"Democracy" and "the right to vote" is NOT true freedom

[Philosophizer]

If you believe the following principles, then your beliefs are incompatible with "democracy":

1) All human beings are equal by nature and moral understanding of our inherent rights, and therefore should be treated equally.

2) Due to this equality, no one has the right to dictate what another human being can or can not do if the action(s) are not substantially dangerous or harmful to anyone, including the human being in question. This is called the non-aggression principle.

3) Force should only be used in self-defense against aggressors committing violent acts such as robbing, assaulting etc..

Most of us in the developed world have been taught that "democracy" gives you the "right to vote", and we should be grateful for that "freedom". It is time to analyze this assertion in-depth to realize the contradictions.

Democracy does not treat nor consider everyone to be equal, as democracy implies a form of government. The body of people labelled government has a perceived right to decide what other people in its jurisdiction can or can't do through legislation. For example:

Governments pass (or try to pass) arbitrary laws decreeing that you can't smoke certain plants or consume a certain amount of soda or junk food "for the good of your own health", but who are they as equal human beings to tell other human beings what they can't put in to their own bodies?

If I came over your house, or your friend's house, and told either of you that I am confiscating any marijuana you have because I don't think it is a smart choice to smoke it, you would most likely and rightfully tell me to get lost: it is none of my business.

However, because this certain group of people has the label of government, they suddenly have the right to tell you the same thing because they think it's unhealthy for you? It is not rational, which is why I called it a perceived right and not an actual, legitimate right.

Freedom, justice and equality can not exist if you have a government, as it makes edicts and enforces them through coercion without exception. It does not matter who or what is in the right or wrong: In the eyes of the law, the law is the only measure of "justice": All laws must be upheld by any means necessary, which certainly includes unjust prison sentences or even the use of deadly force.

Now let's consider our "right to vote": We are allowed to vote for certain politicians, but never is there the option to do away with the flawed system of democracy and government in the first place. Just because the majority of the people or government voted for a specific politician or law, it does not guarantee it was the right and moral choice, nor does it make it the right and moral choice.

This is precisely why no person or group of people should have more power over another person or group of people: It is dangerous, immoral, and irrational. Along with these unfortunate qualities, the concept of government and democracy bestows extra rights to those in government, making anyone else not part of government less of a human being than those in government, which is the most surefire and blatant way to create oppression, inequality and injustice.

These extra rights include collecting our taxes and using the money however they see fit, commonly engaging in corruption via this collected money. Another one of these rights is passing arbitrary laws and enforcing them through any means necessary, as I mentioned previously.

To rebut the argument of "But we need government for our own good!", no we do not. We don't need a violent gang of people giving us demands to be a peaceful and productive society. Our knowledge of what is right and wrong, NOT government, allows us to behave morally, productively and co-exist with one another.

"Without government and law, we would be running around doing anything we want! There would be chaos!"

Not really. Our understanding of morality and self-defense does not disappear if government is taken out of the picture. Also, government doesn't force anyone to join the police force, yet plenty of people sign up voluntarily to join the force regardless. There could still be a protective agency without government; it would just be funded in a different manner.

Thank you for reading! Please feel free to post your comments or rebuttals; I can't promise I will respond to many of them though, as I have been getting busier these past weeks. I just created this topic since I felt it was important to share these views with as many people as possible.

I hereby give permission to anyone reading this message to circulate it in any which way they wish.

 

[Ivysaur]

Democracy does not treat nor consider everyone to be equal, as democracy implies a form of government. The body of people labelled government has a perceived right to decide what other people in its jurisdiction can or can't do through legislation. For example:

Governments pass (or try to pass) arbitrary laws decreeing that you can't smoke certain plants or consume a certain amount of soda or junk food "for the good of your own health", but who are they as equal human beings to tell other human beings what they can't put in to their own bodies?

And now I want to introduce you to the concept of "consent". The idea is that, all throughout history, rules were set by the stronger- the ones with weapons, armies, money. People were forced to obey those rulers for fear of being punished or, in an extortive system, in exchange for being fed. Obviously they had no right to set laws other than having been born in the right family.

The democratic system, in turn, makes it so the people have the right to choose people to make rules. The concept of representation means that the people writing laws haven't been randomly chosen by the birth lottery, or haven't got the right through murdering people. Instead, they got there because a large amount of people gave them a thumbs up. They just didn't randomly come in- they were chosen by free people like you for that job.

If I came over your house, or your friend's house, and told either of you that I am confiscating any marijuana you have because I don't think it is a smart choice to smoke it, you would most likely and rightfully tell me to get lost: it is none of my business.

