Democracy

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Fido

Simply put, democracy is a defensive form of social organization. No person can be trusted to defend rights for another. As the people require a common defense, so the people should know a common benefit. Each person should have the consent to give or hold on any affair touching on his welfare. Individual rights, and regional rights cannot be traded for political power. No majority can remove any minority from their rights. It is not the object of government to hide behind the rights of the people, but to defend those rights for all people. each mans legacy should be a state at peace and well able to defend itself. No one should need more than this to make his way. What ever a man may make in his life time can go back to the common wealth. Every person should be able to count on the common wealth for help, or start up capital, but again, to every community should their wealth be returned. Property should pay the cost of government to put pressure on it and to raise the price of labor. Three qualities only are necessary for democracy, and democracy is beyond reach to the extent that these qualities are missing. They are, Liberty, equality, and justice. These are the qualities of democracies from ancient times, and they are eternal.

Some points:

Firstly, democracy should not be looked at as strictly a defensive form of social organization. Democracy can be used equally to enforce the social and economic norms of the majority. A ballot is simply a weapon, and like all weapons it can be used for aggression or self-defense.

Secondly, democracy should not be looked at as common benefit, even if it truly provides common services. It is the nature of collective service provision (especially when monopolized by violence, the essence of the state) to provide uncommon and unequal benefit, since contribution is necessarily unequal. Of course, the justification comes from the same idea as insurance and other hedging institutions.

Briefly, it is the nature of democracy to remove rights from the minority. The majority gets what it wants.

Finally, what sort of justification do you have for a man's product to be returned to the commons and for individuals having a moral expectation to recieve some good from the commons?

[Doobah47]

This current democracy is a sham, making the citizens fat off the profits from the 3rd world and making the corporations fat off the profits from the citizens

I'd like to say that an open democracy would allow folk into parliament to have their say, and there would be national votes for things like free healthcare. This democracy is closed to the people, and that seems to contradict the ethos of democracy.

As it stands these governments are just fat cat enterprises for diligent socialites. It's not democracy, it's fascist corporate business. I'd like to see the governments helping out the people a little more; in America for example there's a mortgage crisis, many people are getting evicted and having their assets removed, yet the government does nothing, when an important corporation runs out of cash and cant expand anymore the government shells out billions so they can keep on lending to us poor gullable citizens. I think I got that example from a Hilary Clinton speech, it's quite a good point though it did fall out of a politicians mouth. But it just demonstrates that the government doesnt care for the 'subordinates'

My biggest gripe is with the kind of people who enter democratic politics and get jobs in the commercial media, they are not artists and they are not theorists, as far as I can tell they do it for the fame and status. I was unlucky enough to have a chat with the leader of the opposition in the UK, I nearly threw him in the road, he wanted to know what I thought about racism, yet there are clearly far more pressing issues such as teenage gang murders, of course he wanted a soundbite. It seems like the only people who I would trust not to say anything to get votes are those whose prospects of success are extremely slim.

I'm sure that the Greek concept of democracy must have involved a little honour, in that people wouldn't make friends with everyone just to get their name in the book. It troubles me that we elect governments who dont consult the citizens, and it troubles me that we are force fed garbage by the national media - both are in the same ship, the kind of media we have is essential for this kind of popularist demagogue democracy, it simply manifests cultural templates for people to fall into - what kind of newspaper, what wing, lower or higher taxes, then people get all agitated like their choice of leader actually cares about the people and isnt just there for the thrill.

[Didymos Thomas]

This current democracy is a sham, making the citizens fat off the profits from the 3rd world and making the corporations fat off the profits from the citizens

Economic thoughts aside, I'm not sure there are any democracies in the world. There are nations with democratic institutions, but no democracies that I am aware of.

[krazy kaju]

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

[Didymos Thomas]

That's very true, Kaju, Plato established that pretty clearly. But democracy is not the only sort of tyranny of the majority. Just about every sort of government amounts to tyranny of the majority, unless we are speaking of an oligarchy or monarchy (basically, totalitarianism).

[krazy kaju]

True, though there are methods that can be used to decentralize power. Our model and most other models of democracy are more pluralist than a majoritarian.

