What is Democracy

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
so then make sure that it is illegal for people to be enslaved and for others to take and to coerce others. a democracy doesnt necesasairlyu do this.

Yes. But who would you want to decide this? A "despot" (i.e somebody who doesn't have a democratic mandate)? If he infringes on your freedom to enslave, where is the telling he won't infringe on your freedom to sodomize next?

[Berzerker]

What is it that gives the majority in a true democracy the right to impose themselves on the minority.

Might makes right, that's the transparently immoral basis for democracy, and people who preach democracy only like it when they are in the majority, i.e., it's inherently hypocritical.

And what are the limits to that imposition?

This is where we hear platitudes about protecting individual rights, but again, the majority ends up deciding what those rights should be - nice little catch-22.

if the majority of people thought that all immigration to the US needs to be stopped, would that make them right?

Ask the owners. When property such as public property and borders are "communal", majority rule holds sway over minority rule. The justification? One could at least argue the majority should have a greater say than the minority regarding property owned by more than 2 co-owners.

what if they thought that only whites can be admitted into america? is that right?

Immoral perhaps, but it's still their right to set policy on communally owned property.

or what if the majority decided that slavery was the way to go? does this justify slavery.

Nothing can justify slavery, and this question shows why democracy is a morally bankrupt ideology.

my question i guess is how can we rely and trust in a democracy when there is no inherent limit to what the majority can do.

Can't, just keep telling everyone how free we are as we add more laws to the millions we already have.

[Spiffor]

Edit:

Might makes right, that's the transparently immoral basis for democracy, and people who preach democracy only like it when they are in the majority, i.e., it's inherently hypocritical.

False. I preach democracy and the maximal use of referenda (as long as it is practical) even when I know the results will be unfavourable to my ideas.

---

Who gets to decide whether slavery is legal or illegal then? What form of government is less "morally bankrupt" than democracy?

[Berzerker]

False. I preach democracy and the maximal use of referenda (as long as it is practical) even when I know the results will be unfavourable to my ideas.

What if the majority wanted to enslave you and your family? It's easy to be a "democrat" when the majority makes small demands on you, but when those demands become intolerable, democracy isn't a pretty picture and even the most ardent proponents of democracy would have to admit it is a morally bankrupt ideology.

Who gets to decide whether slavery is legal or illegal then?

In a democracy, the majority. Your question makes 2 assumptions - that someone or some group however large has the moral authority to decide whether or not you can be enslaved and that a state can be created to enforce their decision. I reject both assumptions... I look at such questions with the state removed from the picture to determine what should be once the state is introduced into the picture. Since it is immoral for me to enslave another person, it cannot become moral for me to create or use a state to enslave others. Effectively, I make the decision but it's not really a decision since I don't even contemplate whether or not I can or should be allowed to enslave others.

What form of government is less "morally bankrupt" than democracy?

A constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, that's about as moral as any government can get.

[mrmitchell]

Yes. But who would you want to decide this? A "despot" (i.e somebody who doesn't have a democratic mandate)? If he infringes on your freedom to enslave, where is the telling he won't infringe on your freedom to sodomize next?

Enslavement infringes on anothers' rights. Sodomy doesn't.

Rights stop when they are the direct cause of infringing another's rights.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Enslavement infringes on anothers' rights. Sodomy doesn't.

As always: "says who?"

[mrmitchell]

If you enslave me, you're busting my right to work as I choose. Logic says.

Sodomy doesn't directly (DIRECTLY!) **** anyone else's rights.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
In a democracy, the majority. Your question makes 2 assumptions - that someone or some group however large has the moral authority to decide whether or not you can be enslaved and that a state can be created to enforce their decision. I reject both assumptions...

Great. Then what happens if your neighbour starts to randomly enslave people, and there is no State to put an end to his actions?

I look at such questions with the state removed from the picture to determine what should be once the state is introduced into the picture. Since it is immoral for me to enslave another person, it cannot become moral for me to create or use a state to enslave others. Effectively, I make the decision

So the epitome of a morally great political system is your own little world. Do you intend to port this bright idea to the real world?

but it's not really a decision since I don't even contemplate whether or not I can or should be allowed to enslave others.

What about other people whose morality is less spotless than yours?

A constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, that's about as moral as any government can get.

Again, who says what the "libertarian principles" are? David Floyd? Berzerker? LoA? Ayn Rand? What makes one of these versions more right than the others?

[kolpo]

There is no objective commonly accepted base on which you can call one mind more important then an other mind so democracy is the most logical system to decide things.

Quite every nation that has a constitution has a democratic way to change that constitution. If in the USA 3/4(or do you only need 2/3, not sure) of the states vote for an anti-consitution party then can that party use an amandement to get rid of the constitution so it is still a democracy.

For the people who are againsts democray: please give me an alternative. Even if you have a constitution shall that constitution somehow have to be decided by either the majority or a despot and quite all constitutions can on democratic ways be changed or even cancelled.

If the majority wants to really change the consitution shall they do that, there democratic ellected leader can always say "I declare the constitution null and void and I order the army and the police to arrest every judge who still follows the constitution or considers this ruling illegal" as long as more then 50% of the army/police support that can he do that and there is nothing you can do against it. A constitution is nothing more then a piece of paper, when the majority really wants to get rid of it shall they get rid of it. It is not some sort of physical law that can't be changed.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
If you enslave me, you're busting my right to work as I choose. Logic says.

I don't care about logic. I care about people.

If somebody (or some institution) is in position to tell slavery is illegal, why would that somebody not be in position to tell sodomy is illegal? What makes sodomy magically protected from the lawmaker?

(for the record, I have absolutely no problem with sodomy - I am precisely comparing something that we all agree should be outlawed with something we all agree should be allowed)

[mrmitchell]

f in the USA 3/4(or do you only need 2/3, not sure) of the states vote for an anti-consitution party then can that party use an amandement to get rid of the constitution so it is still a democracy.

IIRC 2/3 of the Congress vote, then 3/4 of the States must approve it.

[Berzerker]

As always: "says who?"

Everyone, that's the beauty of the golden rule and why it is a solid foundation for government wrt rights. No one wants to be enslaved, so only a hypocrite would enslave others.

[mrmitchell]

If somebody (or some institution) is in position to tell slavery is illegal, why would that somebody not be in position to tell sodomy is illegal? What makes sodomy magically protected from the lawmaker?

I just told you. Logic The lawmaker wouldn't...oh, I think I get what you mean

Well we'd need a bunch of checks and balances, like the USA.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Everyone, that's the beauty of the golden rule and why it is a solid foundation for government wrt rights. No one wants to be enslaved, so only a hypocrite would enslave others.

It's funny history has known so many hypocrites then. The ancient Egyptians had slave, as did the 1861 Americans. And slavery was a consistent historical fact, that was nearly universal as well.

Unless you posit that nobody is a hypocrite anymore, I ask my question again: what happens if your (hypocrite) neighbour starts enslaving people?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Well we'd need a bunch of checks and balances, like the USA.

Yes. And again, the question of "who writes the rules" come to mind. And that's because the real question is "what makes several people agree to a common rule?"

The question asked in this thread (democracy), is fundamentally a question about who wields power. With my annoying questions, I just want to force the libertarians to acknowledge power must be held by someone or some people at some point (something I think you understand, mrmitchell)

The Libertarians seem to want to live in a dream world where there is no need of power. I believe that this real world needs power. Once this is posited, the question is about who the Libs prefer... Elected people representing the will of the people? Themselves, being inherently superior to everybody else? Some despot they happen to agree with? The strongest kid of the block who'll beat them up until they pledge allegiance to him? WHO?