"Individualist" Opposition to "Majority Rule"

At 7/12/2012 7:54:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:

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.

And so...

At 7/12/2012 7:56:19 PM, YYW wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:54:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:

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.

And so...

Didn't think I'd have to spell it out. It means Freedo's analysis is wrong. The individualist case against majority rule is not that the majority as some collective agent is wrong, it's that individuals do not gain mystical powers over dissenters by having others agree with them. Freedo is misrepresenting individualist opposition in the OP.

At 7/12/2012 7:58:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:56:19 PM, YYW wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:54:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:

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.

And so...

Didn't think I'd have to spell it out. It means Freedo's analysis is wrong. The individualist case against majority rule is not that the majority as some collective agent is wrong, it's that individuals do not gain mystical powers over dissenters by having others agree with them. Freedo is misrepresenting individualist opposition in the OP.

I wasn't asking for clarification. I was baffled as to why you reposted it.

As an aside though, I agree with the assertion that majority opinion does not constitute a legitimate source of power -but would temper that argument with the assertion that no source of power is legitimate or otherwise. It simply is (ergo neither legitimate or illegitimate).

I suppose in a dark sort of way there is a possibility that I could support the universal legalization of all drugs, and total destruction of the state if for no other reason than in a pure state of nature chlorine would naturally find its way into the gene pool.

Maybe it's my inner Malthusian talking now... (my inner Malthusian who has been engaging in a potentially devastating affair with Nietzschen morality, but who has cheated with Hobbes).

At 7/12/2012 8:05:53 PM, YYW wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:58:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:56:19 PM, YYW wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:54:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:

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.

And so...

Didn't think I'd have to spell it out. It means Freedo's analysis is wrong. The individualist case against majority rule is not that the majority as some collective agent is wrong, it's that individuals do not gain mystical powers over dissenters by having others agree with them. Freedo is misrepresenting individualist opposition in the OP.

I wasn't asking for clarification. I was baffled as to why you reposted it.

Freedo never responded.

As an aside though, I agree with the assertion that majority opinion does not constitute a legitimate source of power -but would temper that argument with the assertion that no source of power is legitimate or otherwise. It simply is (ergo neither legitimate or illegitimate).

I suppose in a dark sort of way there is a possibility that I could support the universal legalization of all drugs, and total destruction of the state if for no other reason than in a pure state of nature chlorine would naturally find its way into the gene pool.

Maybe it's my inner Malthusian talking now... (my inner Malthusian who has been engaging in a potentially devastating affair with Nietzschen morality, but who has cheated with Hobbes).

At 7/12/2012 7:49:36 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

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.

The will of people does not matter when concerning the protection of their will?

At 7/12/2012 8:08:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Freedo never responded.

To what, specifically?

At 7/12/2012 8:11:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:49:36 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

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.

The will of people does not matter when concerning the protection of their will?

Please rephrase your question in a way that makes sense. What are you asking?

At 7/12/2012 8:12:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/12/2012 8:08:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Freedo never responded.

To what, specifically?

Post of mine directly under the OP directed at your primary contention.

At 7/12/2012 8:12:09 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 7/12/2012 8:11:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:49:36 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

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.

The will of people does not matter when concerning the protection of their will?

Please rephrase your question in a way that makes sense. What are you asking?

It's rhetorical. You say it does not matter how laws are made. Laws don't come out of thin air. They are made through a will and will is not static. It certainly matters.

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.

As I pointed out to LF, there is problem here between the difference of people and single issues.
No group of people is getting their will over another group. They all give and take.

At 7/12/2012 8:26:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/12/2012 8:12:09 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 7/12/2012 8:11:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/12/2012 7:49:36 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

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.

The will of people does not matter when concerning the protection of their will?

Please rephrase your question in a way that makes sense. What are you asking?

It's rhetorical. You say it does not matter how laws are made. Laws don't come out of thin air. They are made through a will and will is not static. It certainly matters.

It matters how laws are made because that process will affect what the laws are--the process itself, whether democracy or dictatorship, isn't inherently meaningful. What matters, ultimately, is what the laws are--it makes no difference whether you're voted into a concentration camp or dictated into it. Democracy could be more individualistic, in the sense that it tends to have better laws on average, but you made no such argument. You argued that democracy is more individualist by its very nature.

At 7/12/2012 8:31:01 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It matters how laws are made because that process will affect what the laws are--the process itself, whether democracy or dictatorship, isn't inherently meaningful. What matters, ultimately, is what the laws are--it makes no difference whether you're voted into a concentration camp or dictated into it. Democracy could be more individualistic, in the sense that it tends to have better laws on average, but you made no such argument. You argued that democracy is more individualist by its very nature.

You misunderstand. Irrespective of whether there's any difference between majority as a group or as individuals, democracy still inevitably results in subjugation of individual rights. You say that it isn't people but individual issues that are out-voted. But this isn't true. Humans almost always organize themselves into groups on their own with certain guidelines for mentality. Hiterlesque jewish extermination is just as likely under a democracy as under a fascist system if the majority of people would hold the same sentiments as the one person. Keeping certain individual rights protects against these things no matter what crazy group mentalities people are adopting.

