Democracy does not make a government legitimate. Nothing does.

[Philosophizer]

Many people still believe the ritual of ?democracy? is legitimate for some of the following reasons:

- It is fair, since people are allowed to choose between various options by ?voting?.
- By voting, the majority of people are agreeing to the results of the referendum, what the politicians enact as ?law?, etc.
- As the majority of people agreed (or consented) to the democratic government?s actions by voting for those in the democratic government, this is where its legitimacy and its right to implement its laws comes from. This is also referred to as ?The Consent of the Governed? or ?The Social Contract?.

These myths can be easily disproved, which I will demonstrate below:

The majority of people agreeing to something doesn?t make it fair, right, or just. As an example, the majority of the southern states in the United States supported the concept and practice of slavery, and laws were implemented and enforced to propagate and protect this practice. The majority of the people in Nazi Germany also voted for the Nazi party and for the parties that allowed the Nazis to form a coalition to enact its laws. To use a much more recent example, gays in the U.S. were only just granted the right to marry in all 50 states by the Supreme Court less than two years ago.

Should they not have had that right until the state governments and/or the Supreme Court deem it is acceptable, since the people in the state governments are elected by the majority of the people, and the Supreme Court Justices are appointed and confirmed by politicians who are elected by the majority? Another related question is: why is it okay to refuse to marry gays as long as gay marriage is not ?legalized? by some group of politicians, but all of a sudden not okay when it is ?legalized? by another group of politicians?

In addition, a majority, or even a vast majority, of people believing in something doesn?t make it true. Going back to my example of slavery, the practice of slavery was widely believed to be acceptable in ancient times, even though it never was and never will be. Right now, many people believe the ritual of ?democracy? legitimizes ?democratic governments?, even though it never has, never can, and never will. The act of ?voting? does not give those politicians in government the right to force anyone to obey them just because they write it on a piece of paper and call it ?law?. They can write anything they wish on paper and call it ?law?; it doesn?t mean that ?law? should automatically be obeyed. I posted a separate thread on this topic which you can view here.

If you?re thinking: ?If the majority of people don?t agree with some of the government?s laws, they can vote for politicians in the coming elections who will pass laws they do agree with?, that is missing the point entirely, as that thought doesn?t address whether those laws should be obeyed and/or enforced in the meantime simply because they are ?laws?. If a law is immoral or unjust and you reply with ?It can be repealed or changed when other politicians are voted in?, that is like saying: ?Yes, it?s bad to steal, but the person who was stolen from can always recover what was stolen from him or her.? Does the fact that he can get back what was stolen from him make it okay for the thief to steal from him in the first place? Does the fact that a bad law can be changed later make it okay for that bad law to be enforced in the meantime?

People have the right to defend themselves and retrieve stolen property regardless of what ?the law? says, making it irrelevant as well.

 

[Hands]

"Just because something is something doesnt mean i have to believe that something is something" - tl;dr version for people.

Western society accepts democracy as a legitimate form of appointing the governing authority. Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant and people like you who try and stop fringe voters from believing their vote matters are the reason England will lose it's NHS by 2020 leaving millions to die of easily treatable illnesses.

 

[Philosophizer]

"Just because something is something doesnt mean i have to believe that something is something" - tl;dr version for people.

Western society accepts democracy as a legitimate form of appointing the governing authority. Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant and people like you who try and stop fringe voters from believing their vote matters are the reason England will lose it's NHS by 2020 leaving millions to die of easily treatable illnesses.

You addressed absolutely none of my points I laid out in my thread. I already explained how just because the majority of society accepts or believes in something, it doesn't make it true, right, or fair. This is not debatable; it's the obvious truth. Do you have an actual argument?

 

[gimmepie]

You addressed absolutely none of my points I laid out in my thread. I already explained how just because the majority of society accepts or believes in something, it doesn't make it true, right, or fair. This is not debatable; it's the obvious truth. Do you have an actual argument?

