Is Democracy Failing?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

It does not matter about the ancient definition of democracy; what matters is that the definition of modern day democracy is such that everyone believes they have a right (a positive right that must be granted by “the people” them selves) to participate in governmental policy – either directly or indirectly. That is socialism. [/quote]

No it isn’t. Socialism is a very particular type of political approach with a very specific endgame in mind. Socialism has a goal, it has an End in mind. Democracy is a Means of governance - the people in a Democracy could vote for a socialist mega-state or they could vote for a minarchist state (they wouldn’t vote for anarchy - they aren’t that dumb).

Socialism is bad politics and worse economics - but it ain’t the same as “democracy” or the existence of government.

[quote]StevenF wrote:
pretty sure all the anarchists will get their wish in the not too distant future. [/quote]

It’s not a wish. We just understand reality. There is no escaping natural law – no matter how super awesome of a leader you elect.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

It does not matter about the ancient definition of democracy; what matters is that the definition of modern day democracy is such that everyone believes they have a right (a positive right that must be granted by “the people” them selves) to participate in governmental policy – either directly or indirectly. That is socialism. [/quote]

No it isn’t. Socialism is a very particular type of political approach with a very specific endgame in mind. Socialism has a goal, it has an End in mind. Democracy is a Means of governance - the people in a Democracy could vote for a socialist mega-state or they could vote for a minarchist state (they wouldn’t vote for anarchy - they aren’t that dumb).

Socialism is bad politics and worse economics - but it ain’t the same as “democracy” or the existence of government.[/quote]

Underlying socialism are some ideas that parallel democracy. They are essentially the same thing. Allowing all people a right to participate in government is a form of socialism.

And if you think about it voting under the modern idea of democracy is a positive right – which only socialism can address.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Same thing for the state, I can hope in my truck and drive it away so they cannot find it. I can hide my cattle in the hill side so they cannot take it. I do not see the state having any more powers than any other private institute except having a monopoly on it.[/quote]

That’s right - they have a monopoly on it, which means they have the option of force and the ability to impede on other contracts. If the state decides you owe money or recognizes an applied lien, the state can prevent you from giving the frozen assets to someone else. Your collections agency cannot.

[quote]I see, I have not ran into that thankfully, but I see where it could happen.

Well, I guess if I am in fear of him doing this I could get insurance. Farmers buy insurance on their crops, I suppose there would be someone willing to take the risk for a premium.

On the other side, I could require that he have insurance so when there is a non-payment, I put the lien on his property, and if he says fuck off after the arbitrator (and the insurance agreed on all the details) that the insurance would pay me the payment their that policy covered. I am not sure, it could go many different ways, the market would come up with the best ways to deal with these instances.[/quote]

You keep running into the same problem - you keep wanting to contract the problem away with no one to enforce any of the contracts you come up with. So you get someone to insure this (and I would be quite skeptical of such an arrangement) and it occurs - well, you’re back in the same boat: how do you get someone to enforce the insurance contract if the inusrance company says “buzz off”.

If there is one thing an insurance company doesn’t want to do, it’s pay claims. They fight like hell even with a fully developed legal system commanding the performance of contracts. With no enforcement mechanism, why in the world would you think an insurance company would just pay up on a claim just to be cooperative?

Again, you haven’t thought this through.
[/quote]

Look at how many claims were paid back pre-regulations in the health care industry, compared to now with all these different regulations. Of course they do not want pay claims, however the government has forced the hand of insurance to companies in insuring into risky people. Then they protect the insurance companies from out of state competition by regulations. Yes, it is easy to use the current system as an example of how bad the insurance companies are, but that is the same as saying look at the unions how bad they are, unions must be inherently evil, it is illogical because if there is no outside coercion unions as well as insurance companies are not bad.

I am sorry I do not accept the Status Quo, that the only way to do something is through aggression. The idea of insurance companies hiring defense contractors is an idea, with all formalities these defense contractors would be kept from committing acts of aggression themselves with liability.

But again, I am not sure how it would work, but the idea behind anarchy is not to set up a better system as a “state” but to avoid aggression. So, I do not have to prove that anarchy will work, but that the only way a state can work is through aggression and if you are for the state that makes you an apologist for the state and it’s coercive aggression.

