Democracy

[Anonymouse]

It is generally accepted, albeit lacking inquisition, that democracy is the best form of government. In fact, it is believed that through the progression of history this is as good as it gets. Indeed, those neo-Cons such as Donald Rumsfeld believe that democracy is the endpoint in history, there is nothing else political systems can evolve to. Thus it is generally believed that history is a progression towards improvement, and evolution. Rarely do you see anyone questioning this conventional wisdom that perhaps it is towards de-evolution, towards negative entropy, towards lack of improvement. As goes with all political theories and systems, you have the the blind supporters of one system, and on the other side, you have the hardcore critics of that system, usually themselves blindly following another political system.

 

Democracy, is after all, the oldest form of government. Indeed it prospered in Athens, of course in a differnet fashion from what we have now, but when Socrates in a truly political trial praised monarchy he was condemned to death. Someone said that our civilization rests on the death of two persons, a philosopher, and the Son of God, both victims of popular will. It is no wonder that Plato and Aristotle were both critical of that system, and the latter left Athens to not suffer Socrates' fate. After some millenia democracy is back and indeed more powerful than ever. The U.S. started touting itself as a "democracy" during Woodrow Wilsons tenure, and it wasn't until Roosevelt that "democracy" was finally understood as being synonomous with America. Prior to that, America was thought of as being a "Republic" much like Rome was a "Republic" prior to becoming an empire. Then the critics of "American Democracy" say "America is not a Democracy", and that they themselves have truly figured out what "Democracy" is. In fact, there is no "Democracy" because all "democracies" naturally evolve into tyrannies.

 

Thanks to Woodrow Wilson "Democracy" is now like the Crusades of the middle ages. We have to "spread" it to every part of the world, via force and coercion, whereas this contradicts "Democracy" yet no one questions this either. Indeed, the quest for spreading "Democracy" is no different than the Red Menace spreading "Communism". What is the difference between "Democracy" and "Communism" or "Fascism"? If the premise that all political theories aside, there is either despotism or anarchy, is accepted, then this pretty much makes all political systems moot since they are all premised on coercion and control and spread. Once this little truth is realized, then one can see that there was not much difference between Communism or Democracy, and this is just a natural tendency for States to evolve into imperialistic bloodsuckers.

 

There is no bigger lie than the "people are the government". Indeed such euphemisms must exist, and people must believe, in order for the system to survive. The system does not exist because of tanks or weapons, it exists because of faith, because a little line can mean so much sometimes. Even a worse indictment for Democracy ( the same applies to Socialism/Communism and any other system that is socialistic ) is that through time there is a lowering of quality and an increase in corruption and carelessness. Since "people are the government" they are ipso facto guaranteed an income from the taxed people. That the government workers and civil servants are guaranteed an income through the taxed people virtually their whole time in office there will be no regard for the well being of the alleged "people" they claim to represent. The most extreme form of this was witnessed in the Soviet Union towards its post war era. Indeed the politicians' sole regard will now be for themselves as any one here knows that politicians will say anything to get into office, but do little once there. Indeed, they lie, steal, and have blood on their hands, we recognize this, and continue to vote. Thus an increased emploment in the 'public sector' such as government jobs and facilities will follow with carelessness, imcompetence, and laziness. I just walk into the DMV, or the Downtown Court house to see how these "social workers" work. It is horrible. The laziest, fattest, and dumbest people are behind the window doing what they shouldn't be doing, handling my stuff.

We can take this further. So now that we had the thought experiment of democracy, is there any doubt of the consequences which resulted from the process of democratization that began in Europe and America in the 20th century and has come to "success" since the First World War? The successive expansion of this franchise has lead to the bloodiest and most tragic wars with unimaginable human lives. This idea of collectivity and mass mindedness which accompanies Democracy" or "the will of the people" or "the people" ( all a holistic entity ) which is characteristic of Democracy, of Communism, of National Socialism, etc. has resulted in 200 million deaths in the 20th century alone. I think, that if opened to scrutiny, "Democracy" is perhaps the worst form of government ever unleashed on mankind. It brought out a certain mindlessness and fanaticism of the "masses" and "obedience" and "mass minded thinking" which only increased human loss to "total war". Indeed, as we have ascended through history in the quest for "improvement" for "humanity", we have indeed move to an equal amount of destruction. Each age or stage of history is synonymous with its amount of destruction. Thus during Monarchy, you had "civilized warfare", meeting at an open field, etc., etc. Now we have total war in which entire populations are decimated. It is fair to conclude that if these trends continue, humanity will extinguish itself.

