Democracy is Slavery

[Kromar]

I would completely understand the arguement that, while it is technically slavery, you don't care because it isn't "bad slavery." You might even believe that democracy is the best posited form of governance, but that doesn't make it not slavery, that just makes you a slaver apologist.

I hope this guy is kidding.

I shall humor you, then. If democracy is just the slavery of one man to many people, and autocracy is the slavery of many people to one man, then isn't all government essentially slavery? Therefore, the only way to free ourselves from slavery would be anarchy.

Yes, all government is slavery.

[Sondstead]

Implying that taxation is slavery and that only democracies can tax? Democracy is a shit ideology, but it ain't slavery.

Only democratic autocracies can tax because no taxation without representation, only taxation decided by unanimous consent is not slavery. Slavery is everything so everything is slavery so nothing is slavery because nothing is not slavery which renders slavery a meaningless concept, therefor if something exists it is not slavery even though it is slavery, so...

Ok, never mind, I give up. I can't even tell how that ridiculous jumble was supposed to work anymore.

[New Chalcedon]

You know what the two top topics I found on NSG were when I took a quick squiz at it?

"Taxation is slavery"; and
"Democracy is slavery", both based on that utter lightweight Nozick's "work" (if I may abuse the term by applying it to Nozick's drivel).

Well, it's a wonderful thing that we have such astute, wise and insightful philosophers as Robert Nozick - the man who hated government but took government funding to both undertake his studies and to further his academic career - to tell us how to look out for our liberties, else we would inevitably be snatched by the government chain-gangs waiting behind every wall and tree, every door and window, for our unsuspecting selves to wander past innocently. Surely, all of humanity would be groaning in chains, held down and forced to labour for the benefits of the battening masses of leeches, were it not for the wisdom of this latter-day Aristotle!

Really, I just wish that libertarianism's adherents would grow up and realise that the Utopia of the rugged, individualistic explorer/settler who can do as (s)he pleases ad bear the consequences themselves (aka the Wild West) (a) is long-gone, and (b) wasn't exactly what any sane person would call "Utopia" in the first place.

Would libertarianism work for a frontier society, or a post-apocalyptic nation struggling for survival? Perhaps (although I doubt it) - but it doesn't work for 21st-century economies, which are based on the extraction, transportation, transformation, re-transportation and consumption of resources.

Satirizing a position that no one has taken doesn't accomplish much.

Also, I'm not even a libertarian, or an-cap. I soley wish to have people accept that democracy is slavery.
My ideal form of governance is absolute dictatorship with a brilliant and benevolent autocrat (inb4 someone claims I just want to be the autocrat)
If we are all enslaved already, we might as well trade our insipid hydraesque master known as the general public for a better one.

See the Roman Empire for how that worked out in practice. By turning in "democracy" for "autocracy", you are merely turning the formless mob into the ferocious tyrant. It's all well and good to speak of "benevolent dictators", but this has two problems that are inherent to the nature of a dictatorship: First, that there is no way to guarantee that the benevolence will last once the despot holds ultimate power, and second, that there is no way to provide for a succession from one benevolent (we'll assume that once, just one in human history, a dictator remains benevolent throughout a long rule) dictator to another.

[Regnum Dominae]

SLAVERY IS SLAVERY
INFO WARS DOT COM

SLAVERY IS RISING

Impeach thrust, legalize gravitational force, helium is theft.

[Lesssnt]

I would like you, dear reader, to read the following excerpt, because I can find no way to improve the argument made therein.

"The Tale of the Slave"
from Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 290-292.

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1 There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.

2 The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.

3 The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.

4 The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.

5 The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.

6 The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.

7 Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.

8 In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)

9 They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?

What do you think NSG? I'm particularly interested in hearing if there are any rational reasons why this is not slavery. I believe I hold a rather unusual point of view. I think that even after step 9, this is still the tale of a slave, so democracy is slavery, but I do not mind it. I am a slave, but I do not find this particularly objectionable. My master does not harm me, and in fact provides an environment in which I can be happy. Of course I'd rather not be a slave, but I consider it impractically difficult to free myself of my shackles.

Everyone is a slave til they are capable of training themselves to be and or do whatever they wish to.

[Regnum Dominae]

I hope this guy is kidding.

I shall humor you, then. If democracy is just the slavery of one man to many people, and autocracy is the slavery of many people to one man, then isn't all government essentially slavery? Therefore, the only way to free ourselves from slavery would be anarchy.