Where does the person that did not follow through with the contract get the authority to not pay me? No where. Yet, he still did it. He committed an act of aggression towards me, that does not allow me to rationalize more aggression.

They do not? Hmm, amazing well then we should start shunning people out of society again for irresponsible behavior. I have not ran into the mass non-cooperating society. Maybe I am naive, I am not sure. However, I have only had one case (in three generations of business) that I am aware of where there was violence to collect.

No, it does not presume that people are rational, it is against institutionalized aggression.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve been wondering at that. From companies, to courts, to arbitrators. Is there another level after this, and yet another after that one? Where’s the final answer? I guess I’m asking who has the monopoly on “the final say.” How is this monopoly enforced?[/quote]

Why would there need to be a monopoly on aggression?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

It does not matter about the ancient definition of democracy; what matters is that the definition of modern day democracy is such that everyone believes they have a right (a positive right that must be granted by “the people” them selves) to participate in governmental policy – either directly or indirectly. That is socialism. [/quote]

No it isn’t. Socialism is a very particular type of political approach with a very specific endgame in mind. Socialism has a goal, it has an End in mind. Democracy is a Means of governance - the people in a Democracy could vote for a socialist mega-state or they could vote for a minarchist state (they wouldn’t vote for anarchy - they aren’t that dumb).

Socialism is bad politics and worse economics - but it ain’t the same as “democracy” or the existence of government.[/quote]

I disagree, socialism is not a particular type of political approach, it is a broad form over many specific governments.

Let’s look at the understanding of the word democracy.

Democracy
1570s, from M.Fr. democratie, from M.L. democratia (13c.), from Gk. demokratia, from demos “common people,” originally “district” (see demotic), + kratos “rule, strength” (see -cracy).

Demotic
1822, from Gk. demotikos “of or for the common people,” from demos “common people,” originally “district,” from PIE *da-mo- “division,” from base *da- “to divide” (see tide). In contrast to hieratic. Originally of the simpler of two forms of ancient Egyptian writing; broader sense is from 1831; used of Greek since 1927.

cracy

comb. element forming nouns meaning “rule or government by,” from Fr. -cratie or M.L. -cratia, from Gk. -kratia “power, might; rule, sway; power over; a power, authority,” from kratos “strength,” from PIE *kratus “power, strength” (see hard). The connective -o- has come to be viewed as part of it. Productive in English from c.1800.

Democracy does not work when there is a diverse people. I have no problem with diversity, I just do not want to be forced into what they vote. I am sure black people will agree that they would have rather not dealt with the all too popular Jim Crow laws.

I am sure the other oppressed groups under democracy would have rather not have had laws enforced against them in the name of some form of government because that form government was some how righteous.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Look at how many claims were paid back pre-regulations in the health care industry, compared to now with all these different regulations.[/quote]

Red herring. At any rate, you don’t have the stats to back up your claim. But we aren’t talking about health care insurance - we are talking about business loss insurance and no oe forces them to insure anyone they don’t want. Again, you are flailing.

No, they haven’t. You’re just making stuff up now. My property and casualty insurer isn’t forced to insure anyone.

A total non-answer and more red herrings. You still haven’t provided a remedy for your problem is no one can enforce the insurance contract (or any other contract). If you don’t have a solution, simply say so.

No one is saying the only way to do something is through aggression. This principle of “aggression” or “coercion” exists in the real world because Humans have proven that sometimes they have to be forced to keep promises they made. It’s a fact, whether you want to whistle past the Status Quo or not.

Here’s a test for you since you are so interested in moving beyond the Status Quo: certain contracts, to be enforceable in court, must be in writing. I’d expect that the volume and dollar amount of business you do in your work likely qualifies for this condition. But since you trust the inherent cooperation of your buyers, next time you contract with them, just make an oral contract and don’t bother putting it in writing.

After all, they will make good on their end of the deal - this is the fundament of your precious political philosophy. You don’t need contract enforcement by an act of “aggression” by a court, it’s completely unnecessary - you’ve said so yourself. So, next time, skip the written contract. If you’re right about human nature and their predicted behavior in contracting, you don’t need a written contract. You gonna do that, right? You are a man of principle, right?

This is just blather. Yes, you need to prove that your system has some chance working because the presumption is against you - thousands of years of human interaction say you are wrong. So, disprove that presumption.

