Why Democracy fails (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

did lost in space teach you NOTHING

 

[abbeyroad]

In no way or form did I resort to ad homs, beyond saying (somewhat sophist), I'm sorry you felt it as such, although I'm not surprised it provoked such an impassioned response. Accusations of sophistry aren't even ad hominems, in fact quite the opposite. They are an accusation of "a specious argument used for deceiving someone" (cf. Wikipedia). They are an attack on language and substance and not character (which would be to label SOMEONE a sophist). Your rant was somewhat sophist (as opposed to Socratic dialectic) in that the virtue of your notions lies in persuasive language, in psychological aberrations, in arete and not truth or reality. It is wholly normative, and is deceptive in that it paints a utopian picture of a world of contractual relationships based on an internally consistent logic comprised of numerous abstract notions (humanity and reality) that are the product of unmediated philosophising and unfettered liberalism and not real inquiry, where justified criticisms are unacknowledged. Such criticisms question your a priori assumptions and absolutism, especially surrounding of the nature of justice (Foucalt), of human behaviour etc.

The correct word you're looking for is sophistic. Accusing someone of being a sophist without addressing his argument is ad homium, accusing what he wrote of being sophistic without addressing its content is ignoratio elenchi. Either way you are not refuting my argument in any manner. hahahaha a prior and absolutism. My arguments are not based on a prior assumptions but rather past experience; they are based on my observations on how "democracy" had been and is being praticed. Can you show me an example of a democracy that does not demean the individual by violating his sovereignty? Can you show me an example of a democracy that is concerned with the pursuit of truth rather than what the majority simply believes? Also, can you tell me the difference between "real" and philosophical inquires, and while you're at it, can you tell me if there's such a thing as a true scotsman?

Socrates wasn't executed for asking too many questions, he was killed because he made specific criticisms of the sophist foundations of Greek democracy, of the courts, lawyers and orators, and subsequently was a true victim of the tyranny of the majority. Democracy was not the problem though, instead it was clearly that continuing to exist was not in fact a right but a democratic decision. Over time, the right to continue exist became the sole realm of absolute monarchs, administrators and other tyrants who empowered their subjects to end the life of others. Such tyrants' domain over determining the continuance of existence has constricted over time but still has a long way to go.

Your objection is purely semantic. Socrate was a gadfly of Athenian society. He critically questioned the beliefs of his contemporaries ie he asked them too many questions that they didn't really have the answers of. Hahahaha he was put to death democratically but democracy was not the problem even though it empowered the plebeians to condemn him to death in the first place!!11!! your right to life can be a democratic decision but that's not a problem of democracy even thought it legitimatises that decision!!!! it's true I swear!!!!!!11!

I hesitate to channel Foucalt but democracy is not a political system and is not an ideal. It is material, a political property - the property of the nominal equality of all individual participants, and not of the subhumanity or subordination of any participants. Ironically in this sense it is your libertopian ideal - it is a unanimous liberty.

o rly? if democracy was all about the equality of all its participants, then why aren't the opinions of the minority recognized? Why would the majority need to violently force its decisions on the minority at all? I mean if it's all about equality and shit, then shouldn't the opinions of everyone be counted and only an unanimous - I use that word in its strictest sense, decision can be acted upon? You keep regurgitating the same old bullshit like you read it in a book but it has no basis in reality. Democracy creates a dichotomy between the majority and the minority, the 51% and the 49%. Why is there a 49% in the first place? Shouldn't a decision making process that treats everyone equally be a consensual one? You're right, it is nominal equality - it is equality in name only. Democracy is all about equality up till the point where it needs to reach and execute its mandates.

Majoritarianism is a pragmatic addendum to democracy - it is the notion that the democratic majority tends on average to be correct and thus majority decisions are most often correct. This is in some senses historically justified, as democracy and the development and upholding of individual rights have tended to improve outcomes (for conquered and discriminated indigeneous peoples, for women [see; feminism]). In this sense, it is important to remember to make relative-historical judgements on democratic outcomes, a notion which informs many marxists/etc. who for instance call for workplace democratisation as a means of improving outcomes. It's all very well to appeal to the normative or ideal grounds of democracy and the workplace (the workplace will become a tyranny of the majority!!!!!!!!!!!!! contracts and liberty!!!!!!!!!). Ahistoricism is clearly intellectually fraudulent - and the only way abstractions such as yours, or of workplace democracy, could be discounted under any terms would be its practical application.

hahahaha argumentum ad populum? seriously? majority decisions are right becus da majority iz right duh!!11!! it's true!1!!!

