Views on Democracy?

[Heloin]

And the alternative?

Liberty.Tyranny.

ftfy

[Page]

I support direct democracy in a stateless society in which people practice mutual aid.

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.

[Lakorydosia]

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.

Anarcho-Communism? The state exists because it is economically necessary, not because the subjective desire of some evil people.

[Atheris]

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?

Honestly, if we can keep a state stable using it, then yes.

---

Democracy is one of two options I can see for a state prevailing in the long term; you've seen it last in the USA for 244 years, the United Kingdom for 102 years, the Roman Republic (however representative and corrupt it might have been) for 482 years.

The only other option besides democracy, be it representative or direct, is a benevolent dictatorship, like that in Yugoslavia. If I could choose to live under a one world government with a benevolent dictator which won't fall apart after his death or a one world government with a democracy in place, I'd choose the dictatorship.

[Risottia]

Democracy is non-negotiable.

That's not what Hindenburg said

[Ifreann]

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.

"Anarcho-communism" is a redundant phrase. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It is inherently anarchist.

[Atheris]

Anarcho-Communism? The state exists because it is economically necessary, not because the subjective desire of some evil people.

"Anarcho-communism" is a redundant phrase. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It is inherently anarchist.

Is it? 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.

[Ifreann]

"Anarcho-communism" is a redundant phrase. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It is inherently anarchist.

Is it?

Yes.

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.

Which is a nice illustration of how people who oppose communism have a very different idea about what communism is than people who support communism.

[Lakorydosia]

Anarcho-Communism? The state exists because it is economically necessary, not because the subjective desire of some evil people.

"Anarcho-communism" is a redundant phrase. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It is inherently anarchist.

Anarcho-Communism is not the same Communism in a Marxist sense. The latter still retains massive magnitude planned economy.

[The Cosmic Mainframe]

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.

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?

Also: there's no less reason for people to oppose corrupt representatives than a corrupt monarch. Monarchs are just as likely to be corrupt, especially when they don't have to satisfy the people.

[Nolo gap]

i have more trust in democracy then in monarchy, but i don't believe in one size fits all solutions.

when logic is guided by universally mutual and indiscriminate consideration, i would have more trust in that then in either.

democracy needs to work in stages, each small enough for voters to be factually, deeply and thoroughly informed.
thus nothing as large as today's nations to be all thrown into one pot and people from everywhere withing them, having to vote on personalities and issues they can't all possibly be equally and thoroughly familiar with.
instead, indepentent local jurisdictions elected by and from among those who live there.
these councils in turn, electing the next level and so on, all the way to the planet and beyond.
no investment of authority in individual so called leaders, except in times of emergency that would require them,
under any system, and the dominance of aggressiveness prevented.

people who know what they're doing, and have the universal well being at heart, should be allowed to do what they know.
so in a sense a meritocracy would be favored, but one with close public scrutiny of the meaning, and measure of merit.

and yes, a.i.s that qualify on merit, i would trust far more then any narcissistic human.

beauty contests won't protect us from destroying everything nature provides that makes possible our existence.
so there definately needs to be eligibility filters.
i'm not convinced of the logic of age being one of them.

but some things about personality. no narcissist should ever qualify.
for that matter, under any system.

everyone needs the educational opportunities to understand issues too.

i also believe in personal freedom to build, but not destroy.
democracy doesn't guarantee this, and nothing as familiar as what most people think they know about it does either.
i believe that kind of freedom is possible, but that it takes exploration beyond the box of familiar assumptions to create and impliment it.

[North American Environmental Alliance]

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.

[Vistulange]

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.

You can't have corruption when your opponents are either imprisoned, dead, or too afraid of being persecuted/murdered to expose it, I guess.

10/10 logic there.

[Kragholm Free States]

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.

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.

[Ifreann]

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.

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?

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.

[Atheris]

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?

See: The Weimar Republic, c. July, 1932.

[Kragholm Free States]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[The Cosmic Mainframe]

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?

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.

And lastly, as Heloin pointed out, if the results truly reflected the majority opinion, Hitler wouldn't have been made Chancellor.

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.

Again, why aren't we considering direct democracy here? In that system, the people can make decisions without relying on their representatives. The people can go against the policies and projects that the major parties agree upon if there is a popular majority in support of those policies.

[Ifreann]

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.

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.

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.

Democracy is not exclusively practised in the United States.

[Heloin]

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.

The majority in 1932 didn't want Hitler.

[Cekoviu]

It needs serious regulation to actually work. This is what we fail to see in places like America, the UK, etc. and that's why we're all fucked.

[The Cosmic Mainframe]

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.

That's also true. Under a better system he would not have been given power.

[Kragholm Free States]

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.

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 itself in all cases - a truly good monarch would not be deserving of opposition, of course. Democratic governments should always be opposed, as there is no place for good people to rise in a system designed for charlatans and snake-oil salesmen.

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.

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.

[Heloin]

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.

Replaceing democratic governments with non democratic governments is inherently tyrannical.

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.

A decade singular is not decades.

[Kragholm Free States]

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.

Tyranny is tyranny. Cruel and unjust oppression and the systematic destruction of rights and liberties is tyranny. If an elected government is doing that, it is tyrannical. If a monarch is not doing that, they are not.

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.

What was your point here, or did you think I'd forgotten how numbers work?