So if he screws you over on the contract, you just have to live with it? This has become plain silly.

Well, you are naive, but you also mistake the issue - people do cooperate…sometimes. Sometimes…they don’t. Humans are complicated. Anarchism assumes they are simple.

Moreover, “violence” is rarely needed to collect because people know that can’t win. The court (and the marshall and sheriff and so forth) can enforce the law. Who is prepared to required “violence” to collect a debt when they know they can’t win?

No, it assumes that people are always going to behave a certain way, and history and human nature shows they won’t behave that way. “Against institutionalized aggression” is an aspiration, not a princple based on any fact. Anarchism is a dead-end philosophy.

If you don’t think so, I look forward to hearing about how you trust all “cooperative” buyers of your wares enough not to put your contract and terms in writing.

Why can’t these contracts be enforced by violence? Guy doesn’t pay, ignores the arbiter you agreed on, so the defense contractor that the arbiter uses goes and takes whatever is owed. If they are met with violent defense, than they respond likewise.

Doesn’t seem like this would happen very often though because as someone has mentioned anarchy would probably just be lots of city-states accommodating like-minded people. People that don’t do business as the area they are in likes, would be hustled out eventually.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Look at how many claims were paid back pre-regulations in the health care industry, compared to now with all these different regulations.[/quote]

Red herring. At any rate, you don’t have the stats to back up your claim. But we aren’t talking about health care insurance - we are talking about business loss insurance and no oe forces them to insure anyone they don’t want. Again, you are flailing.

No, they haven’t. You’re just making stuff up now. My property and casualty insurer isn’t forced to insure anyone.

A total non-answer and more red herrings. You still haven’t provided a remedy for your problem is no one can enforce the insurance contract (or any other contract). If you don’t have a solution, simply say so.

No one is saying the only way to do something is through aggression. This principle of “aggression” or “coercion” exists in the real world because Humans have proven that sometimes they have to be forced to keep promises they made. It’s a fact, whether you want to whistle past the Status Quo or not.

Here’s a test for you since you are so interested in moving beyond the Status Quo: certain contracts, to be enforceable in court, must be in writing. I’d expect that the volume and dollar amount of business you do in your work likely qualifies for this condition. But since you trust the inherent cooperation of your buyers, next time you contract with them, just make an oral contract and don’t bother putting it in writing.

After all, they will make good on their end of the deal - this is the fundament of your precious political philosophy. You don’t need contract enforcement by an act of “aggression” by a court, it’s completely unnecessary - you’ve said so yourself. So, next time, skip the written contract. If you’re right about human nature and their predicted behavior in contracting, you don’t need a written contract. You gonna do that, right? You are a man of principle, right?

This is just blather. Yes, you need to prove that your system has some chance working because the presumption is against you - thousands of years of human interaction say you are wrong. So, disprove that presumption.

So if he screws you over on the contract, you just have to live with it? This has become plain silly.

Well, you are naive, but you also mistake the issue - people do cooperate…sometimes. Sometimes…they don’t. Humans are complicated. Anarchism assumes they are simple.

Moreover, “violence” is rarely needed to collect because people know that can’t win. The court (and the marshall and sheriff and so forth) can enforce the law. Who is prepared to required “violence” to collect a debt when they know they can’t win?

No, it assumes that people are always going to behave a certain way, and history and human nature shows they won’t behave that way. “Against institutionalized aggression” is an aspiration, not a princple based on any fact. Anarchism is a dead-end philosophy.

If you don’t think so, I look forward to hearing about how you trust all “cooperative” buyers of your wares enough not to put your contract and terms in writing. [/quote]

Actually I do have statistics, but that is not important since we are not talking about health insurance.

Well if we have established that coercion needs to happen, then you will have no problem with me putting forth that if the person does not pay he knows a defense contractor and a repo team will come for my property. Since the other person committed an act of aggression then it would not be immoral for me to collect through acts of aggression in the name of defense of my property. :slight_smile:

Demos does not equal common - even the Greek democracies were not open to the common populace. Demos denoted people - but citizenship in the people’s government depended upon how you categorized the “people”. You’d need to break down the Politeia, Polites, Polis, Genos, Phratria, Phyle, Demos, Isonomia, Isegoria, Atimia, Metoikoi, Apeleutheroi, Philoxenia, Proxenia, Homoioi, Perioikoi and Heilotes to even begin to explain the basic Greek democratic concepts.