That would be a dictatorship. In a democracy, either your friends, or a large enough group of people in your neighbourhood, have given you the right to decide what they can smoke. So I can either vote for someone else next time, if you didn't tell me you were going to ban smoking when I gave you my consent to write the rules, or I can move to another neighbourhood if I didn't vote for you in the first place, or I can say that I'd like to smoke but if the majority have voluntarily given the right to write the rules to someone who doesn't want me to smoke, maybe I'll have to put up with it in exchange for all the good things. And I can always go and scream that I don't agree with what you decided, every morning, every day, in case you might decide to overturn your decision.

In a dictatorship I wouldn't be able to complain, nor to withdraw my consent, and certainly I wouldn't be able to give my consent to someone else.

1) All human beings are equal by nature and moral understanding of our inherent rights, and therefore should be treated equally.

2) Due to this equality, no one has the right to dictate what another human being can or can not do if the action(s) are not substantially dangerous or harmful to anyone, including the human being in question. This is called the non-aggression principle.

3) Force should only be used in self-defense against aggressors committing violent acts such as robbing, assaulting etc..

These beliefs support an anarchy. Which is a respectable system, but one with an amount of pros and cons, starting by the fact that you'd be relying upon the other not to voluntarily harm you- maybe not through physical violence, but through economical extortion, or by poisoning you by smoking in your face, or by making too much noise at night, you name it. Anarchy may be good in a community where you can trust everybody to act considering everybody else's best interests. Otherwise, rules are a safeguard for the weak.

Freedom, justice and equality can not exist if you have a government, as it makes edicts and enforces them through coercion without exception. It does not matter who or what is in the right or wrong: In the eyes of the law, the law is the only measure of "justice": All laws must be upheld by any means necessary, which certainly includes unjust prison sentences or even the use of deadly force.

Of course, the use of coercion is also regulated in those very laws- many countries, for instance, have outlawed the use of deadly force, and will also punish the enforcers if they break the rules explaining the circumstances under which that coercion can be used, and to which degree.

Now let's consider our "right to vote": We are allowed to vote for certain politicians, but never is there the option to do away with the flawed system of democracy and government in the first place.

That's a lie. Constitutions can be ammended and suspended through the mechanisms in those constitutions. If a majority of people in any country (usually requiring large, reinforced majorities to make sure such a step is actually what the people want) vote to end democracy, well, that would be it. We have had examples of countries voting their democratic systems out in the past century (such as Germany in the 30's), countries voting a Communist system out (East Germany in the 90's), and modern-day EU countries giving their prime minister a huge enough majority he could technically end the democratic system if he wanted to (Austria, and the guy in question is Viktor Orban).

Of course, you need to run on abolishing democracy, or making a new constitution. If people really do want that, you can win an election, and if you get enough, widespread support, you can get enough Congress votes or whatever your Constitution requires to be abolished.

Just because the majority of the people or government voted for a specific politician or law, it does not guarantee it was the right and moral choice, nor does it make it the right and moral choice.

That is usually "tactical voting", or "lesser of two evils" and can be fixed through political education.

This is precisely why no person or group of people should have more power over another person or group of people: It is dangerous, immoral, and irrational. Along with these unfortunate qualities, the concept of government and democracy bestows extra rights to those in government, making anyone else not part of government less of a human being than those in government, which is the most surefire and blatant way to create oppression, inequality and injustice.

The laws they pass, though, are supposed to be there to make sure nobody has more rights than anybody, since all have to comply to those rules- nobody can have shortcuts to avoid them

Of course, if your politicians are abusing that system, then they don't deserve your consent. Withdraw it. Give it to someone else.

These extra rights include collecting our taxes and using the money however they see fit, commonly engaging in corruption via this collected money. Another one of these rights is passing arbitrary laws and enforcing them through any means necessary, as I mentioned previously.

A proper democracy will hold those people accountable, report them to justice if they do engage in corruption and punish them using the very laws they have passed.

Not really. Our understanding of morality and self-defense does not disappear if government is taken out of the picture. Also, government doesn't force anyone to join the police force, yet plenty of people sign up voluntarily to join the force regardless. There could still be a protective agency without government; it would just be funded in a different manner.

And who would hold the armed people accountable, if there aren't any laws regulating what they can or can't do? And how would they be funded? Privately- as in pay or I won't protect you? Public fundings make sure that people who lack the money to pay for those things can still enjoy them, as security is one of the basic necessities of men. Same goes for a fire department or (in the developed world), healthcare.

 

[twocows]

As Went said, this is largely a matter of consent. People implicitly consent to governance by choosing to live in a country, usually because they get some sort of benefit in return. It's much like with a contract: you voluntarily agree to do certain things in return for other things you want. That's the way it is with government. You give up certain freedoms, like the "freedom" to murder other people, in order for a guarantee that others won't exercise that "freedom" on you. This idea of a so-called "social contract" has been around for centuries and is often cited as the basis for all governance, democratic or otherwise.