 

Your thoughts, critiques, suggestions, comments?

[gurgen]

You are 100% right.

 

'Nuff said.

[Anonymouse]

Indeed. It is important to never succumb to any ideology or ism which claims to have answers to everything. That is how deception occurs.

[gurgen]

Yep.

 

Democracy is so overrated these days.

All those blind sheep preach that total government control is terrible and that a totalitarian state is something that should never arise, but they forget that when they now blindly follow democracy and do everything the democratic leaders say, exactly that is going to happen.

 

Also I find it very enlightening that the US wants to enforce democracy on other countries. If they are so tolerant, why don't they allow the 'people' to choose their own form of government?

Edited February 13, 2004 by gurgen

[Anonymouse]

Yep.

 

Democracy is so overrated these days.

All those blind sheep preach that total government control is terrible and that a totalitarian state is something that should never arise, but they forget that when they now blindly follow democracy and do everything the democratic leaders say, exactly that is going to happen.

 

Also I find it very enlightening that the US wants to enforce democracy on other countries. If they are so tolerant, why don't they allow the 'people' to choose their own form of government?

Because choice is not necessarily the hallmark of despotisms.

[Armat]

Somehow my sleeping dragon has woken up and I intend on pursuing this discussion to its fullest. I blame wolf for provoking me.

 

In fact, there is no"Democracy" because all "democracies" naturally evolve into tyrannies.

I am rather suspicious that this post is basically copy and paste from some web site(extreme leftist) but regardless weather it is your” thoughts” or not I will dissect it.

The sentence above is wrong and its promise is untrue. There are democracies in Sweden, Belgium, Denmark just a few which does not involve into tyrannies.

What is the difference between "Democracy" and "Communism" or "Fascism"? If the premise that all political theories aside, there is either despotism or anarchy, is accepted

This is rather classic case of playing with phrases and words.The promise is not excepted.There are serious differences between these systems. The population never elected the communist leaders but rather Kremlin beurocrats! Significant difference!

There is no bigger lie than the "people are the government". Indeed such euphemisms must exist, and people must believe, in order for the system to survive.

Please define your understanding of “system”

The system does not exist because of tanks or weapons, it exists because of faith, because a little line can mean so much sometimes. Even a worse indictment for Democracy ( the same applies to Socialism/Communism and any other system that is socialistic ) is that through time there is a lowering of quality and an increase in corruption and carelessness. Since "people are the government" they are ipso facto guaranteed an income from the taxed people. That the government workers and civil servants are guaranteed an income through the taxed people virtually their whole time in office there will be no regard for the well being of the alleged "people" they claim to represent. The most extreme form of this was witnessed in the Soviet Union towards its post war era. Indeed the politicians' sole regard will now be for themselves as any one here knows that politicians will say anything to get into office, but do little once there. Indeed, they lie, steal, and have blood on their hands, we recognize this, and continue to vote. Thus an increased emploment in the 'public sector' such as government jobs and facilities will follow with carelessness, imcompetence, and laziness.

Are we discussing democracy or human condition, If both then I must remind you that human beings by default are opportunists and by default prone to corruption and other vises. We are not discussing lack of Utopia. Are we? Then please read BF,Skinner.

which is characteristic of Democracy, of Communism, of National Socialism, etc. has resulted in 200 million deaths in the 20th century alone.

It is peculiar that democratic values has stretched in “your” reasoning to include communism (antitheses of democracy)and naturally your 200 million number is pointless.

I think, that if opened to scrutiny, "Democracy" is perhaps the worst form of government ever unleashed on mankind.

Please present facts to back this statement!

I disagree, In human history Mongol, Ottoman, Chinese, Japanese empires just a few all caused massive genocides and deaths and none of them were democratic.

