What is Democracy

[Imran Siddiqui]

I did read that definition and nowhere did I see the words "choose to be a slave".

In a definition of religion, nowhere does it say 'chose to be a certain religion', does that mean you can't chose to be part of a religion? Piss poor argument from you.

most people reading the GR understand that wasn't what Jesus was talking about. He wasn't suggesting it's okay to murder people if you don't mind being murdered (you'd know that given the context of his message).

If you read the Golden Rule, that's literally what results. What are the limits? Obvious it isn't do unto others what you would have others do unto you, because you've just said that some things are out of bounds. Therefore your governance ISN'T based on the Golden Rule, but one something else, which binds the Golden Rule to certain specific instances.

The common practice to get around that law is to merely regulate land use without physically taking it.

Actually the common practice to get around it is designate the land for public use when taking it.

The general definition of war doesn't require a state or organisation.

Yes it does.

Does the phrase "crimes against humanity" ring a bell? Murder is a crime, so how can a state commit crimes?

Are they charged with 'murder' or 'crimes against humanity'? You are making my point for me. The state CAN commit crimes if it violates international law which is above state law. And the US doesn't have to sign onto international law (in fact in most cases you don't SIGN anything... a lot of times its custom), the other states will designate what the international law is from their actions over the period of years of history and it will be judged binding on any state.

To use your favorite Nazi example, the Nuremburg trials were the assertion of a new international law on a country which had rejected it. Though it kind of helped in the implimentation that the Germans had been utterly destroyed in the war.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


A Tyranny (for exmaple in the form of an absolute monarchy) can be legitimate. The notion that legitimacy stems from "the will of the people" is a modern invention, and even then, the "will of the people" was never meant to be unanimous.

Legitimacy is created over time. Merely by existing a regime begins to build legitimacy, which is certainly built at first on fear, fear os social exclusion, fear of reprisal.

Again, you can't discount the fact Government does NOT come into existance out of this air-government builds up form a pre-government existance in which man still lives in social bands. So the grounds of legitimacy are built there, in the social mores of pre-government. Once the concept of government comes into being, then people can argue about the concept that grants legitimacy.

So what gives? Can you really think that a dictatorship of the majority is legitimate? If we look back at the idea of democracy, it just can't. The idea behind democracy was never the rule of the majority. Following your logic, America imposing its rule on Iraq is democratic. After all, a majority is ruling over a minority. See? Before even talking about legitimacy, one has to acknowledge that a people is a people - that's the first golden rule.

If you think that governments and their legitimacy arise from pre-social bands, fine. But questioning its legitimacy is part of this process too, and that's what we're at in the contemporary world. Basically, you seem to be saying that legitimacy criteria have always been different - and then you try to conclude from this, well, I don't really know, except perhaps that we must take into account a so-called previous legitimacy. In turn, that would mean that the prime criterium of legitimacy, according to you, is tradition. Obviously, a group of humans under the rule of a tyran is not the same as a 'people', who recognizes himself as such. Modern thinking always boild down to something like this. A State is just not a State, unless the power it holds has been willingly delegated, instead of stolen out of fear.

If you think that there's no difference between both, well, the fascist party is waiting for you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
For me, the issue isn't one of morality, it is of logical consistency, and libertarian principles are more consistent than communism in my opinion.

Ben, communism is not a political system, it is an economic system. At any rate, a logically consistent argument (i.e. valid argument) is not necessarily a sound argument.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I disagree. Where things are open to interpretation, all you need is a means of preventing people from forcing their arbitrary interpretations upon each other, a consensus is probably the worse thing that could happen in that case.

If so, you are not going to end up with any system at all. No two persons are going to agree on all (political) issues.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And the proper term would be amoral, since libertarianism seems to imply room for individual morality, in an emotive or prescriptive sense.

No, it's immoral because this system enshrines and worships the "right" to private property. Libertarians hold such a right to be absolute, everything else, such as public good, must give way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In turn, that would mean that the prime criterium of legitimacy, according to you, is tradition.

That's true. People must believe the state has legitimacy (at the very least so they won't revolt) and that comes from tradition, a fostering of a suitable 'internal point of view' to paraphrase H.L.A. Hart.

A State is just not a State, unless the power it holds has been willingly delegated, instead of stolen out of fear.

Not really. I mean look at, say, Saudi Arabia. That's a state... I don't think the power of the rulars of the country have be willingly delegated. Not really it hasn't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


So what gives? Can you really think that a dictatorship of the majority is legitimate? If we look back at the idea of democracy, it just can't. The idea behind democracy was never the rule of the majority. Following your logic, America imposing its rule on Iraq is democratic. After all, a majority is ruling over a minority. See? Before even talking about legitimacy, one has to acknowledge that a people is a people - that's the first golden rule.

Of course the idea of democracy was rule of the mayority-that is what the dammed word means! As for your golden rule-the notion of national sovereignty is itself only a few centuries old, not universal. How then can it be a golden rule?

