Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Individualist" Opposition to "Majority Rule"

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:08:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Individualists recognize that people are individual persons. They do not recognize "society" as any literal being. And in extension, recognize the individual as the fundamental basis of society whose importance and will must always trump that of society, which is only imaginary. They see that democracy is a rule by the majority and must be opposed in the name of the individual.

However, in this very line of reasoning, they fall prey to themselves. Everyone has these issues but I'm just focusing on this one for now. I call em' as I see em'.

If individualists wish to judge democracy and also maintain consistency, it can't be by the same standard they judge it for.

There is no great beast called "The Majority" who oppresses the small people. No, democracy is actually made up of individuals and the decisions carried out through it are done by individuals. Indeed, in democratic theory, the purpose is not to subject the will of a minority or of individuals but, rather, to bring about political equality between individuals. When we take it by this standard, we see that democracy is there not to oppress individuals but to free them by making sure they all have the same say in the law of the land.

Now, you could still argue that government, in any form, is non-individualist. But if we are assuming government, then democracy is surely the most individualistic form of government there is. For there are two ways a government can be: run by everyone equally or run by some over, irrelevant to the will of others.

When we look at democracy without the imaginary lines of "majority" and "minority", simply seeing every individual as they are, we recognize that everyone has the same say rather than the say of one group over another.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The individualist case against democracy is that no one person somehow gains mystical powers to coerce someone simply because others agree with them. A majority as a separate entity does not exist sure, but individuals who think agreement with a majority of others constitutes the right to enforce their preferences do.
: 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.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:20:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.

I'm inclined to agree. A fascist oligarchy.
Tsar of DDO
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:20:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:19:53 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.

http://www.myfacewhen.com...

It is.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:22:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:20:16 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:19:53 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.

http://www.myfacewhen.com...

It is.

Oh, your serious then...

Substantiate your claim.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:25:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Democracy is the enemy of the individual, and democracies do a very poor job of protecting the rights of the individual. A constitutional republic is a far superior form of government, because it checks popular opinion and limits exactly what the government can do.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:28:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:20:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.

I'm inclined to agree. A fascist oligarchy.

Joke?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:28:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:25:01 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Democracy is the enemy of the individual, and democracies do a very poor job of protecting the rights of the individual. A constitutional republic is a far superior form of government, because it checks popular opinion and limits exactly what the government can do.

Agreed, but I don't think it checks it enough. Perhaps it could work with some tweaks.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Simple. An oligarchy has enough power to make everything legal.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:34:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:22:54 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.

Care to explain?

I'll take this one.

People are stupid. They invent these things they call "rights" to make their lives most convenient and pleasing to lead, but ultimately when given the choice they often make the wrong one. The benevolent oligarchy looks out for the people's best interest -because they are incapable of doing so themselves.

The democratic fantasy is that people -somehow- should be given the freedom to choose their political leaders because only the majority consensus is the source of just political power. Political power, however, is never absolutely "just" where any minority is oppressed, within the framework of equality. Conceptually then, "justice" can exist only in degrees in terms of political power.

Power, held in any context, is benign. The ends it produces can be good or bad, but in and of itself, power is nor could it be just or unjust. For me, the question is never what is just or unjust, but what is BEST in any given situation. The best possible option can only be achieved where an elite few possess a monopoly on decision-making power.
Tsar of DDO
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:35:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:32:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Simple. An oligarchy has enough power to make everything legal.
Is this a quality exclusive to oligarchies? Simply because something has the capacity to exist under a certain government system doesn't mean that it is likely to. Anarchy is the obvious better answer IMO.
Sapere Aude!
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:37:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:28:00 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:20:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.

I'm inclined to agree. A fascist oligarchy.

Joke?

I enjoy the fact that wether I'm joking or not is almost impossible to tell. I just enjoy the conversations that my -seemingly insane- statements provoke. A position I'm arguing for today, I probably won't hold tomorrow. There will be something else interesting to talk about, like gladiatorial combat.
Tsar of DDO
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:37:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Like everything you say, this is complete nonsense. There is not political equality in democracy. Ask yourself this--what is the difference between being outvoted and not being allowed to vote? What is the difference between a minority deciding to send you to a concentration camp and a majority voting to send you a concentration camp?

True political equality means complete equality before the law. This is impossible with any form of government. With any government, there are rulers and their are subjects. The rulers essentially live under anarchy--they are equal before the law with each other, and no one rules over them. The subjects live under the rulers dictates. True political equality would be anarchy for everyone, not just anarchy for the King/majority/whatever.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:38:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:37:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Like everything you say, this is complete nonsense. There is not political equality in democracy. Ask yourself this--what is the difference between being outvoted and not being allowed to vote? What is the difference between a minority deciding to send you to a concentration camp and a majority voting to send you a concentration camp?