What's not fair about something the majority agrees to? Democracy is the fairest way to handle things that allows for society to actually function. You've come in to this section solely to spout the same anarchist message over and over and over again but not once have you ever actually considered how impossible your ideal society is if you want any kind of actual fairness, equality and clearness.

I think he's covered every point you have ever made on the subject with his small rebuttal. You don't like being told what to d by a government, that's cool, but that doesn't invalidate the positives democracy has.

 

[Somewhere_]

Quick fact check: the Nazis were NOT the majority party. They were a minority party, but held enough seats within the parliament so that every other party needed them to become the majority and choose a Prime Minister. That is how Hitler got into office. This is why I prefer a bicameral congress with elected representatives and the executive (president or PM) being elected apart from the congress (I also believe the two party system is preferable because it breeds increased moderation), but I digress.

That fact that property rights cannot exist without government debunks your whole argument Philosophizer. As a society, we have government to protect our interests as a third party. Hence rule of law and courts. We have democracy because we as a society created the government and wanted the people to hold more power.

You have to recognize that democracies and republics do not have a vertical power structure, but instead a horizontal power structure. They only exist because the people created them and allow them to exist. Using deductive reasoning, this means everyone consents, and if one doesnt consent, he or she has many countries to choose from.

 

[Philosophizer]

What's not fair about something the majority agrees to? Democracy is the fairest way to handle things that allows for society to actually function.

Did you not read any of the examples I provided in my original post that show why the majority agreeing to something doesn't always make it fair?

You've come in to this section solely to spout the same anarchist message over and over and over again but not once have you ever actually considered how impossible your ideal society is if you want any kind of actual fairness, equality and clearness.

The reason I'm a voluntaryist is exactly because I want fairness and equality. In a society where all interaction has to be voluntary and the use of force is only justified in self-defense, everyone is equal, as they all have the right to live their lives how they wish as long as they don't violate the rights of others, such as the right to life, property etc.

"Democracy" and "government", on the other hand, create inequality, because more power is given to the majority and those in "authority".

I think he's covered every point you have ever made on the subject with his small rebuttal.

No, he hasn't. He didn't even try to argue why I'm wrong when I say that the majority "voting" for those in "government" doesn't make it legitimate.

You don't like being told what to do by a government, that's cool...

My issue with "government" is not that it prohibits me from doing certain things, it's the idea behind it: "authority". The belief in "authority" is the belief that those in "authority" have to obeyed even if their commands or "laws" are immoral, which makes people commit evil because they believe they have to since those in "authority" told them to do so.

...but that doesn't invalidate the positives democracy has.

Just because "democracy" provides some benefits to society doesn't justify the evil and injustice created by it in the name of "law". If I steal $1,000 from someone and donate $750 of that money to a charity for cancer research, it is still wrong for me to steal that money.

 

[Reyzadren]

Which fruit shall we have? Votes: 7 apples and 3 oranges. Therefore, everyone shall have apples. | Democracy
Which fruit shall we have? Votes: 7 apples and 3 oranges. We shall have 7 apples and 3 oranges. | Not really democracy

I prefer the 2nd system tbh, but I'm not quite sure if it would be widely accepted ;)

 

[gimmepie]

Did you not read any of the examples I provided in my original post that show why the majority agreeing to something doesn't always make it fair?
The reason I'm a voluntaryist is exactly because I want fairness and equality. In a society where all interaction has to be voluntary and the use of force is only justified in self-defense, everyone is equal, as they all have the right to live their lives how they wish as long as they don't violate the rights of others, such as the right to life, property etc.

Once again you show a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. The fact you think that everyone is all going to just be play nice and be fair in a world without a governing body is hilarious. People can barely manage that with oversight.

Your perfect world is in reality a world where people go about doing whatever they please without any regard for anyone else because there's nothing preventing them from doing that anymore. Human beings are innately selfish creatures that need oversight and governance to keep each other in check.

