I Have Lost My Faith In Democracy =(

I would like to point out before we begin that the United States is not a democracy, it is a Republic (democratic republic ) .

Now as much as I criticize the government it is all in good meaning for I seek improvement in society and defend human rights. If no one spoke out when wrong was being done we would have a dictatorship.

I defended Democracy for as long as I could think of. I even thought of ways of improving it by making it a Direct Democracy (made a thread about it too).

Many people criticized democracy for majority rule, and yes, that is a flaw of a democracy- the possible tyranny of the many against the few.

The democratic process as we have it today is greatly flawed, but so is democracy in general. A metaphor I can give you to help explain my view on our elections would be you being in a prison with a large inmate. He gives you the choice of whether you want to get fucked in the ass o the top bunk or bottom bunk. No matter what you choose you are still screwed. The same is in our democracy but it is not as obvious. It gives you the illusion of choice while avoiding the key issues.

(the two major parties, democrats and republicans are both on the top right sector of the political graph, the election process does not give you a choice between collectivization and capitalism, between libertarianism and authoritarianism, even the important issues are not decided by you directly, but are at the whims of the elected.)

I have listed some flaws in todays democracy, but even in a direct democracy, things are far from perfect. (yes, I used to stand by it, I still think its a better form than what we have today, but I am criticizing it instead of firmly holding my ground on an issue becuase ideas change, and if we did not accept new ones we would still be burning scientists for heresy)

First of all, there is disagreement, and even if one side wins, lets say 60% to 40%, 40% of people are not satisfied. Lets say the issue that won was to put more money into the military or to enforce a ban on alcohol, curfew, or a mandatory service for the state(just throwing out possible bills but any apply).

The 40% do not agree with the law at all, but are forced to follow it or else sent to jail.

Without further adue, here is my opinion, feel free to crtisize it but please make your responses well thought out:

I have started to believe that all involuntary forms of governments are fascist institutions, and the only way a government can truly be “for the people, by the people” is through voluntary cooperation.

(This is my opinion, so don’t throw at me the definition of fascism, becuase I know it and understand it. The debate about government, when it is really stripped to the core is freedom versus fascism, slaves versus volunteers, authority versus cooperation)

What should happen if 60% of the people want something then?

Originally posted by pacaholic:

What should happen if 60% of the people want something then?

Do it, but dont force other people to do it as well

EDIT: feel free to discuss all in the thread, but my responses may take a while becuase I need to study for a Chemistry final first (yes I procrastinate)

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

What should happen if 60% of the people want something then?

Do it, but dont force other people to do it as well

And how would that work in banning things like speed limits. I don’t think there should be speed limits. So I can drive as fast as I want everywhere?

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

What should happen if 60% of the people want something then?

Do it, but dont force other people to do it as well

And how would that work in banning things like speed limits. I don’t think there should be speed limits. So I can drive as fast as I want everywhere?

Do what you want as long as it does not put other people in harm or takes away their rights

Alright stop. Hammer time.

I Have Lost My Faith In Democracy

I wasn’t aware you ever had any. Interesting to note.

If no one spoke out when wrong was being done we would have a dictatorship.

Truth. This man speaks it.

The same is in our democracy but it is not as obvious. It gives you the illusion of choice while avoiding the key issues.

I’m pretty sure this happens in other political systems as well. Your experience may vary.

I have started to believe that all involuntary forms of governments are fascist institutions

Something akin to a Revolt in 2100 situation? Where if you choose to disagree with the “society” and not follow it’s rules you are given “The Choice”. The choice being banishment to a seemingly “ungoverned” reservation or being psychiatrically treated to conform.

Interesting in theory. Not sure how it might work in practice.

So instead of creating laws the government just issues guidelines?

“Hey guys we don’t think you should drive faster than 40mph on this road but feel free to do so if you want”

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

What should happen if 60% of the people want something then?

Do it, but dont force other people to do it as well

And how would that work in banning things like speed limits. I don’t think there should be speed limits. So I can drive as fast as I want everywhere?

Do what you want as long as it does not put other people in harm or takes away their rights

And what if we disagree with what “puts other people in harm” and what others “rights” are.

90% believe armless people should be allowed to vote, 10% do not
those same 90% believe that armless people have the right, the 10% do not

contributin’

90% believe armless people should be allowed to vote, 10% do not
those same 90% believe that armless people have the right, the 10% do not

“everyone in favor of armless people being able to vote raise their hand!”

Something akin to a Revolt in 2100 situation? Where if you choose to disagree with the “society” and not follow it’s rules you are given “The Choice”. The choice being banishment to a seemingly “ungoverned” reservation or being psychiatrically treated to conform.

Interesting in theory. Not sure how it might work in practice.

I have never heard of that but it us interesting.

I am just exploring the realms of governments and ideas, I’m open minded to any good ideas.

contributin’

lol, I saw that picture before, and its so true in todays system

I have never heard of that but it us interesting.

Interestingly enough, the book is from 1954. And still is entirely relevant.

