Lifti - please tell me you are more discerning in your reading material - if you are going to choose books attacking democracy at least choose something with real meat and research in it, rather than an opinion book . . . .
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Guys this wasn’t my intention with this thread. I wanted to start a discussion on whether democracies are inherently flawed, and discuss ideas in which to improve western democracies in all countries regardless of location on the political spectrum. Any thoughts?[/quote]
Yes, I believe they are.
Democracy is the idea that government can be run by the will of the people. It is just an other collectivist ideology.
Its biggest flaw is the idea that temporary care takers can replace owners. This necessarily results in socialism because there will always be looters and slaves in a system that can shift the power structure with nothing more than a vote.
Savvy looters will always remain in the looter class while the savvy slave class members try to vote themselves into the looter class.
In a democracy the only thing that changes is who is in the privileged looter class and who must slave to support them.[/quote]
turning another thread into an anarchy discussion are we?
No, turning it into a discussion on what democracy will always result in.
I hope you read the book before you criticize it. Many good philosophical books are nothing more than opinion. However, underlying his opinions are a critical method that you must understand before you can judge it. Does that somehow make the opinions expressed therein irrelevant?
Be careful how you answer that question.
Interesting post Lifticus. On the subject of monarchy, it is interesting to note that the corporate structure at the core or capitalism mimics a monarchy/oligarchy with a CEO/board of directors, and subjugates with little or no agency within the company “kingdom”
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
turning another thread into an anarchy discussion are we?[/quote]
He doesn’t have another move - you could start a thread asking which vacuum cleaner was the best and he would immediately begin his Rothbard copy-and-paste job. However, once he gets a new “I have discovered the truth!” moment with a new fad or ideology, he’ll start drowning us in more copy-and-paste from that new hobby horse as well. Simply a matter of time.
Democracy, of course, or a certain version of it, is not perfect - it is merely the best of the alternatives, as the adage goes.
Democracy at its core means those that must live under a given set of laws have a right to say what those laws are. Even with its warts, I will take that form of governance over the other options, as would most.
Anyone with a functioning brain stem recognizes that there is no anarchic alternative. Anarchy, like communism, is a dead philosophy that no serious person takes seriously.
Yes, I read the book and it promptly went into the “resell” pile for my local used bookstore. I found it to be forced, not very connected and while there were a few great statements every once in awhile, it was just too much opinion, not enough source material - does that make sense?
I agree some philosophy books (even great ones) can be filled with mostly opinion, but great writers take care to substantiate even their craziest opinions. It just that I have read better critiques from other authors and this one was more juvenile - perhaps that was his intention - more to appeal to a wider range of readers without the heavier academic feel.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states.
[/quote]
I wish I could find the actual quote in regards to this, but it goes something like this “For a nation to be truly democratic it must be small and homogenous.” In lieu of city states, perhaps western nations should change the division of power to heavily favor provincial/state government over federal.
The larger the nation and more heterogenous a nation, the harder it is to implement policies that reflect the majority of wills: IE federal policy that is divisive is applied to, and paid for by all the nations citizens, when it should instead be implemented on a state or regional basis.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Democracy, of course, or a certain version of it, is not perfect - it is merely the best of the alternatives, as the adage goes.
Democracy at its core means those that must live under a given set of laws have a right to say what those laws are. Even with its warts, I will take that form of governance over the other options, as would most.
Anyone with a functioning brain stem recognizes that there is no anarchic alternative. Anarchy, like communism, is a dead philosophy that no serious person takes seriously.[/quote]
Why not?
Of course, Thunder.
Anything that attempts to tear down the foundation of the statist cage you inhabit is “Rothbardian” now? Interesting.
And yes, you are correct. I am always revising my beliefs because learning requires it.
Ultimately, if you do not continually revise your learning you are left in the dark ages.
Ideas are all that matter. Some of them are good and some of them lead to trouble.
Wouldn’t it be helpful if there was a method to analyze them.
Oh, wait! there is.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yes, I read the book and it promptly went into the “resell” pile for my local used bookstore. I found it to be forced, not very connected and while there were a few great statements every once in awhile, it was just too much opinion, not enough source material - does that make sense?
I agree some philosophy books (even great ones) can be filled with mostly opinion, but great writers take care to substantiate even their craziest opinions. It just that I have read better critiques from other authors and this one was more juvenile - perhaps that was his intention - more to appeal to a wider range of readers without the heavier academic feel. [/quote]
Do you understand his theory on “time preference”? If this is what you consider “juvenile” I would love to see a list of more rigorous works that do as good a job of unmasking the state.
I have read a lot of them but none are as philosophically consistent as the work I cited above.
Seriously, time preference is the key to understanding why collectivist states must necessarily fail.
Sorry, I will be more exact - his furtherance of Bohm-Bawerk’s ideas (which, if memory serves was an expansion on charles menger) was one of the best I’d seen in some time - that was my allusion about “great statements” (and forgive my memory is a foggy on some of the details). but taken as far as he did though to condemn all versions of democracy (his larger inclusivity of all forms of democracy as collectivist states)was where i found it to weaken a great (to that point) logical construct.