To rebut the argument of "But we need government for our own good!", no we do not. We don't need a violent gang of people giving us demands to be a peaceful and productive society. Our knowledge of what is right and wrong, NOT government, allows us to behave morally, productively and co-exist with one another.

The question is not of knowing what is right, but enforcing those beliefs. Government is given authority and power to enforce a sort of aggregate quasi-morality because one person or several people are not able to do that on their own. Not all people are morally upright; many are morally neutral (self-serving, but not intentionally at the expense of others) and some are downright bad (self-serving, even at the expense of others). Government exists to ensure the most important rights of all people are protected. Additionally, in a democratic system, these rights are (supposedly) determined by the people. This system is beneficial to all parties, even those who are in the latter category: everyone's human rights are protected by the government, even those who might seek to infringe others' in the absence of government. So the first two groups (good people and "neutral" people) benefit without losing anything particularly important and the third group benefits at the cost of their "freedom" to do bad things. Obviously, the downside to all this is that there are different ideas about what "good" and "bad" mean, so conflicts inevitably arise, but we have a system in place to deal with that to the best of our ability.

 

[Oryx]

Not really. Our understanding of morality and self-defense does not disappear if government is taken out of the picture. Also, government doesn't force anyone to join the police force, yet plenty of people sign up voluntarily to join the force regardless. There could still be a protective agency without government; it would just be funded in a different manner.

How would a privately funded police force be any different than a publicly funded one? The only difference there is what it would be enforcing would be decided not by lawmaker but by....someone else. Who is this someone else? Why are they more qualified to decide what's enforced? We already know that when things are privatized, for the most part their goals turn not to doing the right thing all the time, but making more money - we'd have cops enforcing rules of "give us money" with violence, the way we did with tax collectors in the far past.

People who support anarchy are the most optimistic people about the human race ever. Even with laws against us being violent, using each other in certain ways, etc., people still do it. Why would making it easier for them to do so be a better system?

That ignores the fact that government would arise naturally, as it did originally. It's not like someone came into our world, explained the concept of government, and artificially forced us to adopt it. It evolved over the history of our species so we could best survive, and it would in any place it was removed, especially considering we now have expectations of what government should be doing.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Democracy has never existed, and there's no such thing as rights.

That's all I can say to this.

 

[Timbjerr]

As a free-market Libertarian myself, I can understand your concerns when it comes to the perils of a large government, but you also have to be a realist. The existence of a governing body is inevitable...human nature dictates it. The trick is to be an active proponent of limited government and in a democratic system, that means throwing all your support towards the most liberty-friendly candidates you can find in your research (and believe me, you have to do research as the two major parties rarely put forth candidates that are genuine proponents of limited government).

Your responsibility as a freedom-loving anarchist is to play the system until it changes instead of refusing to participate on the grounds of any perceived illegitimacy.

 

[pokecole]

If you believe the following principles, then your beliefs are incompatible with "democracy":

1) All human beings are equal by nature and moral understanding of our inherent rights, and therefore should be treated equally.

2) Due to this equality, no one has the right to dictate what another human being can or can not do if the action(s) are not substantially dangerous or harmful to anyone, including the human being in question. This is called the non-aggression principle.

3) Force should only be used in self-defense against aggressors committing violent acts such as robbing, assaulting etc..

Most of us in the developed world have been taught that "democracy" gives you the "right to vote", and we should be grateful for that "freedom". It is time to analyze this assertion in-depth to realize the contradictions.

Democracy does not treat nor consider everyone to be equal, as democracy implies a form of government. The body of people labelled government has a perceived right to decide what other people in its jurisdiction can or can't do through legislation. For example:

Governments pass (or try to pass) arbitrary laws decreeing that you can't smoke certain plants or consume a certain amount of soda or junk food "for the good of your own health", but who are they as equal human beings to tell other human beings what they can't put in to their own bodies?

If I came over your house, or your friend's house, and told either of you that I am confiscating any marijuana you have because I don't think it is a smart choice to smoke it, you would most likely and rightfully tell me to get lost: it is none of my business.

However, because this certain group of people has the label of government, they suddenly have the right to tell you the same thing because they think it's unhealthy for you? It is not rational, which is why I called it a perceived right and not an actual, legitimate right.

Freedom, justice and equality can not exist if you have a government, as it makes edicts and enforces them through coercion without exception. It does not matter who or what is in the right or wrong: In the eyes of the law, the law is the only measure of "justice": All laws must be upheld by any means necessary, which certainly includes unjust prison sentences or even the use of deadly force.

