|
Thread: Do you like democracy? | This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 08:42 PM |
|
Edited by Aron at 20:44, 14 Apr 2014.
|
The strongest is probably permitted to do so by his will alone. Of course I wouldn't accept this and hopefully others also wouldn't
edit: No it's not "okay" according to you and me but it was okay according to them
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 08:47 PM |
|
|
You mean that he wants to do it. What does "permitted" mean, in that context?
And yes, people in the past thought that slavery was okay. They were wrong. It doesn't matter what they thought.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 08:52 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Tsar, and for those of us who don't believe in God?
Why, Mvass, of course you get your legitimation from Satan then.
Strictly spoken, politics is just one power aspect of society, the other is economics. Now, the economically powerful have of course an interest in decentralizing POLITICAL power.
That's why democracy is the governing system of capitalism. It's ideally suited, because it combines a couple of factors.
However, it couldn't have been successful, if it wouldn't have been an advantageous combination with a view on known alternatives, and the 19th ane 20th centuries have been showing that it's an advance.
Of course, this is just a stage. We need to be able to react faster than a democraxy allows this, and it looks like state capitalism, the way it is practised in China today, gets things accomplished faster - for a price.
If someone has read or seen "Colossus" - what has been a horror visoon 50 years ago, may well become the near future. Hand over authority to a machine: incorruptible, loyal to its programming, and so on.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted April 14, 2014 08:59 PM |
|
|
Democracy is a flawed system to begin with in anything larger than a small town. Thus we don't even have it in its pure form anymore.
Still opposed to it but not seeing any better alternatives though
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
posted April 14, 2014 09:10 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said: ...That's bizarre. Then what does "right" even mean, if the strongest is permitted to do what he wants?Quote: What you just expressed in so few words was the system of slavery which was seen as perfectly legitimate.
Something being seen as legitimate doesn't mean it's actually legitimate. People thought slavery was okay. They were wrong.
The same question, what does legitimacy even mean?
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 09:22 PM |
|
Edited by Aron at 21:24, 14 Apr 2014.
|
Very interesting point about economic decentralization followed up with political decentralization.
Could we make the argument that for a socialist nation to remain decentralized after a revolution or election and for power not to be amassed by a small bureaucracy the economy must first be decentralized itself?
Isn't it then an argument that Karl Marx was wrong and that reformist socialists are right?
Then again in his opinion economic decentralization and true liberation would come about through state management in this direction. But what reason would there be to do this except lofty ideals to easily scrubbed away when it comes to everyday practicality?
And what about the capitalism of todays west? If we look at the US?
Wow Maybe a theory could be made out of this.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 14, 2014 09:22 PM |
|
|
Quote: What's an ultra liberal state?
It is the state that the ones who oppose democracy here suggest instead of it. Their position is not defending pre-democratic regimes that were more oppressive, they oppose democracy because they think it is not free enough, so their alternative is an allegedly freer regime. How they will manage that in real life is a question you should ask them, not me.
As for the rest, I dont see how Iran or pre-WW2 regimes are examples that has anything to with what I've said. The representitive democracies based on majority rule on any matter (they are not exactly that either but I'll keep it simple) are primitive compared to the recent stage liberal democracies reached. Of course there is nothing final about the current situation and future may bring better methods of governing but a total detachment from democratic principles is not something I predict or wish in the foreseeable future.
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 09:28 PM |
|
Edited by Aron at 21:29, 14 Apr 2014.
|
You didn't quite get my post Artu. The examples concerning Ditmarschen, Catalonia, Pirate Utopias and the Free Territory were my guesses at what you described as an ultra liberal state and so in themselves criticism against your idea that none of them could be created without normal democracy first being in place.
The rest of the text was also criticism but in the form that: Unless you mean those (mentioned above) that actually have sprung out of dictatorships or oppression then there are no "ultra liberal democracies" as of now to even begin discussin what would happen with or without a democratic system from a "sociological" point of view.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 09:29 PM |
|
|
seraphim said: The same question, what does legitimacy even mean?
For an act to be legitimate, the agent performing it has to have the right to do it. Rights are determined by morality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 14, 2014 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote: Unless you mean those (mentioned above) that actually have sprung out of dictatorships or oppression then there are no "ultra liberal democracies" as of now to even begin discussin what would happen with or without a democratic system from a "sociological" point of view.
