Well, I enjoy hearing the battles that occur within this website, may of which are against democracy (I will not state my preference-yet), and so I would like to hear what the Mises community thinks of democracy (i know some of you disagree with others). I thank you for any posts.
http://mises.org/Community/search/SearchResults.aspx?q=democracy
Democracy is nothing but slavery.
"Government is just a group of men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun." — Marc Stevens, No State Project
Thanks.
Hoppe nails it pretty well in "Democracy: The God That Failed"
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
I know about this stuff, but I saw this character (ruben? I think. I'm knew) that defended democracy.
I don't know how a sane libertarian can defend democracy. Democracy is nothing more than a tyranny, but instead of having one tyrant, you have many.
Political Atheists Blog
If you mean modern socialist democracy it's just an illusion to make tyranny more palatable for the people. People are allowed to have some rights and engage in somewhat free market but eventually democracy turns into a full dictatorship because the power of the government always extends at the expense of the people.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
krazy kaju: I don't know how a sane libertarian can defend democracy. Democracy is nothing more than a tyranny, but instead of having one tyrant, you have many.
Well said...
Democracy is actually a pretty clever way to enslave people by giving them an illusion of control and making them waste their energy on meaningless political activity. Occasionally, some groups like NRA may push for something useful, but in the end you just get more and more government intervention until you can't cook a meal without calling a lawyer.
Natalie: ...you just get more and more government intervention until you can't cook a meal without calling a lawyer.
...you just get more and more government intervention until you can't cook a meal without calling a lawyer.
Haha good one.. or how about a carbon-footprint tax for breathing. Crazy control freaks I tell ya
Ironically, I feel that in some ways we were less controlled in the Soviet Union/Russia.
Consider this:
I was occasionally left alone at home with not adults and only a smart Irish setter as a companion since I was 3.
I walked to school and local shops on my own since I was 7
I was first given alcohol when I was 4
Just these facts would have been enough to take me away from parents in the United States. Free country, indeed.
So many great points there. One of the biggest is that the US enjoys this fantasy, partly enabled by its semi-island geographical situation, that it is so much freer than everywhere else. There are all sorts of subtle reinforcements of how much worse it is everywhere else. What a bunch of hooey.
My husband and I are preparing to sell our house. If and when it sells we are planning to live abroad for a while, to get some perspective, to get some experience, and to ride out some of the ugliness.
Insofar as democracy entails the existence of the government, it is bad.
I still think democracy is a fine enough system. But it is outdated as it has failed to modenize.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Luis Buenaventura: Well, I enjoy hearing the battles that occur within this website, may of which are against democracy (I will not state my preference-yet), and so I would like to hear what the Mises community thinks of democracy (i know some of you disagree with others). I thank you for any posts.
It depends on how one defines democracy. Democracy as in a central political system of elections or indirect representative democracy is predicated on coercion, monopoly and oligarchy to begin with (and hence the "control" allowed to the citizen is practically meaningless), and democracy as in majority rule is inherently inconsistant with individual rights. But democracy as in purely consensus decision-making is essentially anarchism (I.E. is predicated either on unanimous consent or a process or chain or network of individual instances of consent; with the option to not consent or to disassociate being respected; a self-governing society or group of societies within societies). So basically there's 1. democracy as the illusion of control and consent 2. democracy as universal or mob-based slavery and 3. democracy as participatory consensus-based interaction.
All the great democracies I know of are actually part of a hybrid governing model. Usually there would be a dictator who basically ruled with an iron fist in theory. But mostly he/she just sits back and only intervene when bickering continues forever and somebody have to decide. However, these models only exist in software projects and other voluntary organizations.
Adding thuggery and taxation is just asking for trouble...
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
How exactly would one modernize democracy? (Or is that not a typo and you mean modenize which, not finding a solid definition, I can only guess means to become representative of the most common set?? Nah, it's probably a typo.) The only way to improve people (the root of the problem) is make sure society adheres to libertarian ideology - and that's kind of to/gugh and totalitarian to pull off.