But it is still based on the same premise (assumption?) that Bohm-Bawerk laid out that the individual will always be willing to pay more/consume more in the present without thought to the future (man, dragging this stuff out of my memory banks it taxing - lol) places the emphasis on the , oh dang it - what where they called . . .
umm . . . you know - the guy who spends and doesn’t save versus the guy saves as much as possible . . . I’m sorry - been a few years since I read the book. Anyhoo - There wasn’t great substantiating evidence for the assumptions . . . that was my point.
I also found it weak becuase (as i recall) he doesn’t credit the private property of american citizens enough (well, given recent court cases, perhaps he wasn’t far off in that critique after all)
thanks for the rough jog down memory lane - lol
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Sorry, I will be more exact - his furtherance of Bohm-Bawerk’s ideas (which, if memory serves was an expansion on charles menger) was one of the best I’d seen in some time - that was my allusion about “great statements” (and forgive my memory is a foggy on some of the details). but taken as far as he did though to condemn all versions of democracy (his larger inclusivity of all forms of democracy as collectivist states)was where i found it to weaken a great (to that point) logical construct.
But it is still based on the same premise (assumption?) that Bohm-Bawerk laid out that the individual will always be willing to pay more/consume more in the present without thought to the future (man, dragging this stuff out of my memory banks it taxing - lol) places the emphasis on the , oh dang it - what where they called . . .
umm . . . you know - the guy who spends and doesn’t save versus the guy saves as much as possible . . . I’m sorry - been a few years since I read the book. Anyhoo - There wasn’t great substantiating evidence for the assumptions . . . that was my point.
[/quote]
You’re pretty good at referencing wikipedia.
Dustin - that was the most offensive thing you could have ever said to me
I’m a historian - wikipedia is the worst thing to happen to real research and thought in modern civilization. I refuse to visit the site, never reference it and criticize it ever chance I get.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I’m a historian - wikipedia is the worst thing to happen to real research and thought in modern civilization. I refuse to visit the site, never reference it and criticize it ever chance I get.[/quote]
This sounds like the plea of man who was caught referencing wikipedia.
Oh, settle down. I’m just messing with you.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Sorry, I will be more exact - his furtherance of Bohm-Bawerk’s ideas (which, if memory serves was an expansion on charles menger) was one of the best I’d seen in some time - that was my allusion about “great statements” (and forgive my memory is a foggy on some of the details). but taken as far as he did though to condemn all versions of democracy (his larger inclusivity of all forms of democracy as collectivist states)was where i found it to weaken a great (to that point) logical construct.
But it is still based on the same premise (assumption?) that Bohm-Bawerk laid out that the individual will always be willing to pay more/consume more in the present without thought to the future (man, dragging this stuff out of my memory banks it taxing - lol) places the emphasis on the , oh dang it - what where they called . . .
umm . . . you know - the guy who spends and doesn’t save versus the guy saves as much as possible . . . I’m sorry - been a few years since I read the book. Anyhoo - There wasn’t great substantiating evidence for the assumptions . . . that was my point.
I also found it weak becuase (as i recall) he doesn’t credit the private property of american citizens enough (well, given recent court cases, perhaps he wasn’t far off in that critique after all)
thanks for the rough jog down memory lane - lol[/quote]
Yes, but his argument is that before the modern day state came around privately owned government tended to have a lower time preference. This means they DO save and tend to build up capital. Society is better off.
On the other hand we have democracy and it creates higher time preferences – meaning, people ultimately cannot wait to consume because being temporary custodians their time to loot is limited. Seems logical to me…
In fact, the crux of conservatism is exhibiting a low time preference.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why not?[/quote]
You mean you think anarchy is a plausible form of human organization? I’ve heard Lifticus’ juvenile recitation of why anarchy would work many times - sadly - so if you think you can improve on it, I am all ears.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Anything that attempts to tear down the foundation of the statist cage you inhabit is “Rothbardian” now? Interesting.[/quote]
Wasn’t long ago that you did nothing but post tracts from Murray Rothbard’s materials. Have you moved on to a new flavor of the month? Do tell.
Revising, yes. Hopping from one radical idiocy to another isn’t the mark of learning - in fact, it’s the opposite: it means you aren’t learning at all. That’s a symbol of flakisness, not progress.
You’ve insisted that “communism is the truth!” and “anarchy is the truth!” - yes, you are a fanstatic barometer of the ideas that “lead to trouble”. Any philosophy that mankind rejects as rank stupidity you have thought to be the One True Solution to all society’s problems. Thanks for your service in reminding us all as to the ideas that lead to trouble and human misery.
[quote]Wouldn’t it be helpful if there was a method to analyze them.
Oh, wait! there is.[/quote]
Let me guess - you stumbled across some article or Wikipedia entry and discovered a “method to analyze” ideas that is…“the truth!”? And let me guess, part two - you want someone here to say “what method are you talking about?” so you can launch into your new, latest-greatest copy-and-paste of something you desperately want to talk about, regardless of thread?
So predictable. What will it be next week, Lifty? Can’t wait to hear the next “truth!”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why not?[/quote]
You mean you think anarchy is a plausible form of human organization?[/quote]
Do you understand that underlying the organization of the T-Nation Forums is anarchy? It is completely voluntary. There are many more examples I could cite for you but you would just say, “no, it cannot work,” while you childishly close your eyes and ears.
Prove that the state’s existence is necessary – meaning that there is some role that it must fulfill that cannot be fulfilled by a privately organized and voluntary society.
Organisms organize with or with out the state’s existence – obviously, organization must precede government to begin with. You fail.