What is Democracy

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

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

Who said there should be no state? If there wasn't, anyone and everyone would be justified in stopping the neighbor - that's why a state would be justified too.

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?

You have a better way of deciding what is moral? Would you rather rely on the democratic majority to tell you what is moral? Spare me the sarcasm, it was neither logical or constructive.

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

What about them?

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?

Begin with the definition of freedom and apply it to real world situations. The Golden Rule is a good place to start too, if no one wants to be enslaved then freedom becomes a universal desire and the basis for a human right.

Spiffor, are you going to answer my questions?




[quote]

[mrmitchell]

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)

Damn. I see your point.

The US, in theory, is the best job so far of this (keeping demoracy AND liberties).

Of course, in reality, it's deteriorated (not so greatly though).

[Agathon]

"The rule of the stupid, clueless majority in preference to a corrupt, fanatical minority."

Next question.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Benevolent dictatorship (assume no corruption and expertise in relevant matters), or possibility of AI technocracy operating on a concrete libertarian principle.

Don't be such a moron. Benevolent dictatorships always degenerate. And I would sincerely love to see what a libertarian society would look like, especially when the rich realize that they only need to overcome computers to get the power.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Don't be such a moron. Benevolent dictatorships always degenerate.

Governments in general always degenerate

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Who said there should be no state?

I believed you said you couldn't support a State that enslaved people. I also understood from previous threads that any State-led coercion was slavery in your mind (such as taxes). Correct me if I am wrong.
And I can't imagine a State that does no coercion. A State is here, at the very least, to enforce the rules people trespass, when they would not listen to reason. Such as your slaver neighbour.

You have a better way of deciding what is moral?

I loathe your morality. I couldn't bear living in a country that applies your stinking principles. Not that it would last long, since I would quickly live under the rule of a local thug anyway. I find it infinitely better to have a system based on the beliefs of most people, instead on the beliefs of the lunatic fringe you belong to. So, to replay your next question:

Would you rather rely on the democratic majority to tell you what is moral?

Definitely. There is no comparison between the majority of the people, and Berzerker alone.

What about them?

Yes, what about them, when they ponder enslaving, killing, raping, stealing? These people of low morality, who dare think of such acts and even act on them. What about them? What about the punishment for them, for breaking your precious morality?

Begin with the definition of freedom and apply it to real world situations.

Do you Libertarians all agree on the same definition of freedom? And what about the non-libertarians who have a different definition of freedom?

The Golden Rule is a good place to start too, if no one wants to be enslaved then freedom becomes a universal desire and the basis for a human right.

Does everybody agree with that statement? Those people who disagree with it, could they opt-out of your political system? Or would they be coerced into accepting your principles?

Spiffor, are you going to answer my questions?

Unless I overlooked any, I think I've answered to all of them.

[Berzerker]

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.

And? "Nearly universal" is an overstatement and irrelevant, the Golden Rule is about how you want to be treated and doing likewise to others, not how hypocrites want to treat others.

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

Others, including the state, would be justified in stopping him.

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?"

Self interest.

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)

Under libertarianism everyone has power and that power can be partially ceded to a state for protection of the remaining power. Generally, the state can only act on your behalf when you can morally act on your own behalf even if you lack the ability.

The Libertarians seem to want to live in a dream world where there is no need of power.

Not true.

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?

I'm assuming you think your system is superior to ours, so stop with the hypocritically snide comments please. Obviously libertarians believe their system should be followed? EVERY ideology's proponents believe their system should be followed and whomever their system empowers to make decisions should have that power... "Democrats" say the majority should have that power until the majority gets out of hand, i.e., democracy is good until the majority does things I hate. That's a contradiction...Libertarians don't want other people forcing their likes and dislikes on you regardless of how many there are using the force.

[Fake Boris]

Everyone in this thread should take a deep breath and read Rousseau's Of Social Contract. It may not be the best political theory ever, but at least it adresses the basics of democratic reasoning in a way that many trivialities being debated here would be solved.

[Berzerker]

I believed you said you couldn't support a State that enslaved people. I also understood from previous threads that any State-led coercion was slavery in your mind (such as taxes). Correct me if I am wrong.
And I can't imagine a State that does no coercion. A State is here, at the very least, to enforce the rules people trespass, when they would not listen to reason. Such as your slaver neighbour.

Not all taxes are coercive and I'm on the fence regarding general taxes for "collective" goods like police and military. This doesn't preclude the existence of a state, just the current state that's uses taxation to "re-distribute" wealth.

I loathe your morality. I couldn't bear living in a country that applies your stinking principles. Not that it would last long, since I would quickly live under the rule of a local thug anyway. I find it infinitely better to have a system based on the beliefs of most people, instead on the beliefs of the lunatic fringe you belong to. So, to replay your next question:

And your morality is based upon what? Majority rule? Then go right ahead and defend Nazi Germany and slavery in the US. The irony here is that while you claim your morality is based on what most people think, my morality is based on what everyone thinks. I just apply the Golden Rule and you don't. If I don't want people taking my money simply because they outnumber me, I cannot consent to joining your mob when it's taking other people's money. So nice of you to expose your hypocrisy though, you obviously feel your system is superior to mine yet you make snide comments about me thinking my system is superior to yours.