True political equality means complete equality before the law. This is impossible with any form of government. With any government, there are rulers and their are subjects. The rulers essentially live under anarchy--they are equal before the law with each other, and no one rules over them. The subjects live under the rulers dictates. True political equality would be anarchy for everyone, not just anarchy for the King/majority/whatever.

You talking bout me?
Tsar of DDO
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:40:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:38:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:37:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Like everything you say, this is complete nonsense. There is not political equality in democracy. Ask yourself this--what is the difference between being outvoted and not being allowed to vote? What is the difference between a minority deciding to send you to a concentration camp and a majority voting to send you a concentration camp?

True political equality means complete equality before the law. This is impossible with any form of government. With any government, there are rulers and their are subjects. The rulers essentially live under anarchy--they are equal before the law with each other, and no one rules over them. The subjects live under the rulers dictates. True political equality would be anarchy for everyone, not just anarchy for the King/majority/whatever.

You talking bout me?

No, FREEDO.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:40:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:37:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Like everything you say, this is complete nonsense. There is not political equality in democracy. Ask yourself this--what is the difference between being outvoted and not being allowed to vote? What is the difference between a minority deciding to send you to a concentration camp and a majority voting to send you a concentration camp?

True political equality means complete equality before the law. This is impossible with any form of government. With any government, there are rulers and their are subjects. The rulers essentially live under anarchy--they are equal before the law with each other, and no one rules over them. The subjects live under the rulers dictates. True political equality would be anarchy for everyone, not just anarchy for the King/majority/whatever.

You are still using an imaginary world of groups. There is not one group which votes one way and another which votes another way without any cross-divergence. There is no person being "out-voted". Single issues can be out-voted, yes.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:40:33 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:38:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:37:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Like everything you say, this is complete nonsense. There is not political equality in democracy. Ask yourself this--what is the difference between being outvoted and not being allowed to vote? What is the difference between a minority deciding to send you to a concentration camp and a majority voting to send you a concentration camp?

True political equality means complete equality before the law. This is impossible with any form of government. With any government, there are rulers and their are subjects. The rulers essentially live under anarchy--they are equal before the law with each other, and no one rules over them. The subjects live under the rulers dictates. True political equality would be anarchy for everyone, not just anarchy for the King/majority/whatever.

You talking bout me?

No, FREEDO.

Cool. I was about to have some fun with your comment.... but alas!
Tsar of DDO
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:42:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:35:12 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:32:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Simple. An oligarchy has enough power to make everything legal.
Is this a quality exclusive to oligarchies? Simply because something has the capacity to exist under a certain government system doesn't mean that it is likely to. Anarchy is the obvious better answer IMO.

An oligarchy can strike down restrictive laws, while a state can form in Anarchy.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:42:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:40:42 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:37:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Like everything you say, this is complete nonsense. There is not political equality in democracy. Ask yourself this--what is the difference between being outvoted and not being allowed to vote? What is the difference between a minority deciding to send you to a concentration camp and a majority voting to send you a concentration camp?

True political equality means complete equality before the law. This is impossible with any form of government. With any government, there are rulers and their are subjects. The rulers essentially live under anarchy--they are equal before the law with each other, and no one rules over them. The subjects live under the rulers dictates. True political equality would be anarchy for everyone, not just anarchy for the King/majority/whatever.

You are still using an imaginary world of groups. There is not one group which votes one way and another which votes another way without any cross-divergence. There is no person being "out-voted". Single issues can be out-voted, yes.

Any person is outvoted when the majority decides to take his stuff/tell him what to do/whatever. There is no difference between saying 'issues' are outvoted and 'people' are outvoted--'issues' are just what the rulers do to the people.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:46:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:42:50 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Any person is outvoted when the majority decides to take his stuff/tell him what to do/whatever. There is no difference between saying 'issues' are outvoted and 'people' are outvoted--'issues' are just what the rulers do to the people.

Now you're going along the line that I left open. That all government is non-individualist. That it loses individuality as soon as someone is told what to do.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:47:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:34:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:22:54 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.

Care to explain?

I'll take this one.

People are stupid. They invent these things they call "rights" to make their lives most convenient and pleasing to lead, but ultimately when given the choice they often make the wrong one. The benevolent oligarchy looks out for the people's best interest -because they are incapable of doing so themselves.

The democratic fantasy is that people -somehow- should be given the freedom to choose their political leaders because only the majority consensus is the source of just political power. Political power, however, is never absolutely "just" where any minority is oppressed, within the framework of equality. Conceptually then, "justice" can exist only in degrees in terms of political power.