Now let's consider our "right to vote": We are allowed to vote for certain politicians, but never is there the option to do away with the flawed system of democracy and government in the first place. Just because the majority of the people or government voted for a specific politician or law, it does not guarantee it was the right and moral choice, nor does it make it the right and moral choice.

This is precisely why no person or group of people should have more power over another person or group of people: It is dangerous, immoral, and irrational. Along with these unfortunate qualities, the concept of government and democracy bestows extra rights to those in government, making anyone else not part of government less of a human being than those in government, which is the most surefire and blatant way to create oppression, inequality and injustice.

These extra rights include collecting our taxes and using the money however they see fit, commonly engaging in corruption via this collected money. Another one of these rights is passing arbitrary laws and enforcing them through any means necessary, as I mentioned previously.

To rebut the argument of "But we need government for our own good!", no we do not. We don't need a violent gang of people giving us demands to be a peaceful and productive society. Our knowledge of what is right and wrong, NOT government, allows us to behave morally, productively and co-exist with one another.

"Without government and law, we would be running around doing anything we want! There would be chaos!"

Not really. Our understanding of morality and self-defense does not disappear if government is taken out of the picture. Also, government doesn't force anyone to join the police force, yet plenty of people sign up voluntarily to join the force regardless. There could still be a protective agency without government; it would just be funded in a different manner.

Thank you for reading! Please feel free to post your comments or rebuttals; I can't promise I will respond to many of them though, as I have been getting busier these past weeks. I just created this topic since I felt it was important to share these views with as many people as possible.

I hereby give permission to anyone reading this message to circulate it in any which way they wish.

I'm not entirely sure how to multi-quote, so I'll just quote this whole thing and point out specific spots to comment on.

I think for the most part that you are speaking of democracy in specific instances you've seen (*cough* *cough* U.S. *cough* *cough*). Democracy, in theory, shouldn't be promoting or allowing any under-handed or illegitimate ways of getting money, like enforcing laws that benefit the rich or trouble the poor. The U.S, where I'm from albeit, is quite guilty of this. Rich people often pay less in taxes than the poor, and the flaw in this system isn't at its roots so much as at the adaptations of it, as well as laws passed within this system. If you look at any system from its roots or foundation has no real issues if guided and held up well. The problem lies in the fact of human nature. Those who wish to change and contort things to benefit themselves will always exist, and so long as there is any possible flaw in a system, they will always find a way. Whether it be false propaganda, hearsay, or whatever. This is just one of many things people aren't able to completely solidify and make perfect. It's just not possible, but we can try. If you ask me personally, we should focus on removing taxes from the poor and enforcing more on the rich. The problem is that rich people are often those type of people that will contort things to their own needs.
Don't take me wrong here, I'm not saying it is impossible to be rich and honorable/earnest or whatever. I'm just saying that the majority of them lean towards this dishonesty. People can't be entirely generous, or else they'll just give everything away to those who need it more, so nicer people often can't hold power as well because of their lack of that driving selfishness. Again, it's just human nature, and there's nothing we can do about it. But that's neither here nor there. (Almost done ranting)

The problem with this type of anarchic society is that you can't trust other people to do to you as they would themselves. 99% of that kindness and selfless-ness was bred straight out from the cruel process of natural selection. Think about it in nature- Who would survive longer? A person who gives away food, or a person who hordes it? It's a cruel world we live in, and some things never change. I like to refer to natural selection quite often when I think about human nature. I think you'll find many things of what we call, "human nature", are just ways of adapting and surviving, therefore breeding these traits into our children. (Nooooow I'm done ranting about things that are probably irrelevant)

 

[Philosophizer]

And now I want to introduce you to the concept of "consent". The idea is that, all throughout history, rules were set by the stronger- the ones with weapons, armies, money. People were forced to obey those rulers for fear of being punished or, in an extortive system, in exchange for being fed. Obviously they had no right to set laws other than having been born in the right family.

The democratic system, in turn, makes it so the people have the right to choose people to make rules. The concept of representation means that the people writing laws haven't been randomly chosen by the birth lottery, or haven't got the right through murdering people. Instead, they got there because a large amount of people gave them a thumbs up. They just didn't randomly come in- they were chosen by free people like you for that job.

You are saying that we're free because we get to choose which group of people will dominate us? In that case, is it alright if I show up with a friend to come rob you? You can choose if you want to be robbed by either him or me.