Obviously, a group of humans under the rule of a tyran is not the same as a 'people', who recognizes himself as such. Modern thinking always boild down to something like this. A State is just not a State, unless the power it holds has been willingly delegated, instead of stolen out of fear.

False, a state is only a demarcation of territory ruled by a single political structure. The requisite for statehoood is a legitimate monopoly on violence within an area of land.

If you think that there's no difference between both, well, the fascist party is waiting for you.

This sort of oversimplification is not helpful or valid.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
Of course the idea of democracy was rule of the mayority-that is what the dammed word means!

It's the rule of the majority over a WILLING minority. Or else it's a tyranny. According to you, anytime a majority rules over a minority, there is a democracy?

As for your golden rule-the notion of national sovereignty is itself only a few centuries old, not universal. How then can it be a golden rule?

Ahem... nationalism has existed since the dawn of humanity. Haven't you heard of the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Assyrians, the Nervians, the Huns?
A human is a social animal, probably by nature. Hence the need to identify himself to a collectivity. At the time of paleolithic roving bands, or of city states, that wasn't hard. It's only with the appearance of empires - those you confuse with legitimate States - that it became a true problem.

False, a state is only a demarcation of territory ruled by a single political structure. The requisite for statehoood is a legitimate monopoly on violence within an area of land.

We're talking about a legitimate state here. Are you following? There's a word to make that nifty difference you keep banging on, and that's "empire".

The requisite for a legitimate state would be that the monopoly of violence has been delegated by the citizens, not taken by force. We call it 'private organization' vs. a 'public' one.

This sort of oversimplification is not helpful or valid.

You seem to be defending the idea that might makes right. While this alone may not apply to make you a fascist, that's a good start.

It's sad to see how Nietzsche's fanatics like you and Imran can be so ignorant when it comes to political philosophy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to you, anytime a majority rules over a minority, there is a democracy?

Well yes. That's what true democracy is. One of the definitions of democracy is 'Majority Rule'.

We're talking about a legitimate state here.

Yeah, so was he. The only thing that makes a state 'legitimate' is that is if it has control over its own borders.

The requisite for a legitimate state would be that the monopoly of violence has been delegated by the citizens, not taken by force.

It is nice that you are making **** up, but this is incredibly false. I'm sorry, but NO ONE considers Saudi Arabia to be an illegitimate state. Legitimate state is simply where you have one that exercises power over the boundaries of the state.

Liberal political theory may say that in order for a government to have legitimacy it must be by the will of the people but that ain't true, and has been shown historically to not be the case.

You seem to be defending the idea that might makes right. While this alone may not apply to make you a fascist, that's a good start

Do you have any idea what Fascism is?

It's sad to see how Nietzsche's fanatics like you and Imran can be so ignorant when it comes to political philosophy.

Actually it is quite the opposite. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[GePap]

To repeat much of waht imran said

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It's the rule of the majority over a WILLING minority. Or else it's a tyranny. According to you, anytime a majority rules over a minority, there is a democracy?

Yes. In fact, we are also only mentioning the mayority of CITIZENS. In the first democracy, Athens, the mayority had no rights whatsoever, but since a mayority of citizens got to rule, it was a democracy. IN fact, Even Apartheid South Africa was a a democracy. The fact is democracy =/ liberal universal human rights. Democracy as an idea is 2500 years old and vaslty outdates liberal rights theory.

Ahem... nationalism has existed since the dawn of humanity. Haven't you heard of the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Assyrians, the Nervians, the Huns?

Yes, I have. What you describe is tribalism-which is different from Nationalism.

A human is a social animal, probably by nature. Hence the need to identify himself to a collectivity. At the time of paleolithic roving bands, or of city states, that wasn't hard. It's only with the appearance of empires - those you confuse with legitimate States - that it became a true problem.

An Empire is simply a term for a state. The Roman ampire fell apart form the outside, not in. IN fact, people wanted to join the Roman empire, be part of it. Oh, and there is a fundamental difference between a band and a Polis. In fact, any grouping which is so large as to deny you the ability to know everyone is different from one in whcih you can get to know everyone.

We're talking about a legitimate state here. Are you following? There's a word to make that nifty difference you keep banging on, and that's "empire".

Empires are as leigitmate as non-empires.

The requisite for a legitimate state would be that the monopoly of violence has been delegated by the citizens, not taken by force. We call it 'private organization' vs. a 'public' one.

Wrong. In no state do the citizens "delegate" that power. As Agie said, those today have no inherent right to give away the right of the future people to say no, yet people born into the system have no right to denounce it, unless they get together and overthrow the monopoly of violence.

You seem to be defending the idea that might makes right. While this alone may not apply to make you a fascist, that's a good start.

Sorry, but the start of law is always might makes right. There is no law in anarchy, when no one person is powerful enough to make that decision. That you don;t accept that in your liberterian world does not make it false.

It's sad to see how Nietzsche's fanatics like you and Imran can be so ignorant when it comes to political philosophy.