Power, held in any context, is benign. The ends it produces can be good or bad, but in and of itself, power is nor could it be just or unjust. For me, the question is never what is just or unjust, but what is BEST in any given situation. The best possible option can only be achieved where an elite few possess a monopoly on decision-making power.

We are not discussing the best form of government. Nor are we discussing the form of government with the most autonomy. The key word is "freest." Simply because an oligarchy posses the capacity to promote freedom does not itself make it a "free" form of government, let alone the "freest."

You yourself just stated that freedom is often not in the best interests of the governed (letting the reasoning behind that alone) and that only a government with the autonomy of an oligarchy knows what's best for its people (again, reasoning for that assumption aside). Restriction of freedom is also a capacity of an oligarchy and much more often the result.
Sapere Aude!
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:48:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:42:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:35:12 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:32:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Simple. An oligarchy has enough power to make everything legal.
Is this a quality exclusive to oligarchies? Simply because something has the capacity to exist under a certain government system doesn't mean that it is likely to. Anarchy is the obvious better answer IMO.

An oligarchy can strike down restrictive laws,
So can most forms of government. And oligarchy can, and more often does, form restrictive, freedom-killing laws.
while a state can form in Anarchy.
If a state forms in anarchy, it is no longer an anarchy.
Sapere Aude!
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:49:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:46:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:42:50 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Any person is outvoted when the majority decides to take his stuff/tell him what to do/whatever. There is no difference between saying 'issues' are outvoted and 'people' are outvoted--'issues' are just what the rulers do to the people.

Now you're going along the line that I left open. That all government is non-individualist. That it loses individuality as soon as someone is told what to do.

Then your claim that democracy is the 'most individualistic' form of government is absurd. What matters is what the laws are, not how they are made.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:48:26 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:42:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:35:12 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:32:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Simple. An oligarchy has enough power to make everything legal.
Is this a quality exclusive to oligarchies? Simply because something has the capacity to exist under a certain government system doesn't mean that it is likely to. Anarchy is the obvious better answer IMO.

An oligarchy can strike down restrictive laws,
So can most forms of government. And oligarchy can, and more often does, form restrictive, freedom-killing laws.
while a state can form in Anarchy.
If a state forms in anarchy, it is no longer an anarchy.

I'm not arguing in realistic terms.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:52:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:47:24 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:34:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:22:54 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:18:02 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Oligarchy is the freest form of government.

Care to explain?

I'll take this one.

People are stupid. They invent these things they call "rights" to make their lives most convenient and pleasing to lead, but ultimately when given the choice they often make the wrong one. The benevolent oligarchy looks out for the people's best interest -because they are incapable of doing so themselves.

The democratic fantasy is that people -somehow- should be given the freedom to choose their political leaders because only the majority consensus is the source of just political power. Political power, however, is never absolutely "just" where any minority is oppressed, within the framework of equality. Conceptually then, "justice" can exist only in degrees in terms of political power.

Power, held in any context, is benign. The ends it produces can be good or bad, but in and of itself, power is nor could it be just or unjust. For me, the question is never what is just or unjust, but what is BEST in any given situation. The best possible option can only be achieved where an elite few possess a monopoly on decision-making power.

We are not discussing the best form of government. Nor are we discussing the form of government with the most autonomy. The key word is "freest." Simply because an oligarchy posses the capacity to promote freedom does not itself make it a "free" form of government, let alone the "freest."

You yourself just stated that freedom is often not in the best interests of the governed (letting the reasoning behind that alone) and that only a government with the autonomy of an oligarchy knows what's best for its people (again, reasoning for that assumption aside). Restriction of freedom is also a capacity of an oligarchy and much more often the result.

I answered the question you should have asked, but didn't.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:53:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:50:09 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:48:26 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:42:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:35:12 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/12/2012 7:32:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Simple. An oligarchy has enough power to make everything legal.
Is this a quality exclusive to oligarchies? Simply because something has the capacity to exist under a certain government system doesn't mean that it is likely to. Anarchy is the obvious better answer IMO.

An oligarchy can strike down restrictive laws,
So can most forms of government. And oligarchy can, and more often does, form restrictive, freedom-killing laws.
while a state can form in Anarchy.
If a state forms in anarchy, it is no longer an anarchy.

I'm not arguing in realistic terms.

Me either. ROFLMAO
Tsar of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:54:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:15:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The individualist case against democracy is that no one person somehow gains mystical powers to coerce someone simply because others agree with them. A majority as a separate entity does not exist sure, but individuals who think agreement with a majority of others constitutes the right to enforce their preferences do.
: 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.