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.

Whenever I hear the "benevolent oligarchy/dictator" argument all I hear is

"People are stupid, so let's choose a few people, hope they aren't stupid, and then hope that the next group that group chooses won't be as stupid as everyone else. If it turns out they're (SURPRISE!) also stupid, they can do whatever they want without fear of consequences.

At 7/12/2012 10:16:01 PM, Wnope 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.

Whenever I hear the "benevolent oligarchy/dictator" argument all I hear is

"People are stupid, so let's choose a few people, hope they aren't stupid, and then hope that the next group that group chooses won't be as stupid as everyone else. If it turns out they're (SURPRISE!) also stupid, they can do whatever they want without fear of consequences.

As it turns out, many people who just happen to "seize" power -or even come into it- are self interested, which does undercut the "benevolent" concept. That has at least been the case across the trajectory of all recorded human history, unless there is some alternate form I'm unaware of. There were once thinkers during a period of time who concluded that checked self interest was the only way to go, because people are self interested. They theorized that the self interest of others would check the self interest of others. These are people looking to solve the prisoners dilemma. I'm far more interested to solve the stag hunt.

The pragmatic side of me questions the possibility of doing so, but the visionary side of me wants to believe that it's possible. The rational side of me argues that people can't change but the idealist want's to know why not. The Hobbes 'demon' on my right shoulder is quick to remind me that the reason people can't change is because they are hopelessly blighted by the very fact that people are human, that they are truculent, bitter and inclined to get 'theirs' before they are even capable of thinking beyond themselves. But the Rousseau angel on my left shoulder -conspicuously above my heart- tells me that life for most is better then Notes From Underground, and reminds me that within us all people are basically good. Tolstoy chimes in that within us all, there is an Alyosha, although our leaders are jaded and cynical. Perhaps leadership -or too much time in this world exposed to all that is in it- hampers our faith in the human spirit, to question wether there is a direction for humanity itself.

I suppose in the end that is why I am a liberal -for now, at least- because I consciously choose to believe -despite overwhelming evidence (I'm sure Nozik is snickering) that there is something more to life for humans -the agents of life- then indulgence or hedonism. But then when I get tired of waiting to get wherever it is that we're going, when I want change in our time -my time- that I am tempted to conclude that the only way to get 'there' and do so 'now' is by sacrificing those things that make life now as good as it is.

Just thinking out loud here...

Whenever I hear the "benevolent oligarchy/dictator" argument all I hear is
"People are stupid, so let's choose a few people, hope they aren't stupid, and then hope that the next group that group chooses won't be as stupid as everyone else. If it turns out they're (SURPRISE!) also stupid, they can do whatever they want without fear of consequences.

If it turns out they are also stupid, you run their blood through the streets and try again.

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.

Those individuals have all cooperated to enact a single candidate's power, unanimously. They all had the same act, which zeroes out and renders calling them "the majority" useful shorthand that has no impact on the conclusion. Our moral argument would be the same under "Bob oppressed Jane, and Bill oppressed Jane, etc" as "The majority oppressed Jane." It would just be a few hundred million words longer.

No such thing can be said of "Society," which possesses no such unanimous act to analyze.

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.

Politics consists of one party subjugating the will of another. To declare that each individual will shall constitute an equal unit for the purpose of deciding which will shall subjugate which will is to declare that such a decision must be made. The only question is whether the people subjugated are to be people who each, severally, as individuals, tried to subjugate someone else's will first (a libertarian politics), or not. Democracy is not of course strictly determinate of this-- a democracy can be libertarian or not.

When we take it by this standard, we see that democracy is there not to oppress individuals but to free them

Nonsensical.

by making sure they all have the same say in the law of the land.

Equal say has nothing inherently to do with freedom.

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.

Again, does not follow.
And it is impossible for it to be run by everyone, because wills conflict. It can be run by a majority or a minority. For the purposes of freedom, it does not matter which, either the will to oppress is oppressed or other wills are.

simply seeing every individual as they are, we recognize that everyone has the same say

They don't "have the same say--" They don't say the same thing, and only one say can win.

If everyone said the same thing, there is no politics going on.

Whenever I hear the "benevolent oligarchy/dictator" argument all I hear is
"People are stupid, so let's choose a few people, hope they aren't stupid, and then hope that the next group that group chooses won't be as stupid as everyone else. If it turns out they're (SURPRISE!) also stupid, they can do whatever they want without fear of consequences.

If it turns out they are also stupid, you run their blood through the streets and try again.

I just prefer not to comply.

At 7/13/2012 1:07:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I just prefer not to comply.

There is another important value to point out here.

If a system is truly tyrannic, it creates a sense of purpose in one's life to oppose it.

Perhaps that is the goal of the Illuminati all along.