Any way you look at it, the democratic system and government will always cause oppression because of the extra power it grants to politicians and its enforcers. No matter who you vote in, you will never have the option to voluntarily fund the government through taxes: You either pay or are threatened before having the money you owe, plus fines, seized from wherever you hold it. When you brought up "consent of the people", sometimes the margin of majority is literally 50.01% to 49.99%. How is it fair that the 49.99% who did not want a specific policy or candidate will have to just "suck it up" for a few years until the next election, which doesn't guarantee anything either? Voting is a pathetically ineffective and unreliable method of achieving fairness and reaching the right solutions or choices, since alternative choices not being voted on are not available.

That would be a dictatorship. In a democracy, either your friends, or a large enough group of people in your neighbourhood, have given you the right to decide what they can smoke.

Actually, that is ultimately the politician's choice to make in the end. It doesn't matter all that much what the people who voted the politicians in want, as politicians are hardly kept accountable for breaking their promises or lying while they ran for office. How often does impeachment or resignation come up for discussion, let alone succeed? Most politicians try to hang on to their office for as long as they can however they can. 80% of senators and 90% of house members in the U.S. are re-elected to office because of the vast amount of influence and resources this kind of power allows politicians to obtain.

So I can either vote for someone else next time, if you didn't tell me you were going to ban smoking when I gave you my consent to write the rules,

Why the hell would you give anyone consent to give you orders on how to run your life in the first place? It is not necessary, and it certainly does not make you equal or free.

Or I can move to another neighbourhood if I didn't vote for you in the first place, or I can say that I'd like to smoke but if the majority have voluntarily given the right to write the rules to someone who doesn't want me to smoke, maybe I'll have to put up with it in exchange for all the good things.

These "good things" you refer to don't come from government, they come from our tax money. Government does not create wealth, it funds services by redistributing it, a task that could be performed voluntarily without government and coercion.

And I can always go and scream that I don't agree with what you decided, every morning, every day, in case you might decide to overturn your decision.

A lot of good that does, being at the mercy of the politicians, right? Did it work in Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, or Stalin's Russia? No, I think the only correct and sane choice is not giving consent to anyone to run your own life. You are and should be the only one in charge of your actions and beliefs.

In a dictatorship I wouldn't be able to complain, nor to withdraw my consent, and certainly I wouldn't be able to give my consent to someone else.

I used the example of Nazi Germany above because the Nazis rose to power by the majority consent of the people in a democracy. How and why? Because the majority of the people believed that the Nazis were on their side for their own good, just as so many have been taught that government is on their side and necessary. What happened just a few short years after the Nazis gained power? They banned all opposition from voting, meaning they were the only party on the ballot. Bravo, what an excellent use of your "freedom" to vote.

There is no guarantee of your rights or freedom if you are subject to any authority or government, whether it is a monarchy, democracy etc. Also, think about who is most likely to be attracted to the possibility of having power over others: Sociopaths who love to dominate.

These beliefs support an anarchy. Which is a respectable system, but one with an amount of pros and cons, starting by the fact that you'd be relying upon the other not to voluntarily harm you- maybe not through physical violence, but through economical extortion, or by poisoning you by smoking in your face, or by making too much noise at night, you name it. Anarchy may be good in a community where you can trust everybody to act considering everybody else's best interests. Otherwise, rules are a safeguard for the weak.

Even with "laws", I am free to do as I please so long as I am not subdued. In other words, laws don't necessarily always prevent crime, they just state that you will be threatened with violence and punished if you break them. Sure they can serve as a deterrent, but so can understanding right from wrong, self-defense and the capturing of perpetrators in a voluntary society (one without government). Once the criminal is in captivity, it would be up to the community without labels or extra rights to decide how to best handle the specific case of the alleged criminal.

Of course, the use of coercion is also regulated in those very laws- many countries, for instance, have outlawed the use of deadly force, and will also punish the enforcers if they break the rules explaining the circumstances under which that coercion can be used, and to which degree.

I doubt the government will often be impartial when reviewing a case against one of its own agencies. How many officers have gotten away with using excessive force? Enough that it will keep you busy counting.

That's a lie. Constitutions can be ammended and suspended through the mechanisms in those constitutions. If a majority of people in any country (usually requiring large, reinforced majorities to make sure such a step is actually what the people want) vote to end democracy, well, that would be it. We have had examples of countries voting their democratic systems out in the past century (such as Germany in the 30's), countries voting a Communist system out (East Germany in the 90's), and modern-day EU countries giving their prime minister a huge enough majority he could technically end the democratic system if he wanted to (Austria, and the guy in question is Viktor Orban).

Of course, you need to run on abolishing democracy, or making a new constitution. If people really do want that, you can win an election, and if you get enough, widespread support, you can get enough Congress votes or whatever your Constitution requires to be abolished.

