What is Democracy

[GePap]

Well Imran, they give out those Pol sci BA's with honors like hotcakes. They even gave me one as well.

Maybe Boris you need to read some Hobbes. While his idea of natural man in war is a bit stupid, his general ideas about the Leviathan are correct. I think Hobbes is a bit better than Locke, whose view of natural man is even LESS realistic.

[Fake Boris]

According to you, something legitimate is conform to the law. And the law has to be made by something legitimate.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
Maybe Boris you need to read some Hobbes. While his idea of natural man in war is a bit stupid, his general ideas about the Leviathan are correct. I think Hobbes is a bit better than Locke, whose view of natural man is even LESS realistic.

If anything, Hobbes demonstrate the necessity of legitimacy. Hobbes asks the question, but Rousseau answers it with much more competence.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
According to you, something legitimate is conform to the law. And the law has to be made by something legitimate.

It is not circular is you realize there is a starting point. There is a time before law, before legitimacy. IN fact, law and legitimacy grow hand in hand. This all happened several thousands of years ago. Since then were are only working within a system already. Unless you think language springs from nowhere ready-made.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


If anything, Hobbes demonstrate the necessity of legitimacy. Hobbes asks the question, but Rousseau answers it with much more competence.

Rousseau has many good points-his notion of how government starts though is the least plausible and the one without any real empirical evidence for.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


It is not circular is you realize there is a starting point. There is a time before law, before legitimacy. IN fact, law and legitimacy grow hand in hand. This all happened several thousands of years ago. Since then were are only working within a system already. Unless you think language springs from nowhere ready-made.

Errr... there has always been laws, from the point individuals live together. Your answer doesn't solve the problem though; what made the first law legitimate?

Even Hobbes believed that the Leviathan can only be chosen by consent. From there, consent has always played some part when philosophers tried to define the legitimacy of a social contract.

According to you, the word 'legitimate' itself has originated from the idea of a state? That's probably true; through time, someone who had imposed his sovereignty had his people believe that something can only be legitimate (a moral statement) when it originates from a state (and thus was created the gods-sanctioned monarchy).

When Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and the likes question the exact meaning of the word legitimacy, you obviously cannot oppose them that the meaning is already 'fixed'. They are trying to define the validity of a moral statement, for Christ's sake!

You still have not answered one my question. Why is it that sometimes the rule of the majority isn't democratic? If you say it always is (which I hope you won't), I suggest you write an essay about the legitimacy of the invasion of Denmark by Germany, or the occupation of Korea by Japan.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

The truth is that there is no clear-cut definition of fascism. Some will define it from the ideological principles revendicated by its proponents, others would rather do this by looking at the historical perspective behind it and its 'untold' characteristics. That's why we disagreed so much that fascism had to be anti-semitic. According to some historians, it has, since such a system of values could never be built without a racial enemy to pit against your own nationalism.

So if you insist, I will withdraw my accusation, and say that GePap and you are Nazis but not fascists.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Errr... there has always been laws, from the point individuals live together. Your answer doesn't solve the problem though; what made the first law legitimate?

The tribal elder.

[Flip McWho]

Democracy is basically bollocks. Who's with me?

I'm with you. Though a virtual democracy or a true democracy like the Edenists in The Nights Dawn Trilogy by Peter F Hamilton.

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

Concur fully, maybe not fully with the AI one.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

Huh? We all desire to be sodomized? Must tell that to Ben Kenobi and Park Avenue More seriously, this sentence was not aimed at being bulletproof, but at showing a point: all of us (implied: intelligent polytubbies that are not completely bigoted) agree that sodomy should be legal. I never meant the absolute unanimity of the world felt so. Quite the contrary actually, if you look at the backward countries.

You said there are some things we all agree should be illegal and some things we don't agree on, the former is a universal desire. Like I said, no one wants to be murdered (don't add caveats to create incentives to be murdered), so we all can agree that murder should be illegal. Even murderers don't want to be murdered...

Which is different with everyone agreeing it's the right thing to do.

Yes, but you still require unaminity out the outset. Therefore I understood you quite well...

So, the only difference between a democracy and a libertarian system is the extent to which the State intrudes in personal freedoms. So basically, the libertarians would enjoy living in a democratic system, if they were ensured a satisfying set of freedoms would be left untouched for eternity.

Yup, restrict what the majority can do. But democracies don't have those restrictions even when they start out with them via a written constitution. Written documents can be ignored, "re-interpreted", or amended.

Of course I prefer my own to that of the majority's. And I prefer my own to yours, miles away

So we're back to my question, why criticize me for favoring my morality over the majority's when you do the same thing?

I dislike forcing people to my beliefs. Hence, for my system to be more moral than majority rule, it'd have to be approved by the majority

Which is majority rule, so how can it be more moral than majority rule? What about those who don't want your system? You're imposing your system on them...

Does it mean the victim of any other offense, that doesn't leave them dead, has the moral authority of retribution?

Yes, just as they had the right of self-defense. If I try to murder you and I fail because you killed me in self-defense, then why should I be rewarded if I succeed and you fail in your defense? That's what happens if I'm not put to death for murdering you, I'm rewarded for being successful in killing you.

