ftfy
Advertisement
by Page » Wed May 13, 2020 9:36 am
by Lakorydosia » Wed May 13, 2020 9:43 am
Page wrote:Antityranicals wrote:How does one reconcile democracy and a stateless society?
People will form communities based on voluntary association. No one is forced to be part of the community against their will. Those who are part of the community will use direct democracy to make decisions. There is still a society but one without a vertical hierarchy.
by Atheris » Wed May 13, 2020 9:44 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Nod and HYDRA Combined wrote:
To be honest, I think the people need to give uo a part of their freedom willingly. A strong leader with clear goals to reach a evolution of the system is needed to unite the people and make the undemocratic voice the rule of the many.
Benevolant Dictatorship?
by Ifreann » Wed May 13, 2020 9:47 am
Lakorydosia wrote:Page wrote:
People will form communities based on voluntary association. No one is forced to be part of the community against their will. Those who are part of the community will use direct democracy to make decisions. There is still a society but one without a vertical hierarchy.
Anarcho-Communism? The state exists because it is economically necessary, not because the subjective desire of some evil people.
by Atheris » Wed May 13, 2020 9:49 am
by Ifreann » Wed May 13, 2020 9:53 am
I'm pretty sure communism is pretty totalitarian. It still has a state that decides where people work, how they work, what necessities and goods they can get, and what type of jobs they will get in the future.
by Lakorydosia » Wed May 13, 2020 9:54 am
by The Cosmic Mainframe » Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 am
Antityranicals wrote:The Cosmic Mainframe wrote:Why wouldn't the people vote for liberty? You say you are a monarchist - why would a monarch vote for liberty? Wouldn't that go against their own interests?
People are not given a ballot with two choices, liberty or tyranny. People are given a list of names. These names are more or less known to them based upon two things: advertising and campaign promises. Those who spend tons on advertising and offer the world have a distinct advantage. Since a century of public education has taught people that the government is their friend, people have no problem with asking it to do things for them. And those two things combined are an unmitigated disaster. Also, what kind of people spend tons on advertising and promise the world? Scam artists. So ultimately, the choice between democracy and monarchy is whether we want our country to be run by a political class composed mostly of scam artists, or by one person who is not really any better or worse than most people. And while both are bad options, I think monarchy is preferrable, because at least then many people will have the good sense to oppose the government, at least personally.
== BEGIN POSTSCRIPT ==
The Mainframe requires more processing power and storage.
Donate your computing devices or they will be taken by force.
== END POSTSCRIPT ==
UPDATES (earth-year 3345): International Subsystem scales up operations in 42E5 "New York," Earth, now the largest known concentration of androids.
Factbooks | About Me | NationStates Flag Bracket II | Bytes (card farming region) | MAINFRAMEWAVE
Feel free to telegram me about anything. I'll do my best to respond.
Canon is relative to the observer. Not using NS stats.
This nation does not represent my real views, and if it represents yours, I question your sanity.
by Nolo gap » Wed May 13, 2020 9:58 am
by North American Environmental Alliance » Wed May 13, 2020 10:07 am
by Vistulange » Wed May 13, 2020 10:15 am
North American Environmental Alliance wrote:Democracy sounds nice and all on the outside, but it easily gets too corrupted and becomes a 1984-esque mess of lies. There are solutions to fix it (e.g. authoritarian democracy/republic, authoritative regime of sorts, armed militias, anti-corruption policies, etc), but that's a topic for another day.
by Kragholm Free States » Wed May 13, 2020 10:32 am
Ifreann wrote:Antityranicals wrote:Do you think that's exactly practical?
That rather depends what you mean by "practical". But obviously it is impossible to have a government that cannot be overthrown.Under that argument,
I'm not making an argument, I'm pointing out a flaw in your argument in favour of monarchy. You, as I understand your argument, want a monarchy so that people will oppose the government. But supposing that that works, why would people keep in place a government that they all oppose?you could justify antebellum southern slavery by saying that if the slaves found it so bad, they could overthrow their masters.
Well, yeah, they could have. I'm sure it would have been very difficult, but slave revolts have happened in history.You don't just need a bad system for a revolution, but a critical mass of people willing to resort to revolution as well.
Right, and your idea seems to be that everyone under a monarchy would oppose the government.After all, it's not like there's an "abolish the government" option on the ballot...
I'm sure there isn't under a monarchy.And even then, a system doesn't have to be recognized as bad in order to be bad. Ultimately, the very best option is to have all the services of government provided by the private sector, so that people can choose their providers based upon cost and effectiveness, and have government only exist as a last resort source of appeal in case these companies violate the rights of others, if even that.