Edited February 17, 2004 by Armat

[Hyeflyer]

Armat I think that Anonymouse is mistaking the American form of government for democracy. It is far from that. True democracy is as I have been taught(many years ago) like true comunism.It is for the good of all .There have been no examples of either in all of the history of governments.It is only in the text books that it exists. As for the Americanform I believe it is now on the decent to tyrany. If you can wade through the 1700 plus pages of the homeland security act you will see it is leading down the path to tyrany. As all goverments do during thier decline they oppress the public to protect themselfs amd to survive at any cost.

[Anonymouse]

I am rather suspicious that this post is basically copy and paste from some web site(extreme leftist) but regardless weather it is your” thoughts” or not I will dissect it.

The sentence above is wrong and its promise is untrue. There are democracies in Sweden, Belgium, Denmark just a few which does not involve into tyrannies.

 

The post is entirely mine, whether you like to take that at its face value or not, is your business. For you, in order to state taht my premises and conclusion are false, must provide errors in my reasoning, not merely giving examples of self styled "democracies" such as the ones you mentioned. In fact, we can see in the example of our own, the American Republic, that has made its way into tyranny. Moreover, Plato in his Republic brilliantly showed the change from democracy to tyranny and one can almost make the case that he was describing the transition from the Weimar Republic, to National Socialism. Furthermore, in any of the societies that you mentioned, one is not free to vote off the "democratic government". The simple issue of taxation is obtained by extra economic coercion.

 

This is rather classic case of playing with phrases and words.The promise is not excepted.There are serious differences between these systems. The population never elected the communist leaders but rather Kremlin beurocrats!  Significant difference!

 

So you deny that there is either despotism or anarchy, yet cannot bring forth evidence of "people are the government". In fact, the "people are the government" is the exact double think that is one of the main holes in the democratic line of reasoning, its appeal to the masses, mob rule, majoritarianism. In this sense, the only difference in Fascism, National Socialism, Communism, or Democracy is in semantics and inconsequential things, whereas the premise is that rule comes from "the people", above from below. The population never elected the present "leaders" such as Tom Aschcroft, or the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. In fact, not many of the talking head politicos in Washington are "elected", most are just appointed. How or who appoints them is a mystery. The Federal Reserve wields more control of this nation and economy than you would imagine.

 

For example take a look at the conversation that Congressman Ron Paul had with the Chairman of the Fed Alan Greenspan.

 

In a hearing before the House Financial Services committee yesterday, Congressman Ron Paul took the opportunity to ask Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan several pointed questions. Greenspan’s normal evasiveness was tested when Paul asked him directly whether Fed actions represent a threat to freedom and prosperity. Mr. Greenspan’s startling response: The Fed does indeed have “inordinate power” over the American economy.

 

“I certainly appreciate Mr. Greenspan’s candor,” Paul stated after the hearing. “The Fed does have a tremendous impact on the economy and our lives, but its board members generally escape any political scrutiny for their actions. I want to make the public and Congress more aware of just how powerful – and destructive – the Fed really is. The unbridled expansion of the money supply will hurt all of us in the long run, in the form of price inflation, destruction of personal savings, and higher interest rates.”

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul156.html

 

Please define your understanding of “system” 

 

The system is democracy, and you already should know my understanding of it. People do not rule the government, especially the masses. The "people" ( holistic ), are not real. It is an illusion. The masses themselves are just unregulated force. Force, unregulated is wasted and is destructive. The blind force of "the people" is a force that must be economized and also managed. It must be regulated by intellect. It is because force is unregulated that revolutions prove failures and States do not function, and you have individuals thinking for themselves. Hitler highlighted this brilliantly in Mein Kampf. The masses are a means to an end, a force that must be harnessed by those who rule.

 

Action in its full meaning presupposes the ability to choose. Only individuals can decide their course of action. The masses, a collective entity, a group, a nation, chooses a course of action only metaphorically. In order to act any collective group must recognize a "unit of agency" which needs a certain amount of power to "represent" the collective group. This sort of majoritarianism thinking implies that everyones interests are served by the States, in other words everyone ought to think alike, just like for Marx, all the workers ought to think alike. Hence, this sort of thinking assumes that everyone thinks alike or that everyones interests are met or served by the State. If this were true, I wouldn't be able to think nor have an argument against your line of reasoning nor would I be able to argue against the State. Individuals cannot have identitical sets of interests. Hence the problem of group identity arises. Once you are in that group, you are not allowed to choose another "unit og agency" to represent you, as that would be "treasonous".