Definitely. There is no comparison between the majority of the people, and Berzerker alone.

You can't think for yourself?

Yes, what about them, when they ponder enslaving, killing, raping, stealing? These people of low morality, who dare think of such acts and even act on them. What about them? What about the punishment for them, for breaking your precious morality?

You think slavery and murder are moral? If not, why ridicule me for believing the same? I've already answered your question, anyone and everyone including the state is justified in stopping them.

Do you Libertarians all agree on the same definition of freedom? And what about the non-libertarians who have a different definition of freedom?

There is only one definition of freedom.

Does everybody agree with that statement?

I assume so, let me know if you find someone who wants to be enslaved.

Those people who disagree with it, could they opt-out of your political system? Or would they be coerced into accepting your principles?

Yes and no. This country was founded by people who opted out of a system they disliked.

Unless I overlooked any, I think I've answered to all of them.

I'll settle for just one, if the majority wanted to enslave you and your family would you still be extolling the virtues of your democracy?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And? "Nearly universal" is an overstatement and irrelevant

Yes, it just shows human nature includes going to the deepest lows to get what one wants. I have heard utopies often enough to know one shouldn't bring the ugly side of mankind in.

the Golden Rule is about how you want to be treated and doing likewise to others, not how hypocrites want to treat others.

Others, including the state, would be justified in stopping him.

So, if I understand correctly, the basis of your system is that everybody agrees on the same rules, because they match a universal desire, that tolerates no exception?
What about the people who want to be enslaved? There are some people who feel comfort in such things like knowing their place in society, in knowing whom to obey, in knowing what tomorrow will look like etc. There have been instances of freed slaves who remained with their masters, and continued to work for them like before.
Since these people exist (however few they are), does it make slavery something valid, because some people will accept being enslaved? Does it make the golden rule (the only thing on which you seem to base policy) null and void?

Self interest.

And what happens when opposing self interests clash?

Under libertarianism everyone has power and that power can be partially ceded to a state for protection of the remaining power. Generally, the state can only act on your behalf when you can morally act on your own behalf even if you lack the ability.

Say, I'm one of the loony guys who wouldn't mind being enslaved. As such, I see no problem at the news of a slaver in town. What should the police do? Break down on the slaver, or respect my rights to slavery, and do nothing? After all freedom has stopped being an absolute right in this society, since my loony self has stopped believing in it. It would be immoral for the police, or for the population, to enforce a morality that is not universally shared - they'll infringe on me!

I'm assuming you think your system is superior to ours, so stop with the hypocritically snide comments please. Obviously libertarians believe their system should be followed? EVERY ideology's proponents believe their system should be followed and whomever their system empowers to make decisions should have that power... "Democrats" say the majority should have that power until the majority gets out of hand, i.e., democracy is good until the majority does things I hate. That's a contradiction...

My snide comments aren't hypocritical. I don't want to force my beliefs on people. I want my beliefs to be applied only when this application is deemed legitimate by the people (even by the people who don't agree with me). This way, I wouldn't be using coercion on them, as their democratic system of valors would have them accept their defeat with resignation (=legitimacy).

Besides, I have never crowned myself as the superior authority whose decisions would make the most moral system.

Libertarians don't want other people forcing their likes and dislikes on you regardless of how many there are using the force.

I hate it when people have their dog poop on the sidewalk. They are forcing their dog's crap under my shoes. Why shouldn't they suffer from the regulations set up by angry neighbours such as me? How is forcing your neighbours to walk on your crap any superior than being forced to take care?

[Nimrod]

I forget who used to have a certain quote under their post around here, but it went "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others."

When the founding fathers took up the "bold experiment" of democracy, their reasons were just. After all, you couldnt just go out and rally the people to impeach or recall the king. Heavy taxes on a poeple by a ruler whose lands many of those subjects did not call home.

With the liberties of the revolution, if the people did not like what was being brought up in meeting they could protest. As long as no one was hurt during these massings, they could do it as long as they like.

However democracy in america has evolved into monstrously complex bureaucratic scoial structure that the elected officals will say whatever makes the masses happy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Not all taxes are coercive and I'm on the fence regarding general taxes for "collective" goods like police and military. This doesn't preclude the existence of a state, just the current state that's uses taxation to "re-distribute" wealth.

Good, thanks for the correction.
But what happens if you are in a purist State like Floyd's, where every tax is considered theft?

And your morality is based upon what? Majority rule? Then go right ahead and defend Nazi Germany and slavery in the US. The irony here is that while you claim your morality is based on what most people think, my morality is based on what everyone thinks. I just apply the Golden Rule and you don't. If I don't want people taking my money simply because they outnumber me

I happen to want to contribute to society (yes, even welfare) through taxes. Whenever I get my wage leaflet, I can only feel proud at the sight of the money I poured into the medication of the sick, the retirement of the elderly, the education of the young etc. Am I mad?

I cannot consent to joining your mob when it's taking other people's money. So nice of you to expose your hypocrisy though, you obviously feel your system is superior to mine yet you make snide comments about me thinking my system is superior to yours.