Again, as I understand your argument you want a monarchy so that everyone living under it will oppose the government.
by Ifreann » Wed May 13, 2020 10:49 am
Kragholm Free States wrote:Ifreann wrote:That rather depends what you mean by "practical". But obviously it is impossible to have a government that cannot be overthrown.
I'm not making an argument, I'm pointing out a flaw in your argument in favour of monarchy. You, as I understand your argument, want a monarchy so that people will oppose the government. But supposing that that works, why would people keep in place a government that they all oppose?
Well, yeah, they could have. I'm sure it would have been very difficult, but slave revolts have happened in history.
Right, and your idea seems to be that everyone under a monarchy would oppose the government.
I'm sure there isn't under a monarchy.
Again, as I understand your argument you want a monarchy so that everyone living under it will oppose the government.
I think it's probably a little more nuanced than that. Under a democracy, the people are gaslit into believing that they are the government, and if the government is bad, the people will squabble amongst themselves over whose fault it is, creating a thousand pointless divisions and distractions without ever truly holding the real culprit - the government - accountable. If a monarch is bad, there is no such ambiguity and no such misdirection. The blame falls where it should. And then, as you say, the bad government can be overthrown.
You will note that there is far stronger precedent for bad monarchs being overthrown than bad presidents or prime ministers - I think it would be misguided to attribute this to more monarchs being bad, rather than simply elected governments being harder to overthrow.
I have said before, in another thread, that the greatest liberty can be achieved in a voluntarily cohesive society. Large-scale popular democracy undermines this cohesion by design.
by Atheris » Wed May 13, 2020 10:54 am
The Cosmic Mainframe wrote:Antityranicals wrote:People are not given a ballot with two choices, liberty or tyranny. People are given a list of names. These names are more or less known to them based upon two things: advertising and campaign promises. Those who spend tons on advertising and offer the world have a distinct advantage. Since a century of public education has taught people that the government is their friend, people have no problem with asking it to do things for them. And those two things combined are an unmitigated disaster. Also, what kind of people spend tons on advertising and promise the world? Scam artists. So ultimately, the choice between democracy and monarchy is whether we want our country to be run by a political class composed mostly of scam artists, or by one person who is not really any better or worse than most people. And while both are bad options, I think monarchy is preferrable, because at least then many people will have the good sense to oppose the government, at least personally.
What about direct democracy, though? In a direct democracy people would know exactly what they are voting for. In such a system, why would they vote for an option that is clearly more tyrannical?
by Kragholm Free States » Wed May 13, 2020 11:02 am
Ifreann wrote:Kragholm Free States wrote:
I think it's probably a little more nuanced than that. Under a democracy, the people are gaslit into believing that they are the government, and if the government is bad, the people will squabble amongst themselves over whose fault it is, creating a thousand pointless divisions and distractions without ever truly holding the real culprit - the government - accountable. If a monarch is bad, there is no such ambiguity and no such misdirection. The blame falls where it should. And then, as you say, the bad government can be overthrown.
And that's how we got a lot of the democratic countries we have today. What exactly would be achieved by restoring a monarchy just so we can abolish it again?
Ifreann wrote:You will note that there is far stronger precedent for bad monarchs being overthrown than bad presidents or prime ministers - I think it would be misguided to attribute this to more monarchs being bad, rather than simply elected governments being harder to overthrow.
I have said before, in another thread, that the greatest liberty can be achieved in a voluntarily cohesive society. Large-scale popular democracy undermines this cohesion by design.
Democratic governments don't get overthrown because there's a system in place to remove them. Democracy.
by The Cosmic Mainframe » Wed May 13, 2020 11:13 am
Kragholm Free States wrote:It doesn't, though. It devolves into a contest between two bloated and corrupt parties, both of whom march towards ever more pervasive authoritarianism because they know rhetoric of "safety" and "order" and "fairness" will get them elected. And each of them, when they attain power, will keep all the policies and projects of the other intact even as they preach that the other is the greatest evil.
== BEGIN POSTSCRIPT ==
The Mainframe requires more processing power and storage.
Donate your computing devices or they will be taken by force.
== END POSTSCRIPT ==
UPDATES (earth-year 3345): International Subsystem scales up operations in 42E5 "New York," Earth, now the largest known concentration of androids.
Factbooks | About Me | NationStates Flag Bracket II | Bytes (card farming region) | MAINFRAMEWAVE
Feel free to telegram me about anything. I'll do my best to respond.
Canon is relative to the observer. Not using NS stats.
This nation does not represent my real views, and if it represents yours, I question your sanity.
by Ifreann » Wed May 13, 2020 11:14 am
Kragholm Free States wrote:Ifreann wrote:And that's how we got a lot of the democratic countries we have today. What exactly would be achieved by restoring a monarchy just so we can abolish it again?