.
Saiphes: How exactly would one modernize democracy? (Or is that not a typo and you mean modenize which, not finding a solid definition, I can only guess means to become representative of the most common set?? Nah, it's probably a typo.) The only way to improve people (the root of the problem) is make sure society adheres to libertarian ideology - and that's kind of to/gugh and totalitarian to pull off. .
Modernising democracy is somewhat like saying that the Constitution of the United States of America should be "modernised" from time to time, except that I have no way of imagining how exactly democracy can be "modernised".
To modernise Democracy:
I suppose you'd open the existing "democracy file" and do a Save As... and name it Neo-Democracy. Then you add a bunch of ridiculous new rules, invent some new collective terminologies representative of your particular favored group and make sure, this time, that that group is the group who gets their way and is permitted to dictate the proper (by concensus) mores and prohibitions to those non-favored groups who are, of course, not agreeing with "us", ideologically backward and who therefore must be educated.
Democracy, again, is an extension of the people. If the people are, in their core, eager to impose their morals on others by force of government, Democracy is "Bad". As long as pragmatists rule, are willing to settle for 2 generalized wrongs make a right style of justice, think that compromise is a good thing, and make lazy generalizations (rich, poor, blacks, whites, capitalists, liberals, republicans, democrats, conservatives) all because they cannot conceive of an absolute moral code requiring only that initiation of force is wrong, Democracy will be "Bad". That's a code which *should* be axiomatic, but for some reason, is not. If they *did* adopt and admit such a universal code, they would also have to admit that their social goals and reasoning up to this point has been evil and flawed. Most are not willing to admit they are evil.
By the way, is technology good or bad? Democracy, I think, can be correctly classified as a "Social Technology". In its pure form, it is an idea. In its applied form one could say, like rifle or a motor or a can opener (assume a can-opener?), it can be used for "peaceful" or violent purposes.
JAB
I think you will find that on this board, most think any form of coercive government is evil, and that if it is not coercive, that it is not really a government, so it is not "bad".
So when you say "democracy", any democracy that is not a unanimous democracy is evil, imo, since it is coercive.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Democracy is majority rule. If the majority of the people say we all have to be vegetarian, then we all have to be vegetarian. The rule of the majority trumps the rights of the minority. However in a Republic*, such as we supposedly have in the United States, rights of the minority are protected from the will of the majority. The rule of law trumps the will of the majority.
*Republic - I use this as a pedaogical device, I know some may posit that there is no such thing as a Republic. A Republic may fall under the category of Minarchy, and some may argue that there is no such thing as Minarchy either.
ViennaSausage:Democracy is majority rule. If the majority of the people say we all have to be vegetarian, then we all have to be vegetarian. The rule of the majority trumps the rights of the minority. However in a Republic*, such as we supposedly have in the United States, rights of the minority are protected from the will of the majority. The rule of law trumps the will of the majority.
Unless it is a unanimous democracy, in which case there is no minority.
Has there ever been a unanimous democracy?
A Unanimous Democracy would be a Unacracy.
ViennaSausage:Has there ever been a unanimous democracy?
Not that I know of.
ViennaSausage: A Unanimous Democracy would be a Unacracy.
Why is that?
ViennaSausage:Democracy is majority rule. If the majority of the people say we all have to be vegetarian, then we all have to be vegetarian. The rule of the majority trumps the rights of the minority.
Is that democracy or demarchy?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Spideynw: ViennaSausage: A Unanimous Democracy would be a Unacracy. Why is that?
Because it's unanimous. Rule by Unanimous consent.
Thought you might find this interesting.
“Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who'll get the blame.”
Bertrand Russell quotes (English Logician and Philosopher 1872-1970)
ViennaSausage:Because it's unanimous. Rule by Unanimous consent.
Gotcha
I think that constitutional republic (the way US was supposed to be) is the least evil form of government. The constitution defines people's rights and puts a limit to the government power. But when democracy and egalitarianism is put above the Constitution (as we're seeing now and for the many years before) the government's power is starting to expand at the expense of people's rights and eventually it becomes a dictatorship.
