Democracy... is there an alternative

Post Reply New Topic

I think that is probably the hardest issue to overcome in my system. Some independence of the test-making body would be helpful. Perhaps the solution would be that the test covered a variety of different interpretations, and you didn't have to necessarily give your own opinions, but simply show that you understand each side of the debate. Really, I think most people would prefer a meritocratic system over the current semi-hereditary oligarchical system. You can point out the flaws in this system, but how does the current system address the same problems?

In theory I'm always in favour of democracy, as long as the people vote the right way...
I like the idea of a "direct democracy" though, with everybody being able to vote on decisions through the internet or something similar, but we are nowhere near capable of that right now, so it's kind of in the realms of science fiction.

No, I think we have most of the infrastructure in place so that would be possible within the next few years. The issue is that I think having the people in general decide issues is a piss-poor way of making decisions to begin with.

That's one of the reasons I don't we could pull it off right now. Still, in a few hundred years or so, who knows...

i really wish there could be some kind of proficiency test with voting but that's way too open for abuse by either of the two major parties and also open for abuse in cases of racism or sexism.

Well, the issue is that you make an assumption, that even though there is a basic supposition, there must also be a lack of depth in understanding to support the view. This is a blatant appeal to the middle rather than an argument.

Well, you are right, I did ignore that.



Basically yes, there is little other way I can see a minarchist system functioning unless it were essentially a form of constitutionalism, otherwise there will be degradation. I don't think that most minarchists actually think about the political implementation of their system, but given that they give government a predetermined set of rules to enforce, I would say that they have a constitutionalist system in their mind.

Well.... I disagree. You are right in as much as they don't want totalitarianism, however, I would think that most people want an active government in all affairs so as to make them feel comfortable as their demons from evil music to evil corporation to evil axes can be smote. Not only that, but minarchism typically means a bare minimalistic government.


Well, the issue is that most constitutionalists in the variant I am using it are also minarchists, so their notion of law, would be rather simple. Can a court prove that an action infringed the negative rights of another person? There would be issues of how to create it, and issues of how to write it, but once again, I would think that most minarchists ultimately want a constitutional or other similarly rigid system.

You Hamiltonian!


Well, couldn't the notion of ideal society be held where "ideal society" exists tautologically as the absolute maxima along all of the axes involved in determining "goodness" of a society? Well, the issue really comes down to valuation, just because many will want only a good society, does not mean that a best society is not something to be forgotten. Especially given that most "good" societies will end up having areas where degradation is inevitable and ultimately must be taken care of.

True, we have not, but that does not mean that a best society from a person's perspective cannot exist. Not only that, but who said anything about people having to agree on the perfect society for a single person's view to have import? Heck, from the views of single individuals do come the views of many others. It is true that a person cannot work towards an undefined goal though.

Maybe your right here. I was referring to socialist ideas about the "New Communist Man" as well as some characterizations about people in general that I have heard anarchists make. Anarcho-capitalist theory doesn't always seem to me to take the "common man" into account very well. I think Smithian capitalism probably did the best job of building a society around the people it had to work with. It's very strange for you to call me out on a appeal to the middle, though; only rarely am I criticized for being too centrist, as my views are regarded by most as fairly extreme. Really though, all societies are composed of a mix of people, and it makes little sense to design a society assuming that everyone in it will act in the same manner.


The Hayekian (are you still mainly Hayekian?) anarcho-capitalist forgot about the importance of liberty. Irony at its finest.


Yes, that's true. But I was mainly trying to prevent a slide into a false dichotomy between minarchism and absolutism. People all want varying levels of government involvement in a range of issues, but most agree that the power of the state should be finite.


You are assuming not only minarchism but also strong libertarianism. (well, I guess the two go together so it's not unreasonable to do so) Some people want less government than we have now but still recognize some positive rights, most universally the right to education.


Hey, he managed to get us out of debt and on a strong financial footing. He's probably one of the major reasons why the US, unlike other former American colonies, became a world power after our revolution rather than an unstable banana republic. But yes, I have been gravitating towards some Hamiltonian ideals of late. I'm an elitist, I'll admit it. I distrust people in general to make good decisions, and I want some stability in the government.


Only if you can get people to agree on what is "good." You and I share some views on this (more capitalistic, fewer restrictions on personal liberty) that are not necessarily held by all that many other people. Many want more government intervention, more public provision of people's needs, etc. The issue is that there will be a constant struggle here in defining what is the "good" that you are working towards. Actually, that's pretty much the whole point of politics.


I mainly included these comments because I suspect the OP and I have very different values when it comes to how we envision the ideal society. We both reject democracy for its failure to sufficiently promote our own views of what the world should be like, but then we are both hoping ultimately for different things. If we are searching for an alternative to democracy, how are we to resolve these other differences?