 

Are we discussing democracy or human condition, If both then I must remind you that human beings by default are opportunists and by default prone to corruption and other vises. We are not discussing lack of Utopia. Are we? Then please read BF,Skinner.

 

We are discussing praxaeology, or human action and to a lesser degree economics, since economics is derived from praxaeological laws, and the ability to make choices. Leave your behaviorism and B.F. Skinner for Pavlov's dog to chew through.

 

It is peculiar that democratic values has stretched in “your” reasoning to include communism (antitheses of democracy)and naturally your 200 million number is pointless.

 

Apparently you haven't read Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto, in which his whole basic rant is the dictatorship of the 'proletariat', i.e. the majority, and this basically means "people".

 

Please present facts to back this statement!

I disagree, In human history Mongol, Ottoman, Chinese, Japanese empires just a few all caused massive genocides and deaths and none of them were democratic.

 

Democracy is the worst form of government because it emancipated war and democratized it. That is why in the age of democracy and the nation-state, we have "total war" which is something that we didn't have before. Further evidence of the violence that came with the democratization of war and the nation-state can be seen in the 200 million deaths that were to befall humanity in the 20th century alone, and the Armenian Genocide, along with a multidude of others were because of this mass mindedness and nationalism, that the French Revolution gave birth to. The development started after the French Revolution when in 1793 general conscription was introduced. France was the forerunner. Prussia reluctantly followed in 1812 considering consription the only viable answer to the French innovation. In earlier warfare, soliders and mercanies fought for money. Conscripted solders were coerced and had to be motivated to fight. Nationalism was the ideology that served that purpose. Hence this leads eventually to an escalation of "total war".

Edited February 18, 2004 by Anonymouse

[Sasun]

Nice post Anonymouse. Although I disagree with your conclusion that Democracy is the worst form of government, you made some great points.

[THOTH]

Hitler highlighted this brilliantly in Mein Kampf. The masses are a means to an end, a force that must be harnessed by those who rule.

Yes briliant man - of course (not)...seems you admire him greatly...Stalin too I imagine..I mean what are the masses if not fodder eh? ..yes fianl solutions and decisins made without regard to the poor starving masses..etc - thats what you admire eh?

 

So if Democracy automatically leads to tyranny (unsupportable statement IMO) - what does Tyranny lead to (meaning when one starts with tyranny/totalitarianism...and stateism..etc - and I thought you were anti stateism.....hmmm...such a bag of contradictions you are...

 

Total war has nothing to do with Democracy - nor is it at all a new concept - are you claiming that Genghis Khan was in some way a Democratic ruler practicing warcraft as determined by Democratic systems? And the rest of this arguemnt of yours is also a laugh - just not true...its much tougher to war in true Democracies as folks just dont' like such (and have a say in if their children go off to day - can vote and pressure to change policies and suh - versus havng no say...) - unlike where they are forced into such (by the dicatators that you admire so)...and total war is more a respoinse to affecting the means of making and continuing war (economics and production) then it is anyting to do with any political issue of it...

 

And you must really elaborate on your thesis blaming the Armenian Genocide on Democracy...this one I gotta hear....or are you clainming (like the Turks) that if the Armenains just accepted the Authority of the Sultan and of the Turks and werre not interested in rights as a people or in any kind fo self determination - and just accepted whatever was thrown at them - then - of course - there would have been no need for them to be slaughtered....don't know - only conjecture here on my part - I am awaiting the words and wisdom of our great and knowledgabel forum political philosopher....perhaps the answer is "just blame the Jews" - again don't know - but this seems to be where all your "proofs" end...

 

And again - as has been pointed out to you before by myself and others - when you crriticize the governmental system of the United States - this is not at all the same as criticizing the concept of Democracy - so please be more clear - your wishy washy "arguments" are really of not much substance if you cannot even be consistant with yoru terms and definitions and understandings. And much of the rest of what you say is just meaningless anyway...everyone supposedly thinking alike and being served alike/having the same interests etc etc...theoretical BS (known falsehood a priori - so where is the argument - what are you arguing against...meaningless) with no practical application...