I will if anyone is actually interested, just let me know

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Demos does not equal common - even the Greek democracies were not open to the common populace. Demos denoted people - but citizenship in the people’s government depended upon how you categorized the “people”. You’d need to break down the Politeia, Polites, Polis, Genos, Phratria, Phyle, Demos, Isonomia, Isegoria, Atimia, Metoikoi, Apeleutheroi, Philoxenia, Proxenia, Homoioi, Perioikoi and Heilotes to even begin to explain the basic Greek democratic concepts.

I will if anyone is actually interested, just let me know

[/quote]

Go ahead, but I was talking about a common people as = same beliefs, like the white, male, land owners of the 16th and 17th century.

I’m interested…

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Well if we have established that coercion needs to happen, then you will have no problem with me putting forth that if the person does not pay he knows a defense contractor and a repo team will come for my property. Since the other person committed an act of aggression then it would not be immoral for me to collect through acts of aggression in the name of defense of my property. :)[/quote]

And we are back to square one of my point - under “anarchy”, instead of having orderly dispute resolution by rule of law, the best you can hope for when humans disagree and refuse to concede is that we “shoot it out” - i.e., the law of the jungle.

Fantastic - you’ve made my point for me.

OK here goes: First of all - forget the concept that Greek Democracy allowed every Greek to be a citizen and to participate in the ruling of the city-state. That is patently false.

The Greek Term for citizenship is POLITEIA. it means that one possesses the right to be a POLITE (citizen).

These two terms lead to the concept of the state - the term for the state is POLIS and the etymological link to POLITEIA is not just semantics it is foundational - the state is the citizens, the POLITES are the POLIS. The term for constitution is also POLITEIA - and now the basic picture is complete - the POLITEIA (constitution) defined what the POLITEIA (citizenship) consisted of and identified who the POLIS(state) was by defining who could be a POLITE(citizen).

There were three types of government within the Greek experience and the terms are important here as well:

There were several types of constitution leading to different types of states - monarchy (rule by one), rule by oligarchy (rule by few) or democracy (rule by many) - it is important to note that it is not the term omni-archy (rule by all), in fact there is no such term within the Greek language. The corresponding term in Greek would be anarchy (no rule) since they considered mob rule and chaos to be the same thing.

Aristotle took pains to explain that monarchy leads to tyranny, oligarchy leads to aristocracy and democracy leads to anarchy if the POLITEIA (constitution) governing that form of the state was not honored - this should start some interesting comments from our resident anarchists . . .

Now the divisions of Greek society get very interesting because the were some differences between the various city states, but these were the basic groups throughout:

The Aristocracy were Greeks who considered themselves the AUTOCHTHONOUS or the indigenous sons of Attica, These formed GENOS (families) and the GENOS formed PHRATRIA (brotherhoods) and the Phratria formed the tribes. This is important to remember, because these were the foundational groups of the city/states. Belonging to a phratria was vital for your survival, because only members of a phratria could bring charges and seek justice - the Phratria held all judicial control. Greek literature is replete with examples of this kinsmen bond and of the requirements of freemen to each other.

this next section is based on Athens

the rest of the Greeks males who did not belong to a phratria were the demos. The demos gained a wonderful victory from the phratria in the 7th century BC (after the land reforms of Solon) when they persuaded the aristocrats to actually write down the terms of the common law (Dracon’s law - another fascinating word study here) and now justice was met out according to the terms of the law and the judges were honorable members of society.

The demos had no political rights for much of early Greek history - the aristocracy held most of the fertile land, controlled all political power (executive, legislative and judicial in our terms). the various classes of demos (including diakrioi (poor landowners) and paraloi (those who lived by the sea), fishermen, skilled craftsmen, ship and caravan owners, traders and artists) finally banded together and demanded political rights from the aristocracy (the true demo-cratic revolution). The new constitution written by Solon granted the right to vote to those demos now classified as POLITAI (citizens) but this was not democracy. Only the Aristocracy could elect and be elected - but now the lower political classes could vote for those nomonated by the aristocracy- they could participate in, but rule or lead the state.

