Is Democracy a bad idea?

[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.