Natalie,
a constitutional republic may start out as the least evil form of government, but if the state has the features of the state, most importantly, being the final arbiter of justice, even in cases involving itself, it soon gains at the expense of the people. Unless the people are as a whole educated enough and motivated enough to oppose every increase in the state's scope and size, the end result is inevitable. If the people are educated to this degree, I doubt that any of them would rationally submit themselves to rule by a monopolist. Thus until the level of education reaches this level, the state in one form or another will always be with us, ever expanding tyranny in its wake. Always using the submission and consent of its more feeble minded subjects to justify the marginalization and destruction of those who are aware of the true nature of the state.
My take on Lew's article on good government
Stanley Pinchak: Natalie, a constitutional republic may start out as the least evil form of government, but if the state has the features of the state, most importantly, being the final arbiter of justice, even in cases involving itself, it soon gains at the expense of the people. Unless the people are as a whole educated enough and motivated enough to oppose every increase in the state's scope and size, the end result is inevitable. If the people are educated to this degree, I doubt that any of them would rationally submit themselves to rule by a monopolist. Thus until the level of education reaches this level, the state in one form or another will always be with us, ever expanding tyranny in its wake. Always using the submission and consent of its more feeble minded subjects to justify the marginalization and destruction of those who are aware of the true nature of the state. My take on Lew's article on good government
I agree that even in constitutional republic the state, however limited it is, still has a monopoly on the use of force and therefore will always seek to extend its power. I'm just pointing out that today's democracies claim to have to benefits of the constitutional republics but don't hesitate to overstep the boundaries whenever they see fit. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" and so on.
Natalie: I think that constitutional republic (the way US was supposed to be) is the least evil form of government. The constitution defines people's rights and puts a limit to the government power. But when democracy and egalitarianism is put above the Constitution (as we're seeing now and for the many years before) the government's power is starting to expand at the expense of people's rights and eventually it becomes a dictatorship.
But it's still evil.
The best form of Government, I mean tyranny, is NO Government!
Black Market: But it's still evil. The best form of Government, I mean tyranny, is NO Government!
I agree. But at least it was a good attempt to curb the power of the government. Probably the first since the ancient city-states. Too bad it was doomed to failure :(
Democracy is an illusion on so many levels. If we peel off just the first layer we see it is not even a "rule of the mayority". First of all the mayority does not rule at all. It just gets to pick who will rule (from a small rigged list). Secondly the "mayority" is not even a mayority. Governments ussually get elected by around 25% of eligible voters, certainly nowhere near the mayority of voters.If we had actual rule of mayority we would have "direct democracy" handled through plebiscites. The electorate would be the legislature. It would stil be innefficient and tyrannical, but in practice it would be a great improvement. Certainly no bailout for the bankers could ever pass a plebiscite. (Plebiscite is different from a referenda in that non-voters are essentialy counted as "nays".)
I think the seeds of my distrust in the democratic system were sowed many, many years ago when I purchased The Works of Aristophanes. Aristophanes has wrongfully been much smeared over the centuries (mostly by Voltaire who hated him for poking fun at his beloved Socrates) and he may be called one of the earliest opposer to the democratic system, or at least the earliest one whose writings have survived until modern times. Back then I discovered the slightly negative meaning (non-Athenian) Greeks gave to the word "demokratia", little short of mob rule, and the role of the "demagogoi", those who push the mob around like a flock. Guess studying a dead language paid dividends.
Ever since my trust in democracy has constantly dwindled and the recent events all around the world have been the final nails in the coffins of my trust. I do not trust democracy, period.
Democracy qua majority rule = lynch mob.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
ViennaSausage: Spideynw: ViennaSausage: A Unanimous Democracy would be a Unacracy. Why is that? Because it's unanimous. Rule by Unanimous consent.
That'd have to be henocracy; else you're mixing languages