Is Democracy a bad idea?

[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.