I am sorry, but you got this backwards. Imran and I are the ones who know what the basis of Politics are, and thus are better able to discuss it than someone thinking his theories make the world. Sorry, but the world makes theories.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mean, really, Oncle Boris, GePap and I don't agree on much, so if we do agree on something it must be right .

[GePap]

We agree on a lot of grond floor stuff. You just got horribly lost somewhere and can;t see the light anymore.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On the contrary, I believe I'm in the light, while your digging downwards .

[GePap]

As an avowed relativist, to you light, dark, same thing...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn... you got me there

*runs*

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well yes. That's what true democracy is. One of the definitions of democracy is 'Majority Rule'.

Not at all. Majority rule is a result of suffrage and representation, which were caused by the fact that immense states tried to be democratic. In essence, democracy is the rule by consensus. Hence the etymology, 'power of the people'.

It's sad indeed that people have come to believe that democracy=suffrage. That fallacy would be similar to saying that a monachy is a system where the leader gets to screw all the women he wants. That may be a contingent truth, but it has nothing to do with the essence of the system.

We're talking about a legitimate state here.

Yeah, so was he. The only thing that makes a state 'legitimate' is that is if it has control over its own borders.

Tell me, by what rule should I obey force? What does make force legitimate? Go study international law if you please, and its absurd rules, but don't soil philosophy with your non-sense. According to you, Stalin was legitimate, but Toussaint L'Ouverture wasn't?

The requisite for a legitimate state would be that the monopoly of violence has been delegated by the citizens, not taken by force.

It is nice that you are making **** up, but this is incredibly false. I'm sorry, but NO ONE considers Saudi Arabia to be an illegitimate state. Legitimate state is simply where you have one that exercises power over the boundaries of the state.

An organization that doesn't defend public interest is private, it's not public, it's not fully legitimate. Of course, there are varying degrees to it, as I don't think that Saudi rulers completely ignore the will of the people, and neither has any ruler in history AFAIK.

That's why it can be said for realpolitik reasons that Saudi Arabia is a legitimate state, but such kind of simplifications just don't have their place in a serious argument.

Liberal political theory may say that in order for a government to have legitimacy it must be by the will of the people but that ain't true, and has been shown historically to not be the case.

History absolutely doesn't have anything to do with legitimacy. NOTHING AT ALL. The aim of liberal political theory is to assert true statements, not apply a circular definition of legitimacy (if legitimate is "what there is" - what's the need of the word legitimate then?).

Do you have any idea what Fascism is?

For starters, nazism, the German penchant of fascism, believed that the stronger had the right to subdue the weaker. Thus the purification camps where Jews, retards and homosexuals were exterminated, and the idea that the people of Eastern Europe were made to be slaves of the Aryan race. The ideological aim of WW2 was to use the superior strength of the German race to achieve these goals. In fact, according to you and GePap, the Nazi conquest of Poland was legitimate and democratic because a majority ruled over a minority.

Actually it is quite the opposite. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I did try to explain you the difference between political theory and political philosophy in the other thread. Sadly, your ignorance would make you a D student at best.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Majority rule is a result of suffrage and representation, which were caused by the fact that immense states tried to be democratic. In essence, democracy is the rule by consensus. Hence the etymology, 'power of the people'.

Actually, rule of the people. I don't see where that precludes majority rule as democracy? Was ancient Athens not a democracy (even though that's where the word comes from?)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy

Look at Definition 4.

What does make force legitimate?

The fact that the person wielding the force has the power to rule and make decisions for the populace.

According to you, Stalin was legitimate, but Toussaint L'Ouverture wasn't?

DUH! Only a complete moron would assert that Stalin's government wasn't a legitmate government. I bet the millions of Russians could tell you that it was, because they felt the whip of Stalin for that many years.

An organization that doesn't defend public interest is private, it's not public, it's not fully legitimate.

Bull****. An organization that controls the state is legitimate state authority no matter what interest it defends.

History absolutely doesn't have anything to do with legitimacy. NOTHING AT ALL.

Are you really that dense? History has plenty to do with legitimacy. History has created the borders, history has created the governments. Without history no country in the world has any legitimacy.

if legitimate is "what there is" - what's the need of the word legitimate then?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legitimate

1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the legitimate theater.

Seems that it means "what there is" (1, 2, & 5) to me.

For starters, nazism, the German penchant of fascism, believed that the stronger had the right to subdue the weaker.

Actually Fascism is a system which believes in centrality of the nation under an all-powerful government. Naziism, which is a corruption of fascism may have thought the stronger had the right to subdue the weaker, but they didn't really believe it because then they would have said the French and Russians had the right to subdue the Germans after WW1. The racism in German fascism wasn't shared in every brand of fascism.

I did try to explain you the difference between political theory and political philosophy in the other thread.

Aside from the fact that there really is no difference?

Sadly, your ignorance would make you a D student at best.

I graduated with a Bachelor of the Arts in Political Science, with honors. What do you have?