At 7/13/2012 1:09:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/13/2012 1:07:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I just prefer not to comply.

There is another important value to point out here.

If a system is truly tyrannic, it creates a sense of purpose in one's life to oppose it.

Perhaps that is the goal of the Illuminati all along.

Purpose for A=create purpose for B?

Error. Not valid answer to question "What is purpose for A?" What do they get out of it?

At 7/13/2012 1:43:45 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

At 7/13/2012 1:09:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/13/2012 1:07:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I just prefer not to comply.

There is another important value to point out here.

If a system is truly tyrannic, it creates a sense of purpose in one's life to oppose it.

Perhaps that is the goal of the Illuminati all along.

Purpose for A=create purpose for B?

Error. Not valid answer to question "What is purpose for A?" What do they get out of it?

Not purpose. Sense of purpose.

Irrelevant. Still doesn't answer question of what A gets out of the action.

At 7/13/2012 1:46:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Irrelevant. Still doesn't answer question of what A gets out of the action.

Is A a person in your question?

They get satisfaction. Though, on a different level from what it is usually understood as.

A Democratic Majority Rule is just as individualist as a Republican Rule of Law. The Republican Rule of Law is more right wing, because the policies must be confined to what the law allows.
A collectivist ideology would be the a tyranny, or a monarchy, or even a oligarchy, or an aristocracy.

Rule of Law vs Majority Rule is simply the preference of the individualist. Republican individualist may say that minority needs to be protected from the majority. A Democratic individualist may say that laws are too binding, or that they are an insufficient means to protect individual liberty. Democrats might also claim that one cannot please everyone. Republicans would likely respond by saying that the government is not set up to please everyone, but rather to benefit everyone.

At 7/13/2012 1:09:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/13/2012 1:07:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I just prefer not to comply.

There is another important value to point out here.

If a system is truly tyrannic, it creates a sense of purpose in one's life to oppose it.

Actually, I operate on the opposite premise. Tyrannical states often are so successful because they rely on a teleological mechanism--they lay out or appeal to some sense of destiny or common purpose to unit people, then make it a sacrosanct political object. In fact, I would argue that nation-states are inherently founded through a teleological mechanism relating to the shared destiny or vocation of a national political body. Many Americans are, even now, vulnerable to this.

On the other hand, you're right--it often does create a sense of purpose in those who regard it as some noble duty or spiritual vocation to oppose tyranny. But I argue that this is problematic insofar as it replaces one fictional teleology with another: rather than eliminating the notion that our species is bound up in some destiny, calling, or "proper" form of life, rebels make the same assumption--they just do it for the opposite reason.

So, it doesn't create "purpose" in my life to oppose tyranny. In fact, I don't oppose it in the sense of standing up to challenge it; rather, I prefer not to comply. I'm more interested in deactivating the idea of authority, rather than confronting it as an adversary. If we can learn anything (here relevant) from Kafka, it's that the best way to deal with authority is not to acknowledge it.

At 7/13/2012 1:07:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I just prefer not to comply.

I thought you were dead ;)

At 7/13/2012 11:19:26 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 7/13/2012 1:07:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I just prefer not to comply.

I thought you were dead ;)

I continue to place confidence in my good fortune. :)

At 7/13/2012 11:42:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 7/13/2012 11:19:26 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 7/13/2012 1:07:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I just prefer not to comply.

I thought you were dead ;)

I continue to place confidence in my good fortune. :)

I did give away my schedule for the rest of the week (which is "work every day").

At 7/13/2012 1:52:21 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 7/13/2012 1:46:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Irrelevant. Still doesn't answer question of what A gets out of the action.

Is A a person in your question?

The Illuminati in your scenario.

They get satisfaction. Though, on a different level from what it is usually understood as.

Meaningless. To satisfy is to satisfy some desire. By telling me "they get satisfaction" you assert that they get something without actually saying what it is.

At 7/13/2012 7:58:55 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Actually, I operate on the opposite premise. Tyrannical states often are so successful because they rely on a teleological mechanism--they lay out or appeal to some sense of destiny or common purpose to unit people, then make it a sacrosanct political object. In fact, I would argue that nation-states are inherently founded through a teleological mechanism relating to the shared destiny or vocation of a national political body. Many Americans are, even now, vulnerable to this.

On the other hand, you're right--it often does create a sense of purpose in those who regard it as some noble duty or spiritual vocation to oppose tyranny. But I argue that this is problematic insofar as it replaces one fictional teleology with another: rather than eliminating the notion that our species is bound up in some destiny, calling, or "proper" form of life, rebels make the same assumption--they just do it for the opposite reason.

So, it doesn't create "purpose" in my life to oppose tyranny. In fact, I don't oppose it in the sense of standing up to challenge it; rather, I prefer not to comply. I'm more interested in deactivating the idea of authority, rather than confronting it as an adversary. If we can learn anything (here relevant) from Kafka, it's that the best way to deal with authority is not to acknowledge it.

Excellent points.