"majority decisions are most often correct. This is in some senses historically justified, as democracy and the development and upholding of individual rights have tended to improve outcomes" Don't you see the contradiction here? If majority decisions are most often correct, then why are there so many "outcomes" to be brought about? How long did it take the west to abolish slavery and absolute monarchism? How long did it take the west to recognise the rights of women and the individual? How long did it take the west to adopt religious freedom, secularism, universal suffrage, and even liberal democracy, however imperfectly it is practiced? Need I say more? If, according to you, a decision made by a large number of people is, more often than not, correct, then shouldn't we have those things when we you know first entered into society, or shortly thereafter?

It had always been the enlightened few who first objected to the prevailing opinions of the many; it was only when they had built up enough pressure for change, it was only when their number had reached critical mass, then and only then, were they able to become the new majority and overturn the decisions of the previous one. Don't you read history? Human rights, homosexual rights, euthanasia rights... is(or was) the majority correct in their refusal to recognise them? It's funny how you accuse me of ahistoricism while your argument is built upon it.

The democratic property came into existence within a preexisting social/political/economic/religious/geographic context and thereafter has been embedded within it. Democracy exists within politics, but politics has obviously never been completely democratic. The progressive will probably see this and then argue that there is an inevitable march over time towards utopian democracy but I highly doubt this, and unlike you I'm skeptical of any utopian ideal (such as anarchism, which places the centrality of almost all human suffering on the abstract notion of the alienation of sovereignty, self and otherwise - international relations is an interesting case study on anarchism).

jesus there are at least 2 significant anarchistic schools of thought that does not invoke any utopian ideals: philosophical anarchism questions the legitimacy of the state and holds that one bears no moral obligation to the involuntary state as all arguments for one's obedience are invalid, and in the worst cases, fallacious. humanist anarchism on the other hand believes that one cannot totally abolish human suffering, but at the very least, one should strive to minimises coercion and violence to the greatest extent possible and hey, why not start by dissolving one of the most violent and coercive institutions in our society? It's no more idealistic than the law, whose purpose was never about the eradication of crimes and conflicts but the minimization of them. What you gonna tell me that that's another utopian ideal you don't believe in?

Your objection is that "All forms of democracy use violence and coercion to enforce their decisions." This is of course true of any system of decision making, as they must have the ability to make credible, and enforce, their decisions (which is why democratic-anarchism is both an oxymoron and paradoxical).

What? If your parents decided to paint your room bright pink for whatever reason, does that decision need to be violently enforced? You can negotiate with them ie by offering to buy them a plasma tv in exchange for their inaction, or you can just move out. How the hell is that paradoxical?

It is thus obvious that a contractual obligation, which contain the specific terms of compliance/redress etc, is the only legitimate decision making tool. But to be quite honest, this pure decision making system seems like a regression to . Contractual relationships have clear evolutionary beginnings in human society, even animal, in the existence of regret, of retribution etc. This was the oral contractual relationship, whereby contractual terms were understood whether explicit or implicit (I'll club you over the head if you don't do what I asked you to). Contractual relationships thus developed in concordance with the increasing sophistication of language and the material conditions of human life. But they were always subordinate to the dynamics of power relations (such as I'm bigger than you, you're smaller than him, etc etc.) and because of this they gave way to the collectivisation of political problems. Therefore, I'm in no way confident that an anarchical system of contractual relationships would not replicate such power relations, though in nowhere near as savage forms, yet still as sinister in its exploitative and unequal outcomes.

We're still living in a society filled with unequal power relations, eg the rich vs the poor, the intelligent vs the unintelligent the strong vs the weak etc, yet most people aren't going around whacking each other in the head on a daily basis. Why? because of this thing called the law. What makes you think that we would just devolve into savages in an anarcho-capitalistic/anarcho-democratic society that has a fully developed legal system?