The 6th and 5th centuries were marked by much turmoil in Athens - the demos voted a tyrant into power (Peisistrates) and then the aristocrats returned the favor by seizing power and demanding an accounting of who was actually a citizen (voter fraud sound familiar?) - this in turn lead the demos to fear a return to aristocratic rule and the loss of the reforms that had been implemented - then a character named Kleisthenes came along and instituted (with the support of the demos) a new consistent definition of who was a POLITE - sneakily he included a lot of the poor, slaves and even foreigners. This new classification also destroyed any mention of the genos, phratria or phyle. Instead the demoi were identified by their geographical region.

Now for the first time a demos of Athens had all the same rights as every other demos - he could elect, be elected, vote, sue, be defended in court, propose laws, and could speak freely in the ECCLESIA (assembly of the demoi - this right to speak was called ISEGORIA). This equality between the elected officials and those who elected them was called ISONOMIA.

Now it is important to remember that not everyone who lived in Athens was a member of the demoi - there were foreigners (metics), freedmen (apeleutheoi) and slaves, women and children, as well demoi who had suffered loss of citizenship (atimia) for various infractions of the law. These non-citizens numbered well over 250,000 out of a population of 300,00. The average number of the demoi was estimated at 30,000

Ok- well those are the broad strokes with specific details about Athens. Sparta had a different structure as well as the oldest constitution (if my memory serves me right). I can go into that if you like as well.

Now, the applications of these distinctions of democracy are vital to your understanding that democracy is not truly a rule by all. Even after the reforms and voter fraud, the demoi were still just a fraction of the whole Athenian population. Democracy exists as a constitution that identifies it citizens and their rights to rule the state and the state then rules the territory of the state including the lives of all of the non-citizens - the majority of the state’s population.

Demo-cracy is NOT rule by all - it is still rule by the select.

A republic on the other hand . . .is another post - my fingers are tired. Hope you guys appreciate this :slight_smile:

Thanks very much, an interesting read.

I have no faith in democracy as it is currently considered, where everyone has a right to vote. There has got to be some reasonable and non-arbitrary restriction, maybe we could discuss that? I liked what somebody mentioned here somewhere about having to sit a test that proved your knowledge of the country and culture - something like that.

A raucous free-for-all is what it seems to be at the moment and it just makes no sense.

No problem. It is very important to understand the difference between a republic and a democracy as well.

We’ve seen that democracy is not “rule by all” and neither is a republic. “Direct Democracy” = Socialism, this is why so many of the anarchists on this site equate democracy with socialism - the reality is much more defined. There are no true democracies left. There are a number of republics, some nations still have a monarchy, but most have a version of socialism - REGARDLESS of their title.

Even a republic can be dragged towards direct democracy/socialism but ignoring the Constitution on which it is based.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Well if we have established that coercion needs to happen, then you will have no problem with me putting forth that if the person does not pay he knows a defense contractor and a repo team will come for my property. Since the other person committed an act of aggression then it would not be immoral for me to collect through acts of aggression in the name of defense of my property. :)[/quote]

And we are back to square one of my point - under “anarchy”, instead of having orderly dispute resolution by rule of law, the best you can hope for when humans disagree and refuse to concede is that we “shoot it out” - i.e., the law of the jungle.

Fantastic - you’ve made my point for me.[/quote]

I do not see that, the only difference between the state and a private contractor when it comes to obtaining private property for someone that owns it is the state commits aggression on it’s clients in order to do it.

“Shoot it out” would only happen in the worst cases when someone is obviously choosing to be entirely unreasonable in the face of common sense and agreement. In most cases, someone would give at an earlier stage due to the threat of escalation. So I don’t really see how that is any different to the state at all.

In fact it would be beneficial in some ways. Squatting comes to mind (the filthy leech not paying rent kind). In Australia you have to deal with them through legal channels and it can take months or even years to have the so-called law enforcers remove the scum in a way that is deemed acceptable, and you will never be reimbursed for what they cost you in lost rent and legal fees. Fuck that. Why shouldn’t you be able to go in their and throw all their shit out on the street, change the locks and physically keep them off your property??? Call it law of the jungle if you want, but I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Democracy is inherently untenable and foolish. Every idiot gets a vote. Socialist democracy is its purest form

Our capitalists with their financial machinations are not loyal to their own country. The socialists have themselves to blame for destroying the institutions of authority and assimilation and fracturing society.