In any case, any government that goes beyond kritarchy is tyrannical, IMO.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Non sense, dear sir. Majority rule might be a tyranny of the majority if it were possible for any simple majority to control any minority for any length of time. In fact, every society is a form of relationship that requires some give and take and lots of cooperation. Democracy is not majority rule. It is not rule of any sort because there is no ruler, or ruled. Democracy is self government only, and as such, it considers the best interest of all, takes that as a goal, and seeks consensus.
I don't guess anyone would accept our society as democratic were they not given the impression since birth, that it is. We are happy to accept a government of checks and balances even when that means we are all checked, and that even the most malignant forces in society are balanced with those of the most powerless. We do not accept it because we consider it, but because we do not consider it. Instead we believe it should work, that it is the best, and that when it does not work, that the cause of its failure is our natural friends and neighbors. We do not blame the system which has never worked, but ourselves, and each other out of respect for our mythic forefathers, who we cannot blame without drawing insult upon ourselves.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Some points:

Firstly, democracy should not be looked at as strictly a defensive form of social organization. Democracy can be used equally to enforce the social and economic norms of the majority. A ballot is simply a weapon, and like all weapons it can be used for aggression or self-defense.

Secondly, democracy should not be looked at as common benefit, even if it truly provides common services. It is the nature of collective service provision (especially when monopolized by violence, the essence of the state) to provide uncommon and unequal benefit, since contribution is necessarily unequal. Of course, the justification comes from the same idea as insurance and other hedging institutions.

Briefly, it is the nature of democracy to remove rights from the minority. The majority gets what it wants.

Finally, what sort of justification do you have for a man's product to be returned to the commons and for individuals having a moral expectation to recieve some good from the commons?

Sir. You are wrong. Democracy is defensive. It is every man for himself together. No society can be both wealthy and democratic. What the Greeks considered democracy was a pale shadow of their former democracy. The Spartans put regimentation and organization above democracy, but it was in part out of the need to control a large slave population of Helot which outnumbered Spartans ten to one. Still, they tried to keep wealth at a minimum to maintain equality. Their money was pickled iron bars, usless as money and difficult for any sort of exchange. In what sense they differed from their slaves no one can tell, because they submitted themselves to a dead constitution written by a dead man only to find themselves dead in history. The differences between Spartans and Athenians is that the former came to dominate the later because wealth sooner divided the Athenians than it did the Spartans. That the unsophisticated minority should rule the high minded, industrious, and wealthy Athenians is no great marvel since they let wealth destroy their historic democracy and common institutions before the Spartans could lay a glove on them.

The fact is, that democracy defends all rights. It is not a defense of privilage, because privilage leads to inequality, and inequality destroys Democracy.

[Khethil]

There is...

Democracy's Proper Definition: What the word means; what the concept entails. The conceptualization of a political methodology. How it works in theory, how it works in actuality, how it's worked in the past and how one feels it "should" work.

Democracy - Popular Definition: Folks are wont to mix up the most-common economic side of it (which, for all intents and purposes, tends to be Capitalism) and its proper meaning (which is as a political system).

Capitalism - The Economic System: How components of commerce interact, the dynamic of wealth distribution, its pitfalls and saving graces.

It almost sounds as if we're mixing and matching the two based on where the strongest feelings lie. I believe the two are interrelated, but are distinctly two different concepts. This is important in fleshing-out the pro's and con's.

[krazy kaju]

Originally Posted by Fido

Non sense, dear sir. Majority rule might be a tyranny of the majority if it were possible for any simple majority to control any minority for any length of time. In fact, every society is a form of relationship that requires some give and take and lots of cooperation. Democracy is not majority rule. It is not rule of any sort because there is no ruler, or ruled. Democracy is self government only, and as such, it considers the best interest of all, takes that as a goal, and seeks consensus.
I don't guess anyone would accept our society as democratic were they not given the impression since birth, that it is. We are happy to accept a government of checks and balances even when that means we are all checked, and that even the most malignant forces in society are balanced with those of the most powerless. We do not accept it because we consider it, but because we do not consider it. Instead we believe it should work, that it is the best, and that when it does not work, that the cause of its failure is our natural friends and neighbors. We do not blame the system which has never worked, but ourselves, and each other out of respect for our mythic forefathers, who we cannot blame without drawing insult upon ourselves.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary...

Democracy

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority, as it gives power to the majority. Of course there are ways to limit this power, like the federalist system that the United States currently uses, but the majority still rules by electing governing officials. Democracy does not seek to do what is best for the majority, it seeks to let the majority rule unopposed. In this, it is tyrannical. Rule by nobody/everybody and self-governance are only found in individualist anarchism.