 

 

And in fact Marx never refered to Communism as Democracy per se - as Democracy is inherently concerned with competing interests (not the interests of a single calss over all...etc) and such - (please take some politics 101 classes)...and Marx was very much refering to a dicatatorship by those who supposedly know (the interests of the people/indiviuduals) better...much like you....

 

The only thing that you say that perhaps I won't argue is the negatives of this concept of nationalism...however much of this preceeded the French Revolution IMO and was already growing as a concept long before (Democracy or no)...and I also feel that you misunderstand the concept (and inherent risks and consequences of revolution) to think that they can be controlled - ever....again perhaps a reading of Melson might enlightine you a bit on this...

 

And as mich as I too abhor this concept of Nationalism and feel it a destructive force...I cannot se what your alternatives to the French Revolution - and those that followed - would be - continuation of manarchy? Is this really what you prescibe? I mena come on now...easy to be a critic - no - just like Marx...but when it comes time to suggest viable or desireable alternatives...well here is where you naturally fall short...

[Accelerated]

The concept of 'total war' came about because of industrialistion not the French Revolution. Prior to industrialisation States did not have the means to support large standing armies for any period of time - but with the advert of railroads and general mechanisation of industry and agriculture this became possible, conscription followed. Case in point: World War 2 Japan was a monarchy, yet she was able to wage 'total war' because of the peoples belief in the divinity of the Emperor more than anything else.

[Armat]

For you, in order to state taht my premises and conclusion are false, must provide errors in my reasoning, not merely giving examples of self styled "democracies" such as the ones you mentioned.

Before I continue this further I am not sure about your phrase “self styled" democracy as in examples I provided. It is my understanding that democracy is diverse and practiced differently in just about in every democratic country and if you are going to generalize about Democracy then my examples were valid.

[Armat]

So if Democracy automatically leads to tyranny (unsupportable statement IMO) - what does Tyranny lead to (meaning when one starts with tyranny/totalitarianism...and stateism..etc - and I thought you were anti stateism.....hmmm...such a bag of contradictions you are...

 

Total war has nothing to do with Democracy - nor is it at all a new concept - are you claiming that Genghis Khan was in some way a Democratic ruler practicing warcraft as determined by Democratic systems?

Thoth

You made great points!I agree with you forthermore the rest of your post was thoughtful as well.

[Armat]

The concept of 'total war' came about because of industrialistion not the French Revolution. Prior to industrialisation States did not have the means to support large standing armies for any period of time - but with the advert of railroads and general mechanisation of industry and agriculture this became possible, conscription followed. Case in point: World War 2 Japan was a monarchy, yet she was able to wage 'total war' because of the peoples belief in the divinity of the Emperor more than anything else.

[Armat]

I must say this discussion is turning up to be very interesting indeed and I hope everyone stays off from personality attacks and comments.Anon, if anything you have succeded pissing off my wife greatly since she says I should spend my time doing better things then type in hye forum.

[THOTH]

Thoth

You made great points!I agree with you forthermore the rest of your post was thoughtful as well.

And to think I made the post directly after consuming an entire bottle of wine (delicious 98 Pomerol! ...lips smack togther! yum)..and being nearly half asleep at the time...and being more then a little perturbed at the many inacuracies of the post being responded to (goes to show you what reading too much and jumbling it all together without proper understanding will do eh?)...re-reading my response I was somewhat surprised that I made much sense at all...LOL...but I guess i made my points...

[THOTH]

Lets hear it for Democracy!

 

http://www.maybelogic.com/rawgov.html

 

http://www.gunsanddope.com/

[Anonymouse]

The concept of 'total war' came about because of industrialistion not the French Revolution. Prior to industrialisation States did not have the means to support large standing armies for any period of time - but with the advert of railroads and general mechanisation of industry and agriculture this became possible, conscription followed. Case in point: World War 2 Japan was a monarchy, yet she was able to wage 'total war' because of the peoples belief in the divinity of the Emperor more than anything else.

