If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
death of democracy?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
listening to these military.com folks i get the impression democracy is something they would like to see closed down ...
0
Comments
Guess who said these words...
"You're either with us or against us!"
and
"There ought to be limits to freedom!"
If you said Castro, Satlin or Saddam Hussein, you're WRONG!
Those are the words of the leader of the Free World President George Bush.
Kinda scary, eh? :crazyeyes
and if we are against them then we can vote them out ...but for how long i wonder ...
We are not wrong. Neo-conservatism stems from Trotsky, those neo-con gurus are former ultra-left. They got disappointed in their dogmas but save their style of thought. They have changed the god but don’t changed the religion. So don’t be surprised.
The sooner democracy die the better. But I don’t see this is happening. I think it is going to expand, at least Bush’s attempt to establish democracy on Middle East looks serious. He printed enough bucks to open that democracy business in Iraq. So sad….
Interesting statement, care to expand upon it?
Might make intersting debate..........
Democracy is shit. I never have any doubts about it. But I’m a lucky guy, I wasn’t born in a western country and I escaped the brainwashing machine of state school and big media; so I can look at it like from aside. If you tried to drop all propaganda you were taught and look at democracy with fresh eye you’d see the same: democracy is shit.
Democracy isn't ideal.
But rather that than communism and/or fascism.
That's not to say that democracy must be imposed on others.
Of course we're a democracy, as the argmuments generally go, so long as it serves the point which one is trying to advance, as soon as our own "democracy" is called into question all claims of "democracy" go out the window and we are, according to the party line, a Constitutional Republic.
Another classic tactic of the selective consciousness.
Allows the majority to impose its will upon the minority.:crazyeyes
But when there must be some system in place, there is no point inb giving critiscism without a plausible alternative being available.
Do you have a suggestion?
At the risk of taking the theoretical level of this debate quite a bit higher, there is a very strong theory of democracy which at least tries to limit this, and it's one which the USA seems to follow far more than the UK. Ronald Dworkin argues that there are basic values in democracy (notably equality) which are fundamental and no democratic process can breach them without being undemocratic.
It's not perfect, of course. The majority could want low (or high!) taxes and the minority would have to put up with it. But at least Dworkinism can protect against some of the more severe threats of majoritarianism - certainly laws which institutionalise racial discrimination, sexual discrimination and so on can be very strongly criticised as undemocratic even if they have majoritarian support.
Just a thought!
This would be represented in a constitution ot a charter of rights of some kind.
The problem though is, who decides on the constitution? Surely that itself should be open to democracy and hence the problems are appear agian.........
The best possible form of state is the absence of state i.e. anarchy.
But even among states democracy is far away from the best. Classical Greek classification of states included three “good” forms- monarchy, aristocracy and republic, and their “black reflections“- despotia (we may name it absolute monarchy or dictatorship), oligarchy and demokratia. The difference between them is the level of concentration of power in hands of government. In democracy this level is above havens. ( I read when Estonian government received thousands-pages EU instructions how to keep their economy they were shocked. They said Hey, it seems we got from one Soviet Union to another!)
America was designed as republic and its Constitution were to prevent spreading of democracy but it failed. If American Founder Fathers looked at modern US they’d say it is much closer to France of Bourbons than to their ideal.
If ( in my dream:)) I was asked what kind of state is the best for UK I’d advise you to restore constitutional monarchy ( if you are so stubborn against anarchy) and tug, feather, drag and hang the f-ng usurper ( you know who I’m talking about)
For Americans it would nice to restore the Union of Republics. The first step is to give states the right on succession. ( without this right it never work!!)
In what way exactly could anarchy be preferrable to the current system (or to most other systems in fact)
What actual benefit would people derive from such a system?
I can see very little.
Do not pretend that a state is something entirely forced upon a people for the benefit of a few. States exist at least in part because people want to be in a state, they can offer safety and stability, what does anarchy offer?
In 20th century ( The Age of Democracy) governments killed 200 000 000 their citizens. You call it “safety and stability”? Did all murderers, robbers and maniacs together do a tiniest fraction of these crimes?
About anarchy… People know a little about left-anarchists but even there their knowledge is distorted by media coverage. You can watch on TV vandals smashing windows and burning cars and you think anarchy is complete chaos. Exactly what authorities need. You must believe you can’t survive without Great and Wise them. But you don’t know about ideas of Tolstoy, Proudhon, Kropotkin and other left anarchists. And you definitely never heard about market anarchism ( anarcho-capitalism).
I am an ancap from my 15 and I feel armed enough to explain this conception to anybody. But you know…I tried to do this but I succeed in few cases only. Even my friends refuse to listen. The combination Anarchy+Capitalism sounds so terrible for the most people that they prefer to judge before knowing.
And don't make excuses, if you think you can explain your system then do so.
I am an economics student so I can full imagine what anarcho-capitalism involves, the debate would be interesting.......
