Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Democracy as a Failed Social Experiment

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 11:01:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Democracy is really no different than Socialism. In a Democracy, the majority essentially controls all the resources or the means of production. There is a fake sense of private ownership and individuals controlling their own resources, but it is only fake. The majority always has the power to confiscate property from anyone.

Democracy will be looked back on as a failed social experiment that survived a surprisingly long amount of time, much like Communism in the 20th Century, but, like all social experiments, proved unsustainable and eventually cracked under its own weight.
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 1:05:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Government is a failed social experiment.

We should all just stop pretending it exists, because it doesn't.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 1:29:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 1:05:41 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Government is a failed social experiment.

We should all just stop pretending it exists, because it doesn't.

Agreed...
President of DDO
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 1:34:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Democracy is really no different than Socialism. In a Democracy, the majority essentially controls all the resources or the means of production.


democracy has jack squat to do with the economy. plenty of awesome possom democracies in africa/latin america with free and fair elections but s***ty economy.

democracy is not the anthesis of socialism, because socialism can be both an ideology and economic policy.

democracy is just a buzzword in the context you provide.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 9:02:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 11:01:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Democracy is really no different than Socialism. In a Democracy, the majority essentially controls all the resources or the means of production.

What majority? It has to have a context, majority in what sense? On what basis? Also, in the real world democracies, power does indeed matter, it should not, but it does. And the power of minority is protected, which implies that they can raise their voice and not be stamped down.

There is a fake sense of private ownership and individuals controlling their own resources, but it is only fake. The majority always has the power to confiscate property from anyone.

The previous para would look more appropriate here. What is majority? And remember, rich have the power.

Democracy will be looked back on as a failed social experiment that survived a surprisingly long amount of time, much like Communism in the 20th Century, but, like all social experiments, proved unsustainable and eventually cracked under its own weight.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 9:03:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree that Democracy is not a good system. A Republic, on the other hand...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Every government system fails in one aspect or the other simply because there is no perfect balance between control over others, and the freedom of others. You simply focus on democracy because it is currently championed. Name anything you can, try anything you will, there shall be a problem that makes it "a failed social experiment." We don't try new governing methods to reach some universally perfect system, but to find the best. You all focus on the inevitable problems of democracy like a magnifying glass on an ant. Meanwhile, I haven't heard anyone come up with a superior system. Anarchy? Communism? don't make me laugh.

Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:01:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Every government system fails in one aspect or the other simply because there is no perfect balance between control over others, and the freedom of others. You simply focus on democracy because it is currently championed. Name anything you can, try anything you will, there shall be a problem that makes it "a failed social experiment." We don't try new governing methods to reach some universally perfect system, but to find the best. You all focus on the inevitable problems of democracy like a magnifying glass on an ant. Meanwhile, I haven't heard anyone come up with a superior system. Anarchy? Communism? don't make me laugh.

Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Agree
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:08:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Go on then. Anarchism.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:17:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:08:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Go on then. Anarchism.

All the forms of anarchy that can be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination must have some way in which there is a defense of the people. Anarcho capitalism for one has the pda. The problem is that a privatized defense agency has the potential to BECOME government, and a tyrannical one at that. ANYTHING that has control over the defense of the people can abuse that power. The difference when you have a democratic state is the sheer fact that the people collectively control the government. It creates a system of checks and balances. Private defense leaves the people without a say first of all, and thus allows for the possibility of merges in defense agencies and an all out tyrannical take over by a military base the general public has no form of control over.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:39:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:17:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:08:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Go on then. Anarchism.

All the forms of anarchy that can be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination must have some way in which there is a defense of the people. Anarcho capitalism for one has the pda. The problem is that a privatized defense agency has the potential to BECOME government, and a tyrannical one at that.

The possibility is apparently enough to dissuade you, while you show a blind eye to te twentieth century fascistic governments who killed around 30 to 40 million people collectively. And you say anarchy would be tyrannical?
ANYTHING that has control over the defense of the people can abuse that power.

Especially when they legally monopolize over the privilege.
The difference when you have a democratic state is the sheer fact that the people collectively control the government. It creates a system of checks and balances.

I see how that whole democracy thing worked in Germany.

Private defense leaves the people without a say first of all, and thus allows for the possibility of merges in defense agencies and an all out tyrannical take over by a military base the general public has no form of control over.

Except for the ridiculous costs of war(alleviated by the government through taxation), or the instability of merging PDA's(which I alreadypointed out and you have yet to respond to).
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:45:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:39:46 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:17:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:08:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Go on then. Anarchism.

All the forms of anarchy that can be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination must have some way in which there is a defense of the people. Anarcho capitalism for one has the pda. The problem is that a privatized defense agency has the potential to BECOME government, and a tyrannical one at that.