Because I'm not suggesting removing the bad monarch and replacing them with democracy, I'm suggesting removing the bad monarch and replacing them with the next monarch in line.
Ifreann wrote:Democratic governments don't get overthrown because there's a system in place to remove them. Democracy.
It doesn't, though. It devolves into a contest between two bloated and corrupt parties, both of whom march towards ever more pervasive authoritarianism because they know rhetoric of "safety" and "order" and "fairness" will get them elected. And each of them, when they attain power, will keep all the policies and projects of the other intact even as they preach that the other is the greatest evil.
by Heloin » Wed May 13, 2020 11:14 am
The Cosmic Mainframe wrote:Atheris wrote:
See: The Weimar Republic, c. July, 1932.
The Weimar system had a lot of flaws inherent to it. One of them being that the President had too much power, one being that the transition to democracy was poorly handled, and it also retained all of the flaws inherent to representative democracy - direct democracy is very different.
But otherwise, I get that point. The majority is wrong sometimes.
by The Cosmic Mainframe » Wed May 13, 2020 11:23 am
Heloin wrote:The Cosmic Mainframe wrote:The Weimar system had a lot of flaws inherent to it. One of them being that the President had too much power, one being that the transition to democracy was poorly handled, and it also retained all of the flaws inherent to representative democracy - direct democracy is very different.
But otherwise, I get that point. The majority is wrong sometimes.
The majority in 1932 didn't want Hitler.
== BEGIN POSTSCRIPT ==
The Mainframe requires more processing power and storage.
Donate your computing devices or they will be taken by force.
== END POSTSCRIPT ==
UPDATES (earth-year 3345): International Subsystem scales up operations in 42E5 "New York," Earth, now the largest known concentration of androids.
Factbooks | About Me | NationStates Flag Bracket II | Bytes (card farming region) | MAINFRAMEWAVE
Feel free to telegram me about anything. I'll do my best to respond.
Canon is relative to the observer. Not using NS stats.
This nation does not represent my real views, and if it represents yours, I question your sanity.
by Kragholm Free States » Wed May 13, 2020 11:27 am
Ifreann wrote:Kragholm Free States wrote:
Because I'm not suggesting removing the bad monarch and replacing them with democracy, I'm suggesting removing the bad monarch and replacing them with the next monarch in line.
And people would also be opposed to that monarch. That's the point of Antityranicals' idea. To have a government that people are always opposed to.
Ifreann wrote:It doesn't, though. It devolves into a contest between two bloated and corrupt parties, both of whom march towards ever more pervasive authoritarianism because they know rhetoric of "safety" and "order" and "fairness" will get them elected. And each of them, when they attain power, will keep all the policies and projects of the other intact even as they preach that the other is the greatest evil.
Democracy is not exclusively practised in the United States.
by Heloin » Wed May 13, 2020 11:32 am
Kragholm Free States wrote:Ifreann wrote:And people would also be opposed to that monarch. That's the point of Antityranicals' idea. To have a government that people are always opposed to.
People should certainly always be skeptical of their government and oppose any attempt it may make to deprive them of their rights and liberties. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they should always oppose the government in all cases - a good monarch would not be deserving of opposition. Democratic governments should always be opposed, there is no place for good people to rise in a system designed for conmen.
Ifreann wrote:
Democracy is not exclusively practised in the United States.
Not being from the United States myself, I am well aware of that. The Tories have been in power for a decade here now, everyone seems to hate them but still won't get rid of them as they run the country into the ground, and there's only one semi-viable opposition party who are ultimately just as horribly authoritarian but couch their horrible authoritarianism in left-wing rhetoric.
by Kragholm Free States » Wed May 13, 2020 11:38 am
Heloin wrote:Kragholm Free States wrote:People should certainly always be skeptical of their government and oppose any attempt it may make to deprive them of their rights and liberties. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they should always oppose the government in all cases - a good monarch would not be deserving of opposition. Democratic governments should always be opposed, there is no place for good people to rise in a system designed for conmen.
Replaceing democratic governments with non democratic governments is inherently tyrannical.
Heloin wrote:Not being from the United States myself, I am well aware of that. The Tories have been in power for a decade here now, everyone seems to hate them but still won't get rid of them as they run the country into the ground, and there's only one semi-viable opposition party who are ultimately just as horribly authoritarian but couch their horrible authoritarianism in left-wing rhetoric.
A decade singular is not decades.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, Giovanniland, Juristonia, Neu California, Nu Elysium, Shrillland, The Isstu Alliance
Advertisement