I do not have a great faith in [democracy and national governance], and would like in my lifetime to witness a devolution of democratic decision making. Mostly, I concur with yours and many others' criticisms of the modern state and how it is often an instrument for prejudice, suffering and violence. But I do not endorse your structuralist grand narratives that that conflate democracy with this fact. Nor do I ignore the interdependence of human life, of human decisions, consequences and externalities and the dispersal of responsibility and ownership of costs and benefits.

are you serious? I have no problem with a democracy that does not violently enforce its decisions. I do have a problem with violence and coercion and democracy AS IT IS PRATICED entails coercion and the subversion of the individual. Your inability to discern anything beyond the literal is rather quaint.

Cognitive dissonance is the bane of rational social organisation (maybe human social evolution is dialectical??????????). Many are proud to live in a democracy, yet most don't exercise, shun, or arren't even conscious of their democratic rights (I suggest you read John Ralston Saul). To many, "political" decision making is simply an abstract notion impenetrable by individual participation. THIS is the modern democratic man! What a sore sight. How would you, abbeyroad, know that the failure of the modern democratic state wasn't because of this and/or many other inclusive explanations than for abstract or theoretical criticisms of democracy, coercion, monopoly over violence etc? You privilege structure and ignore free will and dynamism of agents (even their legitimation of legal-rational/democratic dominance - have you read Weber?)

yeah nice straw man bro and how would you *know* that the failure of the democratic state was precisely because of that and many other inclusive explanations other than coercion/monopoly on violence etc? fuck for the last time, my criticisms had never been about the failures of the democratic state but rather its dependence on violence and encroachment of individual sovereignty. What difference does it make, whether a decision is reached by the 49% or the 51%, if it is violently enforced? Does might make right? Please legitimize the state and its use of violence. I'm still waiting.

I don't know man, you still haven't really refuted my points. All I see is a bunch of names, labels and fallacies being thrown around. I think you're more of a sophist than I ever (allegedly) was.

So I get it, you read some books on sociology and political economy and think you know everything there is to know about philosophical anarchism and philosophy in general. not really bro, I can tell by your clumsy and fallacious reasoning that you're no trained reasoner.

 

[SylviaB]

Technocracy/Scientocracy will be the next step in the evolution of democracy.

Peter A. Ubel - "Scientocracy: Policy making that reflects human nature," he writes, "When I talk about Scientocracy, then, I'm not talking about a world ruled by behavioral scientists, or any other kind of scientists. Instead, I am imagining a government of the people, but informed by scientists. A world where people don't argue endlessly about whether educational vouchers will improve schools, whether gun control will reduce crime, or whether health savings accounts can lower health care expenditures,... but one instead where science has a chance to show us whether vouchers, gun control laws, and health savings accounts work and, if so, under what conditions."

That's a fucking awful idea. Not only are most social scientists utterly fail, but its obvious that the state will just use whoever helps advance their own agenda.

 

[Big_Boy_James]

LOL.

Democracy sucks, I don't want people from Mt Druit having equal power at the ballot as I do.

They are sub human animals.

Stuff them.

Implement Islam yo!

 

[funkshen]

Your ad hominems aside, I was only lazily groping at a moral justification for democracy, in stead of pragmatically or historically (in terms of what came before it). I've never really tried before as I don't have a particular interest in democracy (or rather its hollowness) and considering the framing of legitimacy (in terms of consensus, of violence etc) it is not possible. The state's power does not derive from consent (except in the case of migration I guess). If there was a neutral/stateless area on Earth where everyone was born, and you could choose where you went, one could begin to justify the state's power morally. Is that legitimacy, and do you think that is a likely next-step?

I agree that democracy is fundamentally a system that institutionalises violence, repression, disrespect for and modification of individuality, corruption and wastefulness that can only be meagerly justified in pragmatic terms. But what is legitimacy (is it historical, is it ethical, personal or objective)? Why is it necessary, virtuous and important? Why is it a measurement of good governance? Legitimacy is certainly subjective. What is it based in? Satisfaction with process and outcomes, the purity of governmental form? There can be a clear disconnect between the two? What is clear is that on average or over time people prefer democracy (atleast nominal democracy) to its alternatives (absolute monarchy, military junta etc) and so it is clear that legitimacy could be not a cardinal attribute but an ordinal ranking. Anarchy does seem to be the final taboo. But at least in the present tense democracy is legitimate. Anarchy may be preferable and I guess we'll see, because I don't believe the state is here to stay.