The possibility is apparently enough to dissuade you, while you show a blind eye to te twentieth century fascistic governments who killed around 30 to 40 million people collectively. And you say anarchy would be tyrannical?
ANYTHING that has control over the defense of the people can abuse that power.

Especially when they legally monopolize over the privilege.
The difference when you have a democratic state is the sheer fact that the people collectively control the government. It creates a system of checks and balances.

I see how that whole democracy thing worked in Germany.

Private defense leaves the people without a say first of all, and thus allows for the possibility of merges in defense agencies and an all out tyrannical take over by a military base the general public has no form of control over.

Except for the ridiculous costs of war(alleviated by the government through taxation), or the instability of merging PDA's(which I alreadypointed out and you have yet to respond to).

I did respond to that already -_-' ...I said any form of economic deterrent is irrelevant, the fact is that a corporation has ABSOLUTE control over the armed forces, and can thus abuse it without anything the people can do.

Its funny, you didn't even bother to argue that the pda CANNOT become tyrannical.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:46:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.
Islamic Law. I can predict your response.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:50:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:45:44 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:39:46 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:17:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:08:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Go on then. Anarchism.

All the forms of anarchy that can be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination must have some way in which there is a defense of the people. Anarcho capitalism for one has the pda. The problem is that a privatized defense agency has the potential to BECOME government, and a tyrannical one at that.

The possibility is apparently enough to dissuade you, while you show a blind eye to te twentieth century fascistic governments who killed around 30 to 40 million people collectively. And you say anarchy would be tyrannical?
ANYTHING that has control over the defense of the people can abuse that power.

Especially when they legally monopolize over the privilege.
The difference when you have a democratic state is the sheer fact that the people collectively control the government. It creates a system of checks and balances.

I see how that whole democracy thing worked in Germany.

Private defense leaves the people without a say first of all, and thus allows for the possibility of merges in defense agencies and an all out tyrannical take over by a military base the general public has no form of control over.

Except for the ridiculous costs of war(alleviated by the government through taxation), or the instability of merging PDA's(which I alreadypointed out and you have yet to respond to).

I did respond to that already -_-' ...I said any form of economic deterrent is irrelevant, the fact is that a corporation has ABSOLUTE control over the armed forces, and can thus abuse it without anything the people can do.

No, you said PDA's would just merge to become a government, and I pointed out that a trust like that would be highly instable, owing to the fact that any member can join just to leave and absorb a large volume of consumers. And you also simply assume one corporation would have complete control with no substantiation.

Its funny, you didn't even bother to argue that the pda CANNOT become tyrannical.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:51:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Every government system fails in one aspect or the other simply because there is no perfect balance between control over others, and the freedom of others. You simply focus on democracy because it is currently championed. Name anything you can, try anything you will, there shall be a problem that makes it "a failed social experiment." We don't try new governing methods to reach some universally perfect system, but to find the best. You all focus on the inevitable problems of democracy like a magnifying glass on an ant. Meanwhile, I haven't heard anyone come up with a superior system. Anarchy? Communism? don't make me laugh.

Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Fine then. Republicanism.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:54:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Dammit Social, I was half way through my response when I went on the page and found out you'd made pretty much exactly the same responses as me. -_-
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:56:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:54:30 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Dammit Social, I was half way through my response when I went on the page and found out you'd made pretty much exactly the same responses as me. -_-

Lol I wouldn't have thought you or I would be arguing against objections to AnCap six months ago.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:59:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:45:44 AM, 000ike wrote:

Its funny, you didn't even bother to argue that the pda CANNOT become tyrannical.

Who would say that? Obviously anyone or any group can become tyrannical ggiven the right circumstances. However, not only have I already shown that this is extremely unlikely, but I have also actually provided examples of a Statist system falling into tyranny. Such is the inevitable consequence of monopolized power and mob rule, so long as human nature remains the same. The only way to fix it is not to institutionalize it as the fabric on which society rests.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:10:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:56:51 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Lol I wouldn't have thought you or I would be arguing against objections to AnCap six months ago.

I'm not an AnCap. I just don't think that typical objections to anarchism work. I don't think it's plausible to believe that anarchism will happen anytime in the near future though. People have a natural conservatism in politics; if something seems to work reasonably well they aren't going to support any radical changes in the status quo - and there aren't many radical changes bigger than abolishing the government.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:18:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:10:44 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:56:51 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Lol I wouldn't have thought you or I would be arguing against objections to AnCap six months ago.

I'm not an AnCap. I just don't think that typical objections to anarchism work. I don't think it's plausible to believe that anarchism will happen anytime in the near future though. People have a natural conservatism in politics; if something seems to work reasonably well they aren't going to support any radical changes in the status quo - and there aren't many radical changes bigger than abolishing the government.