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

What should happen if 60% of the people want something then?

Do it, but dont force other people to do it as well

And how would that work in banning things like speed limits. I don’t think there should be speed limits. So I can drive as fast as I want everywhere?

Do what you want as long as it does not put other people in harm or takes away their rights

And what if we disagree with what “puts other people in harm” and what others “rights” are.

90% believe armless people should be allowed to vote, 10% do not

those same 90% believe that armless people have the right, the 10% do not

Everyone is equal , it would be in your best intrest to support freedom becuase whatever applies to other people applies to you as well.

“Hey guys we don’t think you should drive faster than 40mph on this road but feel free to do so if you want”

Its a bit of a Catch-22, giving you the right to kill yourself while taking out all the reasons why you would want to kill yourself.

Interestingly enough, the book is from 1954. And still is entirely relevant.

Whats the name?

i think the key issue here is that laws restrict freedom. (by definition)

so yeah, a lack of government (or voluntary government. they’re effectively the same, aren’t they?) will give people the most freedom.
that’s not necessarily the best plan, though.

imo a minimal set of laws would be the best.
something like:
1) don’t kill people without their explicit permission
2) nobody likes an asshole

Its a bit of a Catch-22, giving you the right to kill yourself while taking out all the reasons why you would want to kill yourself.

Yeah, because laws are the only reason why people want to kill themselves.

Since it seems like the government essentially only acts as a Citizens Advice Bureau in this idea, how exactly is this different from an anarchy?

Everyone is equal , it would be in your best intrest to support freedom becuase whatever applies to other people applies to you as well.

Not if the ‘other people’ are black, muslim, etc.

Although since laws are optional I guess it wouldn’t really matter.

“We don’t think blacks should vote, but go ahead and do so if you want.”

Originally posted by notallama:

i think the key issue here is that laws restrict freedom. (by definition)

so yeah, a lack of government (or voluntary government. they’re effectively the same, aren’t they?) will give people the most freedom.

that’s not necessarily the best plan, though.

imo a minimal set of laws would be the best.

something like:

1) don’t kill people without their explicit permission

2) nobody likes an asshole

Good laws

Or like just basic human rights, don’t kill, don’t put people in slavery, things like that

Your system only works if everyone in the society is reasonable… Besides the fact that it is impossible for everyone to agree who is reasonable or not, it is also impossible for everyone in a society to be reasonable. Anyways, you are saying that the majority doesn’t rule, except for when you think the law/idea/value/moral/thought is obvious. You are telling me that “everyone is equal” and that regardless of how many disagree, that is true. Yet someone might think that “abortion is wrong” is the correct law/idea/value/moral/thought….

Yet someone might think that “abortion is wrong” is the correct law/idea/value/moral/thought….

Only the involved can decide. Not others

Your system only works if everyone in the society is reasonable… Besides the fact that it is impossible for everyone to agree who is reasonable or not, it is also impossible for everyone in a society to be reasonable.

i used to think the same pacaholic, and how impossible things were, but then I learned about the Civil Rights Movement and how impossible people thought it was back then. Yet it happened.

Only the involved can decide. Not others

exactly, thanks for responding to that aneslayer, its so hard to keep up with all these posts while studying (trying too, lol)

Whats the name?

Revolt in 2100 by Robert A. Heinlein

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Your system only works if everyone in the society is reasonable… Besides the fact that it is impossible for everyone to agree who is reasonable or not, it is also impossible for everyone in a society to be reasonable.

i used to think the same pacaholic, and how impossible things were, but then I learned about the Civil Rights Movement and how impossible people thought it was back then. Yet it happened.

Often against the will of the majority. Without a government, I am curious how you would force social change. Especially if the minority has no avenue to express discontent as they can in a democracy.

Your problem is not against democracy, it is about legal issues. Try to differentiate the two.

SaintAjora LOVES minorities

Originally posted by pacaholic:

SaintAjora LOVES minorities

Er… are you going somewhere with this?

I “love” giving people decent treatment regardless of their individual situation. Minorities are those who have the most personal difficulties due to the effects of social factors, so they are more likely to receive worse treatment than the majority.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

I “love” giving people decent treatment regardless of their individual situation. Minorities are those who have the most personal difficulties due to the effects of social factors, so they are more likely to receive worse treatment than the majority.

Proof please. I’m just kidding, I’m not like other people who do that…

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

SaintAjora LOVES minorities

Er… are you going somewhere with this?

No where

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

Whats the name?

Revolt in 2100 by Robert A. Heinlein

Thanks, Ill try to find it (after Im done with reading Homage to Catalonia by Orwell, I also have Island by Huxley and I feel like reading it, but Ill try to get it ) Is it a good book?

Proof please. I’m just kidding, I’m not like other people who do that…

lmao :D

EDIT: oh shit, Iggy! you reached 1000! just noticed, well as promised, congratz!

happy 1000th post to you

happy 1000th post to you

happy 1000th post dear Iggy

now lets eat cake!