"Democracy" and "government", on the other hand, create inequality, because more power is given to the majority and those in "authority".
No, he hasn't. He didn't even try to argue why I'm wrong when I say that the majority "voting" for those in "government" doesn't make it legitimate.

Fun fact, you don't need to put quotation marks on a word when describing what it legitimately is. Democracy isn't perfect, I'm not going to claim it is. It is however a necessity if you want to have a fair and functioning society. You think that there's an imbalance of power with democracy? Now imagine a world where there's nothing stopping you from mugging someone or killing someone just because you happen to be stronger or have a weapon or have a gang supporting you. There's no repercussions to prevent that behaviour in your ideal world, so it's going to happen a lot more than it already does and in your eyes that's perfectly okay because there's no higher authority preventing that. You're naive idealism completely ignores what people are actually like.

My issue with "government" is not that it prohibits me from doing certain things, it's the idea behind it: "authority". The belief in "authority" is the belief that those in "authority" have to obeyed even if their commands or "laws" are immoral, which makes people commit evil because they believe they have to since those in "authority" told them to do so.
Just because "democracy" provides some benefits to society doesn't justify the evil and injustice created by it in the name of "law". If I steal $1,000 from someone and donate $750 of that money to a charity for cancer research, it is still wrong for me to steal that money.

So basically what I said is correct. You don't like that there's a power above you that you have to obey. You can sugar coat it however you like, but you just don't like not being the boss.

Authority exists because the people give the group in power authority. That is how democracy works. If the people as a whole (or a majority) disagree with what the leadership is doing and find it immoral or unfair then they can simply vote in someone who they think is. That's functional, unlike a bunch of people doing whatever they want because they personally think their actions are moral even if they bring harm to others.

If you donated that full amount to charity it would still be wrong. That's not your money. You didn't earn it. You have no right to it. I guess it's a good thing we live in a world with governments so people don't just go stealing from others because they think it's right (no matter the harm to the victim), huh?

Which fruit shall we have? Votes: 7 apples and 3 oranges. Therefore, everyone shall have apples. | Democracy
Which fruit shall we have? Votes: 7 apples and 3 oranges. We shall have 7 apples and 3 oranges. | Not really democracy

I prefer the 2nd system tbh, but I'm not quite sure if it would be widely accepted ;)

Let's apply your system to something less benign shall we?

We have seven people who don't want to murder and three people that do. Therefore, nobody gets to be a murderer. | Democracy
We have seven people who want to murder and three people that do. Therefore, a bunch of people die. | Your system.

 

[Somewhere_]

Government is the price we pay to live in a civilized society. I think you (Philosophizer) are looking at it the wrong way. Of course by nature government reduces freedom- just as I lose money when I buy a video game. I lose the freedom to spend that money, but I receive greater value in return. Same thing with government. You might not be able to keep 100% of your income, but you get police and fire protection, among a bazillion other things government does. And yes, government isn't perfect, but I think its been well established that we can change the rules in a democracy and we consent to our representatives.

Also about fairness and equality.... define fair and define equality. Economic equality? That will never happen under any free market conditions. Political equality? Well, there is no government, soo... Social equality? unrelated.

 

[Hands]

Did you not read any of the examples I provided in my original post that show why the majority agreeing to something doesn't always make it fair?
The reason I'm a voluntaryist is exactly because I want fairness and equality. In a society where all interaction has to be voluntary and the use of force is only justified in self-defense, everyone is equal, as they all have the right to live their lives how they wish as long as they don't violate the rights of others, such as the right to life, property etc.

You live in a fantasy world. We already had this mess with your last thread where you said people who voted for X couldnt complain about Y and I explained to you then why what you're presenting is baseless conjecture at best. I really struggle to hold my temper with you because people like you legitimately make Ancoms look stupid and by extension, damage virtually anyone linked to Marxism.

How the hell do you think we will enforce what is and isn't self defence in a society without law and order?