Say, if I am a victim of theft, should I be the one who decides the punishment for the thief?

In the absence of a state, yes. But with a state in existence we transfer your moral authority to the state.

What prevents me from deciding to quarter the little punk who stole my watch?

The moral concept of action and reaction (an eye for an eye comes to mind). If I accidently drive into your fence, morality dictates appropriate compensation and in obedience of morality we seek that appropriate compensation.

Well, that wasn't my intention when entering this thread, but if you really wish...
I don't hold freedom for being an absolute good, something where we should be maximalist. Freedom is good, until the strong exploits the weak. In this regard I live by the word of Lacordaire: "Between the strong and the weak, it is freedom which oppresses and law which liberates".

Be specific about what constitutes "exploitation".

Your own system is full of limitations of the freedom to be a criminal, your own system acknwoledges there is no freedom to kill, to rape, to cannibalize etc. Which is good.

Not true, freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action...murder and rape are constraints on choice or action, therefore they fail to meet the requirements of freedom.

However, your system strongly lacks such protection in economic matters, and this is by far my main beef with it. A libertarian boss can exploit his workforce however he wants, because "they signed the contract" - the Libs seem to refuse to acknowledge that in their system, many workers have no choice but work for exploitative bosses or die of starvation...

If you don't want to work for someone, don't work for them. That isn't exploitation and it isn't the fault of employers that you need to eat, therefore they aren't exploiting you... Nature "exploits" us...

That's like saying a victim of rape has a choice between being raped or killed by the knife of the rapist.

So if I refuse to pay what you want to be paid, I'm like a rapist? C'mon!

Besides, the absolute lack of welfare, and (in the floydist version of libertarianism, I don't know if you share this aspect with him) of public education, just forces the poor to accept whatever crap they find for their mere survival, without a chance to ensure a future for them or their children.

Welfare creates dependency and seeks to replace fathers with the state thereby driving up out of wedlock birthrates...and we can see what a disaster that has been on poverty rates. But my needs do not create for me a right to take what belongs to others. As for education, one wonders how mankind got by before government schools, but is it just a coincidence that the cost of education has skyrocketed as the state subsidises education more and more? If the state wasn't taking so much of our money, people could more readily afford private educations for their children and the big hearted people like yourself could subsidise the educations of the poorest people and still have plenty left over before reaching what the state takes.

I happen to agree with Libertarians on most issues regarding personal freedoms, because personal freedoms very rarely imply a relation between the strong and the weak.

Yes, I constantly hear liberals and conservatives say they are "libertarian" on this or that issue, but freedom is not a commodity that can be consumed by nibbling here or there. Either you believe in freedom or you don't. Even Hitler "believed" in freedom on some issues...

But I disagree with Libertarians on all economic matters I can think of. The basic flaw of libertarianism is the belief that people have agreed to be exploited.

You call it exploitation, I don't. Someone wants to give me money in exchange for my time/labor? Great! That's how I can transform time into things I want like cars and TV's made by other people's labor.

You speak about caveats, and this is a big one: people only agree to cope up with bad working conditions (and now doubt the working conditions would be worse in libertarianism than what we have today, since there would be no regulation), because they are pressed by their survival to do so. That's a caveat if I ever saw one - and it isn't a mental disorder, it is the norm for everybody that is expandable.

So that's a caveat, what does it have to do with universal desires? All you've shown is that working in horrible conditions is not a universal desire. Consider where all those poor 3rd worlders would be without "sweat shops". I suggest you look at how ancient people's lived before decrying the advancements libertarian style economics brought the world.

Yes, libertarianism will starve and exploit the poor in a fashion similar to 19th century Europe, or modern-day very backward countries.

19th century Europe was run by monarchs and caste systems like they had in England. Libertarianism took hold in the USA and helped create the greatest country the world has ever seen.

That's because the bosses will be free to do whatever they want with their expandable employees, who'll have no choice but to cope with that, or to die of starvation.

Where has this ever happened without the state lurking in the background?

And Libertarians will say "See? The employees agree! They are free to leave the company!"

And start there own businesses, or seek other employers who have an incentive to create better conditions in order to attract better employees, or lobby their current employer. It's no coincidence that the worker revolts here in the US resulted from the creation of corporations and political machines like New York's Taminy Hall and Chicago, not the prior more libertarian decades. These abuses people generally think of as you have accompanied the rise of political power and the decline of libertarianism. So don't blame the results of the increasing concentration of power on libertarianism.

This is horribly immoral in my book. And this is why, should the Libs ever pose a threat to take power, I'd consider libertarians my political enemies (on par with fascists) rather than my political opponents: because their system would destroy the very fabric of our society, because their system would disband everything that separates our civilization from the Jungle's law.

The irony is that while you complain about tyrants, you share their worldview, you want to dictate how others live their lives too. Any benevolence you have doesn't change that reality...

Wouldn't "free practice of religion" give an allowance to do whatever you want if you disguise under religious belief? Say my religion requires me to kill libertarians, would it be ok to practice my religion freely?

I've already addressed your misconceptions about the meaning of freedom. The absence of coercion or constraint is required for freedom to exist, murder is a constraint.