You also contradict yourself above, you cite the bad and distorted example given to anarchists yet talk about only bad states, surely the same principle apllies to them giving a bad name?
Also why do you advocate a monarchy if you are an anarcho-cpaitalist? It makes no sense..........
Market anarchism put it briefly is private property without state. It is based on Non-Aggression Principle that may be formulated as “ Thou shalt not kick your fellow man’s arse until he kicks yours”. The very nature of state is violating this principle. Whatever government does it use violence or threat of violence.
Market anarchism is the direct descender of classical liberalism of 17-19 centuries, the theory that was based on conception of Natural Law and in practice was the foundation of American revolution and reforms in Britain that led to restriction of state power and expanding individual freedom.
( It’s important to understand that the modern meaning of the word liberalism, especially in America, is opposite to classical liberalism. Classical liberals were for limited government, equality in rights, free market. Modern liberals are for big mighty government having its dirty nose in every hole, “equality in opportunities” that is nothing but a system of privileges to particular groups and strictly regulated market with huge so called public sector- all stuff classical liberals were fighting against.)
Market anarchism develops classical liberal ideas to their logical extreme. State coercion should be abolished not only in some spheres but in all spheres. Everything state has monopoly on should be open for voluntary agreement and free competition. In practice this means that market can supply us not only with shoes, cars, computers but also with education, health care, roads, streets, money, police, courts and even Law itself. And it will do it much better.
Why exactly?
What do the majority of people have to benefit from that?
Please explain how a privaitsed law system would work.......
Do you really think that the current UK govt 'kills, robs and enslvaves. it subjects?
I have never seen this, I am just being stupid?
Oh you children of little knowledge! Reading a book is fine, but one has to travel the world for a while to really understand the true nature of a democracy. There is a saying in the USA, “If you are under 21 years old and have a heart, you are a Democrat and if you are over 21 years old and have a brain you are a Republican.” A lot of truth there.
It is very easy for a college student being taught by a liberal professor to focus on how bad democracies are, but if one has traveled a bit and seen some of the other forms of government—then a democracy becomes a very coveted form of rule.
Any government of and by the people MUST have a check and balance system. In the USA it is the consent battle between conservatives and liberals without either side getting too much power. Great Britain established that check and balance system not only for themselves but for a great many other nations. In fact, during the colonization period it is interesting to note that almost all of Great Britain’s colonies have turned into democracies and almost all of France’s colonies have turned into communist or dictatorships. Hmmm.
Look at some of the other forms of government and their results; dictatorships—costing hundreds of millions of lives. (Iraq recently has uncovered more than 300,000 mass graves.) Cambodia more than one million dead and all of their intelligentsia! Etc.
For those of you opposed to a democracy, what would you replace it with? A monarchy with you as the monarch? (We’ve been that route and didn’t like it.)
Look forward to a reply.
Agree with you old dog, democracy not perfect but better than others.......
To hell with democracy, its causing us all trouble. Democracy is anarchy. Constitutions, good faith, liberalism, none of that shit works because people abuse it all the time. They have since argubly the first democracy was established in Athens in 400AD, and they will in the future. You can't trust people to vote correctly because they don't care. Why not make the vote compulsory so we get decent turnouts unlike the PATHETIC 52% turnout at the General Election in 2001. It makes me sick, people cant be arsed to vote and then complain about the situation thereafter. Sort your lives out.
Actually you don't know how right you are there. Read some anarchist theory sometime.
Describe to me a system in which the people in Britain today would be better off.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Democracy and Anarchy are opposites.
Democracy as Greeks understood the word is ‘ruling of mob’ while Anarchy means ABSENCE of ruling.
Not touching monarchy I just want to say why democracy is bad.
Do you remember why Gandalf refused to take The Ring? Not because it was evil but because it gave too much power to its …master(?). And his good intentions weren’t excuses they rather made him more dangerous. Democracy is power driven to the point of absurdity. The system where everybody has his small Ring.
You don’t like this or that? Well, vote and it will be banned. You want to have anything for free? Vote and you’ll get it at others’ expense.
Democracy is a system where everybody can rule his neighbour and the neighbour can rule him back. But this ruling is nothing but illusion. You are happy that your neighbour may be fined and jailed for his bad behaviour ( if he for example smokes ‘bad’ grass or doesn’t keep his backyard in ‘proper’ order). But you lose in long run because your rules for others boomerang to you when others ban and control stuff you don’t want to be banned and controlled. The only winner is Governments and its favourite special interest groups.
PS To Toadborg. I‘m going to explain. But please wait a second it’s not an easy task to pack the whole philosophy in a couple of paragraphs. It takes some time. OK? And then…well, you’ll see.
I accept that there are many problems with democracy, and although some could be improved upon from the current system it would never be perfect but what is better?
Not true. Anarchism is a political theory that does not mean "absence of ruling", it means "without a leader". It means that everyone has a say in how things are done. Democracy at its purest.
I cannot suggest an alternative to your crappy politically correct democracy that you liberals will deem viable.