The only reason we have "rights" is because we decided that we have those rights. You remove the thing that enforces the protection of those "rights" and guess what skippy? You have no rights. Your property? Mine now, I'm gonna stab you, your family and I'm gonna take that stuff. There's no police anymore and good luck defending yourself after me and my gang have driven knives through you and left you bleeding on the floor. That's the world you're advocating. Where the strong and numerically superior strive and no one is left to help the weak. That's not equality. It's time to drop this fantasy of yours, you are outright wrong in every possible way.

 

[Reyzadren]

Let's apply your system to something less benign shall we?

We have seven people who don't want to murder and three people that do. Therefore, nobody gets to be a murderer. | Democracy
We have seven people who want to murder and three people that do. Therefore, a bunch of people die. | Your system.

Sure thing. Let's turn all your statements/situations around, because they are just as likely to happen.

We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore, everyone gets to be a murderer. | Democracy
We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore, not everyone is a murderer. | Not really democracy

I still prefer the non-democratic option. Thanks.

EDIT: not sure if your previous 2nd statement is a typo? Adjusted argument accordingly.

 

[gimmepie]

Sure thing. Let's turn all your statements/situations around, because they are just as likely to happen.

We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore, everyone gets to be a murderer. | Democracy
We have seven people who don't want to murder and three people that do. Therefore, we have more guards than criminals. | Not really democracy

I still prefer the non-democratic option. Thanks.

In your second option you still end up with a bunch of dead people because everyone gets to do what they want in your system and most people won't risk their lives for others as guards. Do go on.

 

[Hands]

Sure thing. Let's turn all your statements/situations around, because they are just as likely to happen.

We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore, everyone gets to be a murderer. | Democracy
We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore, not everyone is a murderer. | Not really democracy

I still prefer the non-democratic option. Thanks.

EDIT: not sure if your previous 2nd statement is a typo? Adjusted argument accordingly.

That's just embarrassing and a really poor analogy. In your second scenario, everyone except the murderers end up dead anyway.

 

[Ivysaur]

I think that there is an option that's better than giving everyone their own gun and saying "good luck kiddo". It's called educating people, giving them a safety net so nobody needs to steal or kill to survive, keeping guns away from most people (since a small, professionally trained force is much better at peacekeeping than a gang of vigilantes in every street), and having a court system so people can enforce their rights and solve disputes without the need for violence in the first place.

Of course, to do all of that, you need an administrative system, someone raising funds, someone managing them, someone training and paying the police force... you get the idea.

But wait! What's the "money" you speak of! Gasp! Someone has to print/mint it! And, you know, manage the supply of money to avoid hyperinflations or deflations. And it has to be someone with authority, because the one who manages the money has power by default. It better be someone who makes at least an attempt at serving the public good and not their own! Why not fuse both entities into one and allow citizens to elect/dismiss them?

And that's what thousands of scholars figured out through the past two millennia.

 

[Somewhere_]

I think that there is an option that's better than giving everyone their own gun and saying "good luck kiddo". It's called educating people, giving them a safety net so nobody needs to steal or kill to survive, keeping guns away from most people (since a small, professionally trained force is much better at peacekeeping than a gang of vigilantes in every street), and having a court system so people can enforce their rights and solve disputes without the need for violence in the first place.

Of course, to do all of that, you need an administrative system, someone raising funds, someone managing them, someone training and paying the police force... you get the idea.

But wait! What's the "money" you speak of! Gasp! Someone has to print/mint it! And, you know, manage the supply of money to avoid hyperinflations or deflations. And it has to be someone with authority, because the one who manages the money has power by default. It better be someone who makes at least an attempt at serving the public good and not their own! Why not fuse both entities into one and allow citizens to elect/dismiss them?

And that's what thousands of scholars figured out through the past two millennia.

This. We have central banks so we dont have the pet bank issue all over again. We dont need booms and even worse busts every 2 freaking seconds. Nor do we need over a thousand different unstable currencies and rely on whiskey to actually trade.

 

[Reyzadren]

That's just embarrassing and a really poor analogy. In your second scenario, everyone except the murderers end up dead anyway.