What is your interpretation of the genealogy of social/political organisation or the collectivisation of decision makingt? Was it for material or structural reasons (e.g. technology) or do people even want to make their own decisions, do they value abrogation from responsibility)? What makes you certain we can move beyond it?

I don't quite know how you can honestly say you're free of a priori assumptions. You ask whether there has ever been a democracy that seeks the truth and not simply majority opinion (Why should we pursue truth? There is no settled debate between logical positivism and conventionalism). You presuppose sovereignty (what sovereignty?) and you assume the virtue of individual sovereignty and the heinousness of its violation, where many would argue that self sovereignty is an artifact of state sovereignty etc. You say you have "observed" democracy in practice, though women and indigenous peoples have only enjoyed nominally equal political participation for a fraction of democracy's lifespan, and history is littered with minority struggles for independence (say in recent history, Kosovans, the Timorese, etc), not to mention the fluidity of the concept of minority.

My distinction between real and philosophical was a misnomer, I meant normative and positive inquiry. Also, I never legitimised majoritarianism (it's a vulgar case of ends justify the means), and I don't believe all strains of anarchism are utopian as I meant to specifically refer to anarcho-capitalism (I understand ancap legal systems but how would an anarcho-democratic system have a fully developed legal system?) which is rooted in modernist utopianism. Even if anarchy is theoretically preferable, it is undeniable that the condition of possibility for freedom is the acceptance that our existence is bounded by necessity. I don't know whether anarchism is within these bounds.

 

[abbeyroad]

Your ad hominems aside, I was only lazily groping at a moral justification for democracy, in stead of pragmatically or historically (in terms of what came before it). I've never really tried before as I don't have a particular interest in democracy (or rather its hollowness) and considering the framing of legitimacy (in terms of consensus, of violence etc) it is not possible. The state's power does not derive from consent (except in the case of migration I guess). If there was a neutral/stateless area on Earth where everyone was born, and you could choose where you went, one could begin to justify the state's power morally. Is that legitimacy, and do you think that is a likely next-step?

I agree that democracy is fundamentally a system that institutionalises violence, repression, disrespect for and modification of individuality, corruption and wastefulness that can only be meagerly justified in pragmatic terms. But what is legitimacy (is it historical, is it ethical, personal or objective)? Why is it necessary, virtuous and important? Why is it a measurement of good governance? Legitimacy is certainly subjective. What is it based in? Satisfaction with process and outcomes, the purity of governmental form? There can be a clear disconnect between the two? What is clear is that on average or over time people prefer democracy (atleast nominal democracy) to its alternatives (absolute monarchy, military junta etc) and so it is clear that legitimacy could be not a cardinal attribute but an ordinal ranking. Anarchy does seem to be the final taboo. But at least in the present tense democracy is legitimate. Anarchy may be preferable and I guess we'll see, because I don't believe the state is here to stay.

wtf is this shit? for fuck's sake stop pretending you know what you're talking about and go pick up a book on political philosophy.

What is your interpretation of the genealogy of social/political organisation or the collectivisation of decision makingt? Was it for material or structural reasons (e.g. technology) or do people even want to make their own decisions, do they value abrogation from responsibility)? What makes you certain we can move beyond it?

what? have you read Hume's empirical account of the origin of the nation state I quoted a few pages back? All nation-states had hitherto been founded through either conquest or usurpation, that is to say, through violence. All talks of the supposed origin or justification of social/political institutions are purely metaphysical.

I don't quite know how you can honestly say you're free of a priori assumptions. You ask whether there has ever been a democracy that seeks the truth and not simply majority opinion (Why should we pursue truth? There is no settled debate between logical positivism and conventionalism). You presuppose sovereignty (what sovereignty?) and you assume the virtue of individual sovereignty and the heinousness of its violation, where many would argue that self sovereignty is an artifact of state sovereignty etc.

jesus that's not what a prior means. basically an a prior statement is one that is true by virtue of the definition of its terms. That a triangle has three sides is an a prior proposition because a triangle is defined as a shape with three sides, and its negation leads to absurdity.
"democracy violates individual sovereignty" is an a posterior statement, whose negation - "democracy does not violate individual sovereignty" is just as coherent. "sovereignty" is a concept, a noun; a noun by itself cannot be a prior or a posterior . Where did I "assume the virtue of individual sovereignty and the heinousness of its violation"? Let's see

Democracy, by definition, empowers the majority at the expense of the minority; it extols the worth and wisdom of the majority - the notion that the majority is entitled to an impetuous degree of deference, such that the boisterous sound of the majority's exoteric platitudes - "equality", "justice", "security", the "greater good" or some such thing, overwhelms the discontent of the minority.