Sorry, I should have been more specific: I meant doing away with government or any authoritarian system altogether. In your example of EU countries, the prime ministers would still be in power. The goal should be to have no one in power in any form of government.

That is usually "tactical voting", or "lesser of two evils" and can be fixed through political education.

The only way to solve this problem is to get rid of voting, government and giving power to any of these two clowns running in the first place.

The laws they pass, though, are supposed to be there to make sure nobody has more rights than anybody, since all have to comply to those rules- nobody can have shortcuts to avoid them.

Who cares if everyone has to abide by the laws if they are illegitimate and unjust?

Of course, if your politicians are abusing that system, then they don't deserve your consent. Withdraw it. Give it to someone else.

So that the same incident of abuse can happen again? Corruption and greed is what power mostly leads to, so rather than giving it to someone else...DON'T GIVE IT TO ANYONE. Most of the people who would be interested in such a job with that amount of power are megalomaniacs to begin with.

A proper democracy will hold those people accountable, report them to justice if they do engage in corruption and punish them using the very laws they have passed.

Or...most of the corruption and evil wouldn't happen in the first place if there is no form of government giving a few people power over a lot of people.

And who would hold the armed people accountable, if there aren't any laws regulating what they can or can't do?

In a voluntary and free market society, the purely defensive protective agency would be held accountable to the customers and activists.

And how would they be funded? Privately- as in pay or I won't protect you?

With competition, it would be more like "Offer reasonable prices or we'll go elsewhere."

Public fundings make sure that people who lack the money to pay for those things can still enjoy them, as security is one of the basic necessities of men. Same goes for a fire department or (in the developed world), healthcare.

These services may be free for some, but cost more for others. How should it be decided who gets more services for less? The people with less money? How do we know what circumstances led them to poverty? Will it always be fair for impoverished people to receive more regardless? That doesn't seem likely. Either way, the poor can still be taken care of by society in a voluntary society through charity, money that was supposed to go to taxes, close connections etc..

I might try to respond to some other posts, but I am not entirely sure yet, or even when I will be able to finish other replies.

 

[Ivysaur]

You are saying that we're free because we get to choose which group of people will dominate us? In that case, is it alright if I show up with a friend to come rob you? You can choose if you want to be robbed by either him or me.

As long as a) I can ultimately choose to give my consent to a different person instead of you two if I so desire, b) I can volunteer to do it myself and c) I can report you to justice if you break any laws while visiting my house, then yes.

Any way you look at it, the democratic system and government will always cause oppression because of the extra power it grants to politicians and its enforcers. No matter who you vote in, you will never have the option to voluntarily fund the government through taxes: You either pay or are threatened before having the money you owe, plus fines, seized from wherever you hold it. When you brought up "consent of the people", sometimes the margin of majority is literally 50.01% to 49.99%. How is it fair that the 49.99% who did not want a specific policy or candidate will have to just "suck it up" for a few years until the next election, which doesn't guarantee anything either? Voting is a pathetically ineffective and unreliable method of achieving fairness and reaching the right solutions or choices, since alternative choices not being voted on are not available.

Of course, there are other methods of democracy, like direct democracy, where everybody votes everything in referendums every week. Of course, the problem is, millions of people don't care about politics period, or are single-issue voters who only have opinions on, say, immigration and couldn't care less about traffic management or you name it.

And, of course, if you could "voluntarily fund the Government", then you could also withdraw and essentially destroy the whole notion of public services for everybody. If you meet someone who is ultimately self-serving and would rather keep a few bucks for himself than put them in a common bag so poor people can get food to survive, there would be no way to explain it that he should do it for the general good. And if there so happens to be millions of them, well, goodbye. Any public programs would rely on finding enough people willing to pay for them every month, which makes long-term impossible. And police needs funds every month.

Essentially, you'd be relying on people being good enough to contribute. That's how an anarchy works... and that's why an anarchy can't work as long as the group of people who don't want to help the rest grows large enough.

Actually, that is ultimately the politician's choice to make in the end. It doesn't matter all that much what the people who voted the politicians in want, as politicians are hardly kept accountable for breaking their promises or lying while they ran for office. How often does impeachment or resignation come up for discussion, let alone succeed? Most politicians try to hang on to their office for as long as they can however they can. 80% of senators and 90% of house members in the U.S. are re-elected to office because of the vast amount of influence and resources this kind of power allows politicians to obtain.

Then it's pretty obvious that the US system is broken and needs an overhaul. There are other systems to elect politicians, such as smaller, non gerrymandered districts (UK), proportional distribution of seats according to share of votes received (Spain) or a mix of both (Germany). In those cases, punishing a bad politician is much easier than in a deep-red Texan district where a cat would be elected if running with a R next to its name. Any system in which such a thing is possible is utterly broken and needs to be fixed. But the problem is in the way democracy is implemented, not in democracy itself.