I have no problem with you thinking your system is superior. I have a problem with you thinking you Berzerker are the highest form of morality on Earth, whose decisions are the wisest and truest morals.

You can't think for yourself?

Of course I can. That's why I don't want to live by the principles you dictate to me.

You think slavery and murder are moral? If not, why ridicule me for believing the same? I've already answered your question, anyone and everyone including the state is justified in stopping them.

Back to the political system then, since it is a common decision after all. WHo decides the punishment? Who decides whether the slaver should be mauled, quartered, simply killed with a firearm, whipped, imprisoned, fined, or whatever? Who decides that? Is the punishment for this offense, like all the specifics of public decisions encompassed in the golden rule?

There is only one definition of freedom.

Which is?

I assume so, let me know if you find someone who wants to be enslaved.

You'll always find loonies who wish to be enslaved, raped, abducted or whatever. Heck, there has even been one loonie who wanted to be eaten alive (Germany last year). Does this mean it is OK to eat other people?

Yes and no. This country was founded by people who opted out of a system they disliked.

Good. Then, I hope you'll found a sort of Sealand with Libertarian friends then, and see ow it works out without forcing us to live under such rule.

I'll settle for just one, if the majority wanted to enslave you and your family would you still be extolling the virtues of your democracy?

Of course not, but that would be an emotional statement.

[Berzerker]

Yes, it just shows human nature includes going to the deepest lows to get what one wants. I have heard utopies often enough to know one shouldn't bring the ugly side of mankind in.

And how is this relevant? It is relevant to your position since you derive your morality from the majority which has committed such atrocities. C'mon Spiffor, would you really have concluded slavery was moral if you lived in a country where the majority said it was moral? Of course not, so why claim your morality is based on what the majority thinks?

So, if I understand correctly, the basis of your system is that everybody agrees on the same rules, because they match a universal desire, that tolerates no exception?

What matters is they agree they don't want to be robbed or murdered. Those are universal desires inspite of the fact that there are hypocrites in the world who won't treat others as they want to be treated - that is the principle I apply.

What about the people who want to be enslaved? There are some people who feel comfort in such things like knowing their place in society, in knowing whom to obey, in knowing what tomorrow will look like etc.

C'mon Spiffor, that's ridiculous. People will give up their freedom temporarily to work for what they want even if that's only to achieve some security, but no one wants to be a slave. You're adding caveats, some people are willing to die if their family will receive alot of money, that doesn't mean they want to die. It means they are willing to die to get something of value in return. I'd gladly die if doing so would end disease, that's called a caveat and it doesn't mean I want to die, it means if you introduce other factors into situations, what we want and don't want can change.

There have been instances of freed slaves who remained with their masters, and continued to work for them like before.

So what? Once freed they were free to decide, that ain't slavery anymore, that's employment.

Since these people exist (however few they are), does it make slavery something valid, because some people will accept being enslaved? Does it make the golden rule (the only thing on which you seem to base policy) null and void?

You haven't shown that anyone wants to be enslaved.

And what happens when opposing self interests clash?

Morality enters the picture, where the moral authority to make decisions resides.

Say, I'm one of the loony guys who wouldn't mind being enslaved. As such, I see no problem at the news of a slaver in town. What should the police do? Break down on the slaver, or respect my rights to slavery, and do nothing?

You're introducing another caveat and creating a hypothetical.

After all freedom has stopped being an absolute right in this society, since my loony self has stopped believing in it. It would be immoral for the police, or for the population, to enforce a morality that is not universally shared - they'll infringe on me!

Produce someone who wants to be enslaved without adding a bunch of caveats to create a different situation.

My snide comments aren't hypocritical. I don't want to force my beliefs on people. I want my beliefs to be applied only when this application is deemed legitimate by the people (even by the people who don't agree with me).

You mean everyone must agree with your belief system before you'll want it applied? BS.

This way, I wouldn't be using coercion on them, as their democratic system of valors would have them accept their defeat with resignation (=legitimacy).

Isn't it your system? Explain how it works when you can't enforce your system without everyone agreeing with it? And you call me a utopian? Hell, I don't even believe everyone has to agree with what I want.

Besides, I have never crowned myself as the superior authority whose decisions would make the most moral system.

Does that mean you think there is another known system out there superior to yours but which you reject anyways? Ri...ight.

I hate it when people have their dog poop on the sidewalk. They are forcing their dog's crap under my shoes. Why shouldn't they suffer from the regulations set up by angry neighbours such as me? How is forcing your neighbours to walk on your crap any superior than being forced to take care?

Is that crap on the property of the dog owner? If so, too bad, look where you're walking. If it's on someone else's property, even public property, then the owners of that property get to decide if the dog can poop there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

But what if you choose to be enslaved? Is that allowed? Why or why not? Aren't you choosing where you work.

Spiffor is making good sense on this thread. Saying society should be based on the golden rule is all good and well until someone with some power decides they don't want to be subject to it and has no problem with being a hypocrite.

[Fake Boris]

What I hate when libertarians join the debate is that I have to side with Imran.

EDIT: long time no see eh? glad to see we're both back.