Yet, you are dismissing that 2nd scenario as unworthy non-fact, when it's shown clearly that 7 deaths is safer than 10 deaths? Can't help you there, mate :/

 

[Somewhere_]

Yet, you are dismissing that 2nd scenario as unworthy non-fact, when it's shown clearly that 7 deaths is safer than 10 deaths? Can't help you there, mate :/

Your scenarios fall to an oversimplification fallacy. Democracy is almost never simply just a "whatever the majority want, they get." In the US, have something called the equal protection and due process clauses in our constitution, among many other checks and balances.

 

[Strange]

Yet, you are dismissing that 2nd scenario as unworthy non-fact, when it's shown clearly that 7 deaths is safer than 10 deaths? Can't help you there, mate :/

Just because the majority vote allows for murder wouldn't force the rest to become murderers. Here's how it works:

We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore there are 7 murderers and 3 non-murderers | Democracy
We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore there are 7 murderers and 3 non-murderers | Not really democracy

We have three people who want to murder and seven people that don't. Therefore there are 0 murderers | Democracy
We have three people who want to murder and seven people that don't. Therefore there are 3 murderers and 7 non-murderers | Not really democracy

So with majority murderers, both result in the same case, the murderers will murder and the others won't. Whereas when those opposed to murder are in majority, Democracy has a far better result, murder is banned and no murders take place, while the not-really-democracy has 3 murderers. So just solely looking at it from a statistics point of view, Democracy is mathematically more likely to create a positive result.

 

[Reyzadren]

Your scenarios fall to an oversimplification fallacy. Democracy is almost never simply just a "whatever the majority want, they get." In the US, have something called the equal protection and due process clauses in our constitution, among many other checks and balances.

I am aware of that, but I wasn't trying to reference anything in the US constitution at all. I started the oversimplification with fruits and I merely extended it to murder to defend my case. I added no other complications as I progressed through the scenarios.

Also, this isn't me trying to disprove democracy as a bad system. It's me saying that if democracy is truly about what the majority wants, then democracy supporters will need to accept whatever the majority wants in both hypothetical situations (majority murder or non-murder), though, it seems that people here would only cherry-pick and accept democracy whenever it falls in their favour and whine whenever it doesn't - which is against the spirit of democracy.

I would happily support democracy in both oversimplified cases of majority wants, but I can't say the same for most democracy supporters.

Just because the majority vote allows for murder wouldn't force the rest to become murderers. Here's how it works:

We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore there are 7 murderers and 3 non-murderers | Democracy
We have seven people who want to murder and three people that don't. Therefore there are 7 murderers and 3 non-murderers | Not really democracy

We have three people who want to murder and seven people that don't. Therefore there are 0 murderers | Democracy
We have three people who want to murder and seven people that don't. Therefore there are 3 murderers and 7 non-murderers | Not really democracy

So with majority murderers, both result in the same case, the murderers will murder and the others won't. Whereas when those opposed to murder are in majority, Democracy has a far better result, murder is banned and no murders take place, while the not-really-democracy has 3 murderers. So just solely looking at it from a statistics point of view, Democracy is mathematically more likely to create a positive result.

That's where you get the wrong idea from me. The results all follow my initial fruit scenario, and I have applied the same logic consistently. What you are describing in your post isn't murder, it's the choice of murder. You allowed the non-murderers to remain as non-murderers against the majority.

When I initially said 7 apples vs 3 oranges, I implied that EVERYONE must take 10 apples in the democracy option. I never said the 3 people would have a choice to refuse the 3 apples that they didn't want. If those 3 people would have a choice to have an alternate option, that wouldn't have been democracy, it would've been the non-democratic situation.

I'd be happy to extend the scenario to accommodate choice and other additional factors, but this was not what my initial statements were about.

 

[Corrin]

Well, it's better then dictatorship.
It's true that just because the majority thinks something is good, doesn't mean it is, but that's why you vote against it.