A few weeks ago I was talking to Swedish friends and they couldn't remember the last time tehre was a corruption scandal in their country. Are Swedish politicians a super-race? Maybe it's just that there is a better political education and stronger control systems. Germany has had ministers and even a President resigning over plagiarizing scandals. If something like that doesn't happen over at the US, it's not democracy's fault.

Why the hell would you give anyone consent to give you orders on how to run your life in the first place? It is not necessary, and it certainly does not make you equal or free.

Because most people don't know how to run some, more complex things. Most people just want to go to work, get back home, watch football with friends, go for a walk with their family, and that's it. Most people have not a clue of how to manage road-building. Most people don't know how many years a person who has been exploting their workers should spend in prison, or how much money they should pay in return. People haven't got a clue of how to make sure every retired person gets paid every month. That's why we choose people with some degree of experience and preparation to do decide things for us, the same way you'd hire a plaintiff to represent you in court or a plumber to fix your heating system.

These "good things" you refer to don't come from government, they come from our tax money. Government does not create wealth, it funds services by redistributing it, a task that could be performed voluntarily without government and coercion.

Or maybe not. How do you know people would voluntarily hand over their money to other people? And remember that "coercion" helps make sure funds come in a regular amount, so you don't find yourself with just $10 to spend one month and $50 million in the next; and a Government is just a group of people chosen to distribute that money rationally between all the people who need it- otherwise you could find yourself with $2 being given to the "let's make new roads" fund and $7 billion being given to the Fire Department fund. Which is utterly inefficient.

A lot of good that does, being at the mercy of the politicians, right? Did it work in Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, or Stalin's Russia? No, I think the only correct and sane choice is not giving consent to anyone to run your own life. You are and should be the only one in charge of your actions and beliefs.

I don't know why you are talking about Nazi Germany, North Korea or the USSR in a post about democracy. In a democracy, you can scream at your politicians because, well, you can withdraw your consent at any point, and if they get enough people screaming at them, they will reconsider their options because they will be in a serious risk of being kicked out.

As I already said before (reread my previous post!), in a dictatorship, you cannot withdraw your support nor give it to someone else, making your remark completely pointless. In fact, in most dictatorships, you don't even have the choice to give your consent in the first place! So really, even if you didn't want to "let anybody run your life", you wouldn't have a word in the matter.

I used the example of Nazi Germany above because the Nazis rose to power by the majority consent of the people in a democracy. How and why? Because the majority of the people believed that the Nazis were on their side for their own good, just as so many have been taught that government is on their side and necessary. What happened just a few short years after the Nazis gained power? They banned all opposition from voting, meaning they were the only party on the ballot. Bravo, what an excellent use of your "freedom" to vote.

You once said "democracy cannot be abolished". Well, tehre you go. Hitler got a large enough majority in the Reichstag to do a constitutional reform- one that abolished democracy and replaced it with a dictatorship.

You could create an anarchy doing the same thing! It can happen! You can use the democratic process to change the fabric of the system itself.

There is no guarantee of your rights or freedom if you are subject to any authority or government, whether it is a monarchy, democracy etc. Also, think about who is most likely to be attracted to the possibility of having power over others: Sociopaths who love to dominate.

There is aguarantee though- the laws that say that anybody infringing your rights will be punished. In an anarchy, there is not even that, so I could go and start playing loud music next to your house at 4 AM and not let you sleep and... you would literally have no way to stop me other than violence.

Even with "laws", I am free to do as I please so long as I am not subdued. In other words, laws don't necessarily always prevent crime, they just state that you will be threatened with violence and punished if you break them. Sure they can serve as a deterrent, but so can understanding right from wrong, self-defense and the capturing of perpetrators in a voluntary society (one without government). Once the criminal is in captivity, it would be up to the community without labels or extra rights to decide how to best handle the specific case of the alleged criminal.

And then, after sentencing someone, the next one accused of the same thing would ask for a smiliar treatment. And, after a few years, you'd already have an unwritten rule of how to punish people who do X. And do you know what would be the next thing? Writing that rule. And do you know what you'd find then? A law *gasp*

Yeah, that's how the concept of laws was created in the first place. It wasn't given to us by some alien race. It was developed by the first humans who did exactly what you are describing there, thousands of years ago, and found that writing a rule would save time and help them be consistent.

I doubt the government will often be impartial when reviewing a case against one of its own agencies. How many officers have gotten away with using excessive force? Enough that it will keep you busy counting.