Majoritarian democracy debases reason as much as it does the individual. That the minority of today might become the majority of tomorrow is of no consequence to the democratic man, and neither is the pursuit of truth. He is far too staid, too pious to his democratic principles to concern himself with such things. Lacking any ideas of his own, other than the "democratic" ideals instilled in him by the "democratic" majority, the democratic man stands proudly on the pulpit, endorsing whatever opinions the current majority happens to hold. He does it with such reverence that one wonders whether he would vote away his own democratic ideals if that's what the majority desires?

Where is that assumption you speak of? Where is the ought? Do you even know what normative and prescriptive mean?

Even if my arguments were based on a prior assumptions so fucking what? You're actually gonna provide a coherent response or you just wanna keep hiding behind your argumentum verbosiums and ignoratio elenchis?

You say you have "observed" democracy in practice, though women and indigenous peoples have only enjoyed nominally equal political participation for a fraction of democracy's lifespan, and history is littered with minority struggles for independence (say in recent history, Kosovans, the Timorese, etc), not to mention the fluidity of the concept of minority.

I'm sorry is that meant to address any of my arguments? Or you're just putting it there to make yourself look smart like you do 99% of your other dubious declarations?

Even if anarchy is theoretically preferable, it is undeniable that the condition of possibility for freedom is the acceptance that our existence is bounded by necessity. I don't know whether anarchism is within these bounds.

???
what the hell are you trying to say? be more intelligible?

Look I've been patient enough but it's clear that you don't know half the stuff you;re talking about, you're just wasting my time with your unsubstantiated and incoherent rhetoric. You have nothing to justify your assertions with and you know it. come back when you've actually read some books on political philosophy.

 

[cosmo kramer]

both ofy ou stfu

 

[funkshen]

both ofy ou stfu

sry m8

what would you like to talk about? how about donald trump?

 

[SylviaB]

black people

 

[cosmo kramer]

who sez ii wanna talk babout anyrtthing bra

 

[funkshen]

do you enjoy horse riding?

 

[abbeyroad]

yes cosmo please enlighten us on the evil of the jews and niggers

 

[writer'sblock]

Democracy's failure can we be explained in this way, if a mysogynist, like Tony Abbott can be the leader of a major party, retain about half the popular vote and be openly criticised for what is quite evident whilst half the electorate is female in the post second feminist revolution, we have issues.
However, in that light there is always an upside, and this is a great way to think about it: http://on.fb.me/ipVbk8

 

[Lolsmith]

Outline to me why Tony Abbott is a mysogynist

 

[Azure]

Tony Abbott is infinitely better than the alternative.

 

[Lentern]

Outline to me why Tony Abbott is a mysogynist

“I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”


That's pretty ugly you've gotta admit.

 

[Jimmy Recard]

spot on though

telling it like it is

leadership material

 

[Lolsmith]

“I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”


That's pretty ugly you've gotta admit.

However much I agree with him (for *very* different reasons) yeah

That's heavy

 

[cosmo kramer]

“I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”


That's pretty ugly you've gotta admit.

no it's factual

but yeah it's definitely ugly to the retards who don't think it's true (feminists)

(for *very* different reasons)

what are they

 

[Lolsmith]

Well women can't necessarily do things because they've got other shit going for them. Society as a whole allows women to take alternate lifestyle choices to men. They can be mothers and/or middle management, as opposed to being heavily involved in the executive. Men are less able, in a social sense, to stay at home and raise a child and let the woman go and earn the $$$$$. Mainly because men aren't ingrained to pursue this. I sure as shit don't want to stay at home with a baby all day everyday, but that's not to say that I won't love my children. I'm purely of the opinion that women are interested in what they are because of what they're told to be interested in, not what they are inherently due to be drawn to due to their hormonal balances and sexual organs.

tl;dr: women do shit because people have told them to not because they have vaginas