Lol I know. But yes it's an ideal that won't be seen anytime soon, just like a world devoid of murder. But I don't see that as an objection to it's ethics or practicality. And I know your not an Ancap, you seem to be as moderate as OMgbeiber.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:21:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:53:23 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:46:29 AM, Mirza wrote:
Islamic Law. I can predict your response.

Islam is false.
That's nowhere near the typical objection to Islamic Law. And the argument does not hold water nonetheless. Whether Islamic is right or not has nothing to do with how good Shari'a is.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:25:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:21:28 AM, Mirza wrote:
Islam is false.
That's nowhere near the typical objection to Islamic Law. And the argument does not hold water nonetheless. Whether Islam is right or not has nothing to do with how good Shari'a is.
Correction.

At 10/15/2011 1:05:41 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Government is a failed social experiment.

We should all just stop pretending it exists, because it doesn't.
Yes it does, and far too much of it. People aren't very educated in order to understand why too much government is too much in itself. The solution to a monopoly of government is an ideological state.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:26:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:17:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:08:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Go on then. Anarchism.

All the forms of anarchy that can be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination must have some way in which there is a defense of the people. Anarcho capitalism for one has the pda. The problem is that a privatized defense agency has the potential to BECOME government, and a tyrannical one at that. ANYTHING that has control over the defense of the people can abuse that power. The difference when you have a democratic state is the sheer fact that the people collectively control the government. It creates a system of checks and balances. Private defense leaves the people without a say first of all, and thus allows for the possibility of merges in defense agencies and an all out tyrannical take over by a military base the general public has no form of control over.

The State was originally formed around Religion, not force. The existence of the state requires a social consensus, not force.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:27:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:26:06 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:17:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:08:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Go on then. Anarchism.

All the forms of anarchy that can be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination must have some way in which there is a defense of the people. Anarcho capitalism for one has the pda. The problem is that a privatized defense agency has the potential to BECOME government, and a tyrannical one at that. ANYTHING that has control over the defense of the people can abuse that power. The difference when you have a democratic state is the sheer fact that the people collectively control the government. It creates a system of checks and balances. Private defense leaves the people without a say first of all, and thus allows for the possibility of merges in defense agencies and an all out tyrannical take over by a military base the general public has no form of control over.

The State was originally formed around Religion, not force. The existence of the state requires a social consensus, not force.
What if 60-to-40 ratio determines social consensus? And what if the majority are uneducated and do not really understand politics? Would that determine a good society because the majority votes for it?

Democratic principles are excellent, and in fact necessary. But democracy over every single issue, no. A limited form of democracy is better.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:35:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:26:06 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:17:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:08:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 9:55:21 AM, 000ike wrote:
Name a better system in your view, and then I'll show you why its not.

Go on then. Anarchism.

All the forms of anarchy that can be taken seriously by any stretch of the imagination must have some way in which there is a defense of the people. Anarcho capitalism for one has the pda. The problem is that a privatized defense agency has the potential to BECOME government, and a tyrannical one at that. ANYTHING that has control over the defense of the people can abuse that power. The difference when you have a democratic state is the sheer fact that the people collectively control the government. It creates a system of checks and balances. Private defense leaves the people without a say first of all, and thus allows for the possibility of merges in defense agencies and an all out tyrannical take over by a military base the general public has no form of control over.

The State was originally formed around Religion, not force. The existence of the state requires a social consensus, not force.

Religion seemed to be merely a justification for some types of governments(absolute monarchies, some parts of Nazism, Communism if you count Marxism as a religion) while force has always and always will be the means of keeping it around. Unless 100% of the members of a geographic location agree to be held under a monopolistic rule, it is upheld by force.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:38:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:21:28 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:53:23 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:46:29 AM, Mirza wrote:
Islamic Law. I can predict your response.

Islam is false.
That's nowhere near the typical objection to Islamic Law. And the argument does not hold water nonetheless. Whether Islamic is right or not has nothing to do with how good Shari'a is.

Shariah law itself presupposes the existence of Allah and the revelation of Muhhamed seeing as quite a bit of it comes from the Koran which was allegedly spoken to Muhhamed by Allah. Do you not see that if Islam is an incorrect religion, the entire foundation of Sharia goes to sh1t?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:44:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:38:14 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/15/2011 11:21:28 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:53:23 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:46:29 AM, Mirza wrote:
Islamic Law. I can predict your response.

Islam is false.
That's nowhere near the typical objection to Islamic Law. And the argument does not hold water nonetheless. Whether Islamic is right or not has nothing to do with how good Shari'a is.

Shariah law itself presupposes the existence of Allah and the revelation of Muhhamed seeing as quite a bit of it comes from the Koran which was allegedly spoken to Muhhamed by Allah. Do you not see that if Islam is an incorrect religion, the entire foundation of Sharia goes to sh1t?
No. Ethics and morality can be proven right without looking at religion. You're kind of committing the genetic fallacy.