The concept of 'total war' is not because of industrializtion it is inspite of industrialization. "Progress" in technology has always been occuring. Japan was a "constitutional monarchy" since it was already a nation-state. It had its emperor and its cabinets, etc., etc. The French Revolution, with its new innovation in war of conscription, was a move towards this direction. In so doing, Germany, in order to compete with France, was forced to innovate thus making conscription a part of this system as well. Thus, with the rise of nation-states and mass mindedness and collective thinking that ensued with democratic nationalism, you had war constantly being innovated until the British bombed civilian targets for the first time in the Great War. The rest is history.

Edited February 18, 2004 by Anonymouse

[Sasun]

Anonymouse, I think your argument is very valid against what you call "mass-mindedness" but not necessarily democracy. It depends on what you mean by "democracy". Typically, when democracy is praised they have in mind the modern notion of liberal-democracy. The key is assuring 1) the rule of the majority, and 2) the rights and liberties of the minority. I understand your criticism is about part 1 if and when that's the only part of the system. As such it is indeed tyranny of the (holistic notion of) people which in reality is only a tiny minority at the helm of the system. What name such a system is called (democracy, communism, socialism, monarchy) is a secondary question. The important thing is that its not a liberal democracy. The system in Athens that killed Socrates was surely not a liberal democracy but a mass-minded rule of the majority turned into tyranny. The system in the US is largely a liberal-democracy however in the light of the security threats facing the empire some of the liberties were quickly abandoned. We cannot say that the US is anywhere close to be called a tyranny (perhaps in foreign policy only) though.

 

I think that Liberal-Democracy is the most effective and just form of cooperation in a nation state as well as in a confederation or union of nation states. That doesn't mean that such a system cannot turn bad. No system is immune to corruption. The reason is us, the humans who make the system. We are not immune to corruption. What is the difference? suppose we have a benevolent monarchy then for whatever reason the royal family and the aristocracy turn corrupt and become bloodsuckers. Now lets take a liberal democracy that under whatever circumstances abandons the liberties and the rule of the law and becomes a mass-minded corrupt "democratic" state. I don't see any fundamental difference, in both cases the root is corruption.

 

As for anarchy, I don't know much about it. We have never seen an anarchistic society or a country. I am gussing as long as states (as in nation states with boundaries and constitutions) exist anarchy stands no chance.

[THOTH]

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform.html

 

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

 

Oh and this ine may perhaps explain more

 

http://www.dis.org/daver/anarchism/chomsky.html

 

It should be noted that these are but versions of Anarchy anarchosyndicalism...but much of the core belief is common...but anarchist basically believe in the right of the individual/group to self-determine their socali/political order...in a nutshell...etc

Edited February 18, 2004 by THOTH

[Anonymouse]

The U.S. certainly won't be called a tyranny from the unquestioning individual. As the framers of the Constitution maintained, it is important to keep the government always in check, that is why they approved an armed citizenry and made checks and balances to prevent the government from getting too powerful. They believed that it is important to be educated, to understand what is meant by 'liberty' to then understand what it is you are to protect. I doubt that many folks who tout the U.S. as a "democracy" have read the discussions between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The U.S. was designed as a Republic based on aristocratic principles of natural law. It was never a "democracy" or intended as such or called as such until Woodrow Wilsons tenure in which we had to make the "world safe for democracy". Anyone who reads George Washington's Farewall Address can see that what we call now the "U.S." differs greatly from what the framers had set up and indeed they'd find very little for them to understand in this modern country. They might even kill themselves if they see what this turned out to. Thus from that point, the experiment known as the American Republic is a failure.

 

All "democracies" naturally evolve into "tyrannies", tyranny defined as anything contrarian and coercive to its systems initial aims. Thus taxation is a form of tyranny as it is something obtained by the State, via coercion. In other words, all the examples democracies in our world is based on one way shape or form on coercive acts. People have no choice but to pay up. This doesn't differ much from the mafia making you an 'offer you can't refuse'. Moreover from the idea that all democratic governments need constitutions that somehow constitutions are what give people their "rights" or are the basis of the "democratic state", it follows that even these aren't going to stop "democracies" from turning into their antithesis. So people learn to choose a constitution. The inherent dynamics of democracy lead to unrestricted domain and bare majority rule. That means it leads to unlimited democracy, it imposes coercive choices on people. Constitutional rules are no guarantee against the system turning sour, and the prime example is the U.S. Constitution. No constitution can provide such a guarantee since the inherent flaw itself is in langauge and its fungible nature.