I happen to disagree on the ban on polygamy (or at least on the reasons leading to it). But since there should be no absolute freedom af action (no freedom of murder, rape etc.), there should be no absolute freedom of religious action or political action or whatever, for the same reason there should be no absolute freedom of "generic" action.

Where in the definition of freedom have you found the word "absolute"? I'd like to know because I constantly hear that word tossed in as if there are multiple meanings for freedom including "absolute" freedom and "partial" or "occasional" freedom. What does the absence of the word "absolute" in the definition tell you?
It tells me to look closely at the definition to see what parameters may be there to advise us on whether or not murder qualifies as an act of freedom.

Imran -

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.

Religion is an idea, it wouldn't explain how one goes about joining a religion. Do you see the word "bound" in that definition? Why not? For the reason I just gave you. But we do see the word "bound" in the definition of slavery. Why? Because slavery is not just an idea, it's also an action - and a slave is "bound" into slavery by another.

If you read the Golden Rule, that's literally what results.

Is that really what you got from the GR? Then I suggest you do a bit more reading to see what context Jesus provided.

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.

No Imran, I understand that the GR exists in a context and that context further explains for the incredibly dense and contrarians how it is to be interpreted. Sorry, I shouldn't have given you that much credit, you're studying to be a pharisee.

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

No, the common practice nowadays is to regulate what can or can't be done with the land thereby nullifying the owners ability to use the land as he chooses. Actual takings are much more rare than the employment of regulations, just consider "wetlands" regulations and how they stymie development or how "historical landmark" regulations are used to prevent people from improving or removing old structures on their property.

Yes it does.

No, here is what appears in Webster's New Collegiate:

War - a state of hostility, conflict, or antogonism; a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end.

It doesn't require that a state be a participant in a war nor does there have to be any organisation.

Are they charged with 'murder' or 'crimes against humanity'?

Murder is a crime, Saddam is guilty of murder on a massive scale. When the number of crimes are too numerous to briefly describe they are called "crimes against humanity". You watch Fox, haven't you heard about Saddam's "rape rooms"? Rape is a crime... But obviously legal for certain people in the Iraqi government - another crime against humanity.

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.

The US has refused to sign onto a variety of international laws when Congress saw it against our interest.

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.

Germany as a nation-state had ceased to exist by that time and the US didn't need any international law to defend itself or prosecute the Nazis. Tell me Imran, how do international laws get made? By countries party to the agreement. What if France, Germany and Russia agree to a law that says the US must cut car emissions in half, is the US bound by that law? Of course not...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The tribal elder.

Guess what? The tribal elder was chosen by consent because he was wise and eloquent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because slavery is not just an idea, it's also an action - and a slave is "bound" into slavery by another.

Because you say so? Don't think so. Slavery is ownership of a person by another person.

Is that really what you got from the GR? Then I suggest you do a bit more reading to see what context Jesus provided.

The 'context' he provided was the Golden Rule had to conform to all the other stuff he said about God. So baseing a solely on the Golden Rule is silly. You can't have the context with the rest of the religious stuff, and we don't live in theocracies.

No, here is what appears in Webster's New Collegiate:

I'll take the the international relations definition... and if anyone is allowed to give the definitive definition on war it should be them.

Your definition is extrodinarily broad. Was the Hatfields vs. the McCoys a war? I think not.

Murder is a crime, Saddam is guilty of murder on a massive scale.

But he isn't. Murder is unlawful killing... which is why he can't be charged with it! It wouldn't hurt to actually read my posts.

The US has refused to sign onto a variety of international laws when Congress saw it against our interest.

Uh huh... and yet international law doesn't care. If, sometime in the future, the US is occupied like Nazi Germany was, internation law, even that not signed by the US will be applied to it. Just like international law was applied to the Nazis at Nuremburg even though they never signed onto those provisions.

Tell me Imran, how do international laws get made? By countries party to the agreement.

You have an interesting notion of international law. Treaties are only one porition of international law. International law also gets made by custom and general practice. There are also those special customs (jus cogens) which cannot be treatied out of... for example you can make a treaty with country B permitting genocide.

[Fake Boris]

My friend Imran has given up on demonstrating that law makes legitimacy and that legitimacy makes law? Good, I see a B pointing on the horizon for you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran has given up on demonstrating that law makes legitimacy and that legitimacy makes law?

Since when? GePap has taken up that. As for your question, who makes the first law legitimate? The person with the most power. Power underlies the law and makes it legitimate.

So basically, you haven't deconstructed society enough if you think law and legitimacy aren't simply part of something else.

I see a B pointing on the horizon for you

Like I said, already got an A. What have you done? I see you haven't answered that .

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Since when? GePap has taken up that. As for your question, who makes the first law legitimate? The person with the most power. Power underlies the law and makes it legitimate.

According to you then 'law' and 'legitimate' are synonyms. "A law is legitimate because it's a law" might give the morons in po sci an A, but in philosophy it would award you a pathetic E.

So basically, you haven't deconstructed society enough if you think law and legitimacy aren't simply part of something else.

Legitimacy is about a moral statement, and thus does not result from a matter of facts.