Actually that's a flawed causality, the facist era is a phase rather than a cause. With a broader perspective, what I meant was, the liberties that mvass, xerox are sensitive about, are all sensitivities that rise from individuals from societies with democratic history (which usually dates prior to 20th century). People from a dictatorship in Africa wouldn't debate democracy within the context of untouchable rights of minorities. I haven't said today's democracies are ultra liberal either, on the contrary, I emphasized they were flawed but reminded the fact that they are still the better option compared to their existing contemporary alternatives.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 09:50 PM |
|
|
xerox said: Lately, I've come to the conclusion that I'm morally opposed to democracy.
aren't you member of a party and interested in a political career? that would be enough to explain why you are opposed to democracy.
Quote: Strictly spoken, politics is just one power aspect of society, the other is economics. Now, the economically powerful have of course an interest in decentralizing POLITICAL power.
That's why democracy is the governing system of capitalism. It's ideally suited, because it combines a couple of factors.
I think we have a different vision of things, I'm under the impression on the contrary, that the economically powerful want a centralized political power, and it's even better if it's dominated by only one or a few parties, because that makes it much easier to influence or bribe them into getting what you want. think of all the gifts that big companies receive from governments, apparently with few counterparts.
why would they want to risk a real democracy, where everyone holds the same power and they would have to convince a majority to go their way instead of only the oligarchy?
where people in position of responsibility would be under control, so it would be hard to bribe them?
where there are no parties, which can be easily targetted and manipulated?
moreover, I doubt it's possible to have economically powerful people and democracy at the same time. the wealth gap would turn any democracy into a plutocracy. you can not say that the guy who works 10h a day to be able to eat, and the one who makes billions because others work for him have an equal political power.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 14, 2014 09:56 PM |
|
|
Quote: I doubt it's possible to have economically powerful people and democracy at the same time. the wealth gap would turn any democracy into a plutocracy. you can not say that the guy who works 10h a day to be able to eat, and the one who makes billions because others work for him have an equal political power.
That is, to a certain point, inevitable. The question is, which kind of regime minimizes that gap the most?
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 10:00 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote: Unless you mean those (mentioned above) that actually have sprung out of dictatorships or oppression then there are no "ultra liberal democracies" as of now to even begin discussin what would happen with or without a democratic system from a "sociological" point of view.
Actually that's a flawed causality, the facist era is a phase rather than a cause. With a broader perspective, what I meant was, the liberties that mvass, xerox are sensitive about, are all sensitivities that rise from individuals from societies with democratic history (which usually dates prior to 20th century). People from a dictatorship in Africa wouldn't debate democracy within the context of untouchable rights of minorities. I haven't said today's democracies are ultra liberal either, on the contrary, I emphasized they were flawed but reminded the fact that they are still the better option compared to their existing contemporary alternatives.
You're wrong, of course. Examples have already been given.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 14, 2014 10:04 PM |
|
|
I cant see the relevance of your examples and I fail to see what in specific are you objecting to?
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 10:07 PM |
|
|
That democracy is needed to discuss or imagine liberty.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 14, 2014 10:16 PM |
|
|
Well, you kind of oversimplified it. The individual rights that are considered untouchable are all constituted and legally protected in mature democracies. There is a direct proportion between the democratic advancement of a state and the sensitivity on those rights. Of course, in theory, there can be this or that person imagining any kind of thing all over the world, but the school of thought that is libertarianism did not emerge in Uganda, nor there are academical studies about anarcho-capitalism in Yemen .
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 10:17 PM |
|
|
the regime may not even matter as long as the gap exist, because rich will be able to buy the power anyway (except maybe in a super-religious regime?)
though democracy would make that harder, for reasons I already said, but people would still have to decide to make that wealth gap narrower. maybe rich people would have trouble bribing the power (occupied by individuals, and not by parties, and who aren't linked by a common class interest) but their wealth still gives them a power of oppression over the society.
of course, you could also hope for the incorruptible benevolent dictator as well. (if that may even exists? because taking a position of power says quite a bit about your incorruptibility I guess)
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 10:18 PM |
|
Edited by Aron at 22:18, 14 Apr 2014.
|
Sigh. n00b @ Artu
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 14, 2014 10:20 PM |
|
|
Yeah, yeah.. I know they are not perfect as much as you do. The key words are "in comparison" here.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
posted April 14, 2014 10:24 PM |
|
Edited by Aron at 22:24, 14 Apr 2014.
|
( =.= )
/ \ Nom nom nom.
____________
|
|
|