 

Then you have "voting" as the method of finding out what the holistic actor, "the society" wants. Its only meaningful for head counting. From then it smuggles in a holistic value such as "society's choice". There cannot be such a thing because the underlying conflicting interests of various groups and individuals, since no two people or groups have identical interests. If you abstract from the real individuals the fictitious entity of "the society's" choice remains like the smile of the Cheshire cat, it has no ontological status, not even a conceptual entity.

 

Then you have people who use democracy to lift the outcome, any outcome, to a moral highground as it is "the will of the people", by moralizing it. It is declared to be good because it is "the will of the people". This is ontological nonsense, it committs the soc alled "naturalistic fallacy", of the "ethics of consensus". Some fools even go so far as to make a spurious relationship between democracy and prosperity, and this works like a cult where you'll have some innane journalist make the suggestion that only if "democracy" would be introduced to some of them countries of the eastern bloc, or better yet our latest example Iraq, that shops would suddenly be well stocked and you would have prosperity.

 

Holistic values, values attributed tot he holistic actor ( "the people" ) such as "social justice", "equality of outcome", etc., are appealed to in order to erode and override the very property rights that a social order si intended to protect, that of the individuals.

 

As far as "anarchy", our everyday actions are anarchistic. Moreover when people argue for "anarchy" it is they who are self responsible individuals make decisions for their lives, not the State meddling in. The people who fear this are the ones who are too quick to call the state to rescue you. They are the ones who fear individuals making choices. Somehow they believe that if individuals made choices it would be catastrophic for society, but contradict themselves by believing that if these same individuals went ahead and were part of the government were cloaked with the mantle of the state, that somehow they would act for the 'good of all". Indeed do you see the contradiction in this thinking?

 

Cheers!

 

P.S. Thoth your response was nothing but a lard of assumptions about me and my post. Since you follow me around this forum because you find my presence annoying, and you try to smear me, I don't take you seriously, but for a mant that is at least 10 years older than me, you act far less mature than my little cousin.

[THOTH]

Yes Mr "got Milf" - you are Mr Serious here,....right....

[Sasun]

Anon, I don't think taxation is tyrannical. It can be viewed like specialization and separation of tasks as in economics. I would never be able to or want to do all the services myself that I buy from the state through taxes. Car makers are the best agents to make cars, I am the best agent to do what I specialize in. I get my salary and pay to the car maker to buy the car. Likewise, the state is the best agent in the economy to offer services of defense, policing, public education, granting driver's licenses ( ), etc... I am willing to work my job, get my salary and pay some of it as taxes and buy those services as I cannot bother about providing my own defence, my own protection from crime, etc. One could argue about the fairness of this deal, or about the coercive nature of taxation, the efficiency of the government, or about what types of services should and should not be performed by the state. These are all part of the democratic process. As far as the coerciveness of taxation - sure most people would like to not pay taxes and be free riders in using the defence, police, free education, etc. But in the end, most people would agree that taxes should exist in a society. And taxes and their amounts are largely set up by the majority rule.

Now, if there are people who are principally against any taxes... well they are out of luck. Perhaps it is very unfair for them but I doubt they could live on their own without the services of the government. Perhaps if one day an anarchistic country exists they will be set free of taxes. But as for now there doesn't seem to be any alternative.

[gurgen]

And what services does the government provide for free that are so damn necessary?

Protection from crime? Please, they are busier writing parking tickets.

I think if we wouldn't pay taxes, we would have more than enough money to hire a few bodyguards to protect us. With the currect democratic system organised crime has it's way anyway, since 90% of the politicians are corrupt.

 

Also, I don't agree that the amout of taxes is set by the majority rule. How many times has it happened that a president who promised never to raise taxes did exactly that after coming to power?

[Sasun]

And what services does the government provide for free that are so damn necessary?

I didn't say there are free services by the government. All services are paid by our direct and indirect taxes.

 

By the way, writing tickets is also a valuable service and must be paid for IMO. It would be unfair and chaotic to have the cars parked wherever and as long as they wished.

 

As for bodyguards, they do exist and you can get extra security. But I doubt 30% of your income would be enough to handle all your security concerns. What about the army? Can you hire a private army?