Well, I understand that, but the "New Communist Man" is an idea that can be criticized as failing upon it's own merits or demerits. The issue is then explaining where the failure lay. I know it is strange, but you ARE making an appeal to the middle, as you are criticizing the idea as extreme and using the typical arguments of that nature. You are correct, societies are made of a mix of people, but the issue is how mixed societies are. If mixedness were to the point of madness then no societies are possible, but if mixedness is nil, then no institutions would be necessary, sort of like an ant colony. So, the debate is not a denial of mixedness, but rather the levels of mixedness and the nature of this mixedness. One of the arguments for anarcho-capitalism is the mixedness of society


I was not sure I ever claimed to be primarily Hayekian. I thought I said that I was more of a Friedmanite anarcho-capitalist, and David Friedman promotes the idea based upon efficiency and utilitarianism as opposed to libertarianism.

I can understand that.


Well, I understand that, I just don't think that most people are libertarians.


Well, the issue of "no superior society" is a statement of no values. And without values, there is no basis for making any claims on government in the first place. If there are values though, then these values could be better defined based upon some meta-valuation that forms the basis of the original understanding of the values. If we say that values should be given weight by statistics, then we have a superior system and inferior systems, and etc.


I know that everyone has different ideas, but differences in ideas is not a reason to dismiss all ideas. It is correct that different people will have different theories that they seek, but the point is so far to create solutions, then once some are promoted and rejected, then we can start throwing wrenches into the works as step 1 "create ideas" has been finished.

Well, I wasn't necessarily saying "no superior society." Just it seems to make sense to come to a consensus on a goal before debating means. I value certain things, the OP others. We would have to find some common ground in order to have much of a discussion about what system of government would best secure the type of society we would be happy in.


Not dismissing all ideas, simply saying that we need to go back and reconsider what we're trying to accomplish with certain systems of government, what the purpose of government is, etc. I would view any political process as a means and not an end. In the Enlightenment, most liberals supported republic or constitutional monarchies because they thought these would be most likely to promote their view of how society should be, but they were also willing to accept absolute rulers who promoted some of the same things. I'm somewhat the same. I think a minarchist state with some elements of republicanism and elitism would do the best job of promoting my ideals, but I would be perfectly willing to support a military dictator who advanced those same ideals. I would also be fine with a democracy if it fairly consistently made decisions in line with my beliefs. The more important issue to most people isn't always how a decision is made, but rather what the decision is and how it affects them. Therefore, any argument over the best form of government is moot until you agree on what that government is ultimately setting out to do. Unless of course you are referring only to mere administrative efficiency or some other such measure.

We havnt got democracy, thats why democracy isnt working.

We have a dictatorship, Babylon the Great, the religious whore who sits on the beast that is human governments, steering it towards her goals.

The Jewish international bankers and thier Christian Zionist hangers on are the dictators.
They give you a choice of two sides to vote for so that you think you have a democracy.

And the goals of the Harlot, the people of the Book who where married to God through the Abrahamic covernant but chose to seek world rulership throuigh fornicating and controlling the kings of the Earth, world rulership, the Greater Israel, and the destruction of all Israels ememies, the greatest of which is her Brother Islam.

You only have to look to America where the man everybody wanted and who would have left the middle east alone, Ron Paul, was purposely ignored.
We are left now with two choices, McCain and Obama.

Both of them are determined to go to war against Israels eneimys for them, that next being Iran.

Get me?

Theres democracy for you, nobody wants war with Iran except the Israelies, America is given a choice of two leaders, both of whom want war with Islam.

You can see why, it wasnt just Germany who tried to shake the whore off its back, but the Jews have been kicked out of countries 79 times due to the actions of the few controlling Elite Jews at the expence of the ordinary sacrificial Jew.

Oh please! Not all these scare tactics yet again! Sure, things are bad but the Biblical prophecies you talk about were fulfilled years ago. They don't apply in any way to the world of today!

Hi Chosen One, we seem to be conversing on two threads at the same time!
I will have to stop though as I need to get on with some decorating

You will have to spell out how you consider these Biblical Prophecies to have been fullfilled years ago, as allthough they might have had a minor fullfillment with the Christian Jews escaping from Jerusalem just before the Romans destroyed it in AD 70, there is a huge amount that is future and unfullfilled, especially in Revelation, the One World Government that proceeds the Kingdom of God ruling the World being quite a big one that I cannot recall ever being fullfilled?

The 8th King of Daniel, armeggedon, the resurrection etc?

All supposition and writings that can be interpreted to justify whatever point of view you currently wish to peddle. I wouldn't take such things very seriously or lose sleep over them. I'd rather think about real and immediate problems facing our society and these are many.

That's essentially what I've been promoting in this thread. I'm kind of assuming that such a radical overhaul of the decision-making process would probably result in the dissolution of the current political parties and a realignment along new ideological lines, so that's not an issue. I don't see how racism or sexism would factor in to such a test.

I think Churchill said it best

Not exactly sure what the symantics were but something along the lines that democratic capitalism is the second worst system to everything else.

Meaning we can have things either kind of broken or *really* broken. Dictatorship we might at least have some peace and quiet as people would be executed for whining.

We'll probably be there soon enough.