Well, if we are talking about a criminal case, then it's the fault of the court that didn't punish accordingly- it's not the Goverment's fault that a Grand Jury of nameless citizens let Wilson off the hook. And, in internal case, well, it's a matter of having actually working watchdogs to make sure nobody breaks the laws. If there isn't enough control mechanisms, you shoudl create new ones. Or have journalists investigating and front-paging any abuses.

Sorry, I should have been more specific: I meant doing away with government or any authoritarian system altogether. In your example of EU countries, the prime ministers would still be in power. The goal should be to have no one in power in any form of government.

Again, if Orban decided to ammend the Constitution so there would be no Government at all, he could do it. It's just a matter of giving someone who wants to achieve that goal enough support to do it.

The only way to solve this problem is to get rid of voting, government and giving power to any of these two clowns running in the first place.

It's one solution.

Who cares if everyone has to abide by the laws if they are illegitimate and unjust?

That's your opinion. Laws are legitimate as they were created by representatives of the citizens using the methods stablished for that purpose. And whether they are just or unjust is up to everybody to decide, not you. If all laws were unjust and everybody agreed, you wouldn't be the only one complaining, trust me.

Or...most of the corruption and evil wouldn't happen in the first place if there is no form of government giving a few people power over a lot of people.

But some people are guaranteed to be stronger, smarter or be born with more money than the others. Abuse can still happen without a Government- laws are there to curtail that possibility.

In a voluntary and free market society, the purely defensive protective agency would be held accountable to the customers and activists. With competition, it would be more like "Offer reasonable prices or we'll go elsewhere."

But let's talk about someone who has 0 money and has to spend whatever they get just to eat (incidentally- one of my best friends is in that situation). Do we leave him to rot without protection, healthcare, etc?

And don't talk about armed forces competing against each other, please. Security is much more complex than calling 911 when there is a robber at home.

These services may be free for some, but cost more for others. How should it be decided who gets more services for less? The people with less money? How do we know what circumstances led them to poverty? Will it always be fair for impoverished people to receive more regardless? That doesn't seem likely. Either way, the poor can still be taken care of by society in a voluntary society through charity, money that was supposed to go to taxes, close connections etc..

But what if one month nobody gives money to charities? But what if only $10 are given to fund food stamps? Goverment will balance tax spending to make sure all programs aget as much money as they need.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Went, I do want to reiterate that I don't think even the theorhetical democracy you speak of has existed in genuinity. I see democracies of our time as facades of the same system of power that has always been in control, and I could elaborate more if you'd like.

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

You should at least be happy you don't live in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Or Somalia, where there's NO government.

 

[twocows]

You should at least be happy you don't live in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Or Somalia, where there's NO government.

While I agree, be careful you don't start suggesting that we should gloss over the existing problems in our system. The fact that we have it a lot better than some other places doesn't mean we should ignore our failings.

 

[pokecole]

In a voluntary and free market society, the purely defensive protective agency would be held accountable to the customers and activists. With competition, it would be more like "Offer reasonable prices or we'll go elsewhere."

That, my friend, is how a monopoly starts.

Okay, so there's no laws and people how to pay people with weapons for protection. Well, I think we can agree that is something everyone needs, right? I mean, without it you are completely defenseless and someone could just come to your house and rob you.

Say my friends and I are a protection agency, and we are on good terms with the other protection agencies. Since everyone needs to buy protection from one of us, what is stopping us from all jacking up our prices to ridiculous rates to better ourselves? That doesn't change the fact that you still need protection, and now you have to pay whatever we want you to pay, because there are no laws stopping us from raising prices stupidly, no competition from stopping us from selling, and the demand doesn't change at all. Without any form of government to regulate our prices, there is nothing stopping us from doing whatever we want to benefit ourselves. Trust me, there are always people only looking out for themselves.

These services may be free for some, but cost more for others. How should it be decided who gets more services for less? The people with less money? How do we know what circumstances led them to poverty? Will it always be fair for impoverished people to receive more regardless? That doesn't seem likely. Either way, the poor can still be taken care of by society in a voluntary society through charity, money that was supposed to go to taxes, close connections etc

In the case of the U.S. law, they don't really distinguish between how you became poor, they just know what you make and base your charity amounts from that. So, in theory it doesn't matter remotely what you are spending it on, as long as they know how much you make. They have a general idea of what you need to survive, and only people who make less than that get special help. It's not so much about what you have as to what you make.

Again, in an anarchy you are relying on people to fund those poor people out of the good of their hearts, which is often not going to happen. What do you do if they decide, "Eh, screw those guys. I need more money, and I have the freedom to spend my money how I want". What do the impoverished people do then? Die off? Corruption of politics is just sounding better and better to me compared to just dying altogether.