Yes, all government is slavery.

And sky is table.

[Albul]

Labels are Slavery

[Frisivisia]

SLAVERY IS RISING

Impeach thrust, legalize gravitational force, helium is theft.

Granted, but they are all slavery as well.

[Constaniana]

Yes, all government is slavery.

And sky is table.

Table is slavery.

[Frisivisia]

I would like you, dear reader, to read the following excerpt, because I can find no way to improve the argument made therein.


What do you think NSG? I'm particularly interested in hearing if there are any rational reasons why this is not slavery. I believe I hold a rather unusual point of view. I think that even after step 9, this is still the tale of a slave, so democracy is slavery, but I do not mind it. I am a slave, but I do not find this particularly objectionable. My master does not harm me, and in fact provides an environment in which I can be happy. Of course I'd rather not be a slave, but I consider it impractically difficult to free myself of my shackles.

Everyone is a slave til they are capable of training themselves to be and or do whatever they wish to.

Doing whatever you wish is slavery.

[Sondstead]

I reiterate: America has NEVER BEEN A FUCKING DEMOCRACY.

Fucking democracy is sexual tyranny of the majority is rape is slavery.

[Lesssnt]

No one is a slave other than by choice.

[Prizea]

Imagine there was a mountain, but it was flattened and placed by the sea and became all sandy and some 'mountain' bars were there.. is a mountain any different from a beach?

[Albul]

I hope this guy is kidding.

I shall humor you, then. If democracy is just the slavery of one man to many people, and autocracy is the slavery of many people to one man, then isn't all government essentially slavery? Therefore, the only way to free ourselves from slavery would be anarchy.

Yes, all government is slavery.

A totalitarian agreeing with an anarchist standpoint!

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Implying that taxation is slavery and that only democracies can tax? Democracy is a shit ideology, but it ain't slavery.

Only democratic autocracies can tax because no taxation without representation, only taxation decided by unanimous consent is not slavery. Slavery is everything so everything is slavery so nothing is slavery because nothing is not slavery which renders slavery a meaningless concept, therefor if something exists it is not slavery even though it is slavery, so...

Ok, never mind, I give up. I can't even tell how that ridiculous jumble was supposed to work anymore.

What? Was that even English?

[Frisivisia]

No one is a slave other than by choice.

That's not how slavery works.

[United Dependencies]

Yes, all government is slavery.

Boo.

He said he was just kidding guys.

Let's just pack it in.

[Matta]

yrevals si sdrawrof gnitirw

(read right to left)

[Sondstead]

What? Was that even English?

Colorless green dreams sleep slavery. *nods*

[Utceforp]

Again with that 'rule of the people' nonsense. Until you can define exactly what it means, 'rule of the people' is just so much noise.

Rule of the people isn't nonsense, it's democracy. If all people aren't represented, then it's not democracy.

The "will of the people", as you describe it, is impossible to achieve. Let's use an example, shall we? Alice, Bob and Charlie want to paint their car. The car can only be painted one colour. Alice and Bob want to paint it blue, while Charlie wants to paint it red. Alice and Bob, being the "majority", get to paint the car blue. Charlie is upset, but Alice and Bob are happy. Tell me a way in which Alice, Bob and Charlie can be happy about the colour of the car, and I will admit that your system works.

I don't say that true democracy is possible. I say that what we have can't be called democracy.

Nobody ever said "Hey, I have an idea! I'll invent an impossible form of government! I'll call it Democracy!". I don't have a source, but we can make that assumption. Therefore, since Democracy was not invented to be an impossible form of government, the impossible form of government you are describing is not democracy, democracy is democracy. Your idea of "True democracy" is a completely fictitious one.

[Frisivisia]

Imagine there was a mountain, but it was flattened and placed by the sea and became all sandy and some 'mountain' bars were there.. is a mountain any different from a beach?

Mountains are slavery.

[Ifreann]

No one is a slave other than by choice.

That's not how slavery works.

Indeed. A man chooses. A slave obeys. *golf club*

[United Dependencies]

That's not how slavery works.

Indeed. A man chooses. A slave obeys. *golf club*

Would you kindly be my slave?

[The Rich Port]

No one is a slave other than by choice.

Yes, because getting your fucking head cut off or getting your head blown off or worse is a preferable alternative to kissing someone's ass and hopefully one day escaping or being freed.

[Xsyne]

That's not how slavery works.

Indeed. A man chooses. A slave obeys. *golf club*

What if he chooses to obey?