawker]

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

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. 

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.

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.

[the joint]

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

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

I quote myself on this one.  Democracy is the most average system of government. 

[NghtRppr]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

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

[Explodicle]

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

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

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

[Hawker]

...snip...

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.

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.

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?

[Hawker]

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.

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

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

Murder is unlawful killing.  If you own the court, the killing is lawful.  In a libertarian society where you can buy killings, the whole concept of murder is redundant.

[Explodicle]

...snip...

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.

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.

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

[Hawker]

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?

[Explodicle]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

[gopher]

So, let's see virtual show of hands how many people would like to live in a world that is characterised by

1. RULE-OF-LAW (recognising the people's right to justice and equality)

2. FREE-MARKET (recognising the people's right to entrepreneurship and indiscriminate commerce, encouraging creation of value in form of goods and services)

3. DEMOCRACY (no, not the representative perverted variation most of us live in, the only true one)

4. NO BORDERS (recognising people's right to migrate, travel and re-locate as they wish)


Hmmm... I don't see many hands... In fact I don't see any hands!

And that is my observation of the world - most say that they want the above characterised world, but in reality they are willingly instrumental in executing the exact opposite - they implement RULES that favour the majority in power, they support MARKETS that favour and protect the local or the weak/vulnerable, become part of or suck the dicks of the ruling majority, and spend their lives erecting tall walls at their borders, or support governments that enforce laws that keep foreigners out - all that in the name of coveted security and war against terrorism

No, being arrested/beaten up, tortured, deprived of privacy, being lied to, essentially taking it up the ass does not classify as terrorism, because the entity that does all that is the government (the good guys) and they are only doing that for the greater good of the nation.

Makes me sick, just by thinking about that - then I switch off the TV, change the channel to Audio and immerse myself into some quality peace - one of the 1,500,000 illegal MP3's I have on my NAS ...

[Explodicle]

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.

[Hawker]

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

[Explodicle]

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.

[Hawker]

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.  All you can do is mistrust every regulatory institution.  Good governance requires a cynical public

[FredericBastiat]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

[hmongotaku]

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!?!~

[Hawker]

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!?!~

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

[FredericBastiat]

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.

[Hawker]

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.  

[Hunterbunter]

If you're going to make a poll like this, at least make apparent the definition of democracy you're using. There are many.

[Explodicle]

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.  

You're not the only one who sees this coming. Everyone would. That's why people would buy insurance ahead of time to use against him if needed, for example hiring a foreign army to help fight the evil local army. The main reason this hasn't happened after historical conquests is because they lacked a robust and independent financial system.

[netrin]

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

[Hawker]

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

Correct.

[compro01]

True libertarianism cannot possibly lead to dictatorship. Epic fail.

Neither can True Communism.

[Explodicle]

True libertarianism cannot possibly lead to dictatorship. Epic fail.

Neither can True Communism.

Not only can it, but it MUST lead to dictatorship. Ask Marx if you don't believe me. 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

[Elwar]

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.

[gopher]

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.

Even if the majority had decided on something, it still does not make them right!

I see the real question being not about the democracy being a bad or a good idea, but if the democracy is the system that the majority wants?

My personal opinion - the majority population on the planet definitely does not want to live in a true democratic system.

Once that is determined, from there on the democracy being a bad idea turns into an academic discussion.

[Hawker]

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.

That has already been dealt with.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46294.msg555781#msg555781

[Explodicle]

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.

[Elwar]

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.

I comment because I think it is funny.

I made this thread as a joke to make a point. I guess it went over people's heads.