Forums → WEPR → BIG GOV. Or small gov. ?

I dunno, whats stopping people from electing a king?

Because representative democracy operates within certain parameters. You may not agree with those parameters, or the implications of having them, but they exist and prevent such an action taking place.

What stops the oppression of minorities in any system?

Human rights and legal statutes. Again, you may not agree with them, but they do a fairly good job of safegaurding the rights of minorities within representative democracies in the Western world. Considering that if you toook a vote, the majority of people in Britain may vote to withold rights from Muslims based on misinformation and doom mongering. In a direct democracy this would almost certainly happen. As it is now, their rights are safegaurded. Unless you are willing to codify a set of human rights which are inalienable within your anarchist society, there is no gaurantee this could not take place.

Do you really think people will know the true effects of all these choices?

Well in a capitalist economy the choices of the community are eliminated so thats not a problem.

But what's the alternative anyway?

Because representative democracy operates within certain parameters. You may not agree with those parameters, or the implications of having them, but they exist and prevent such an action taking place.

So the only power to stop the popular will is the coercive powers of the state?
Which proposes those in power are benign anyway.

What stops people from voting to be an anarchy?

Human rights and legal statutes.

And we can't have human rights under anarchism? Do we need coercion to enact such things as human rights? It is rather the progressiveness of the working class people that we have such concepts and progressive laws be pushed into power, not the goodness of the state.

By allowing people to fully take control, I would rather think that there would be a faster social progression.

And it has been the state that has pushed for racist, homophobic, and sexist attitudes.

So really I'd say the people's consciousness is the only force stopping the "suppression of minorities". This is true in all societies, and the only solution is coercion - the complete suppression of the masses to act on their popular will.

So the only power to stop the popular will is the coercive powers of the state?

If the popular will is ignorant and bigoted, then yes. This reminds me of the Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins who did things like make homosexuality legal, make abortion legal, and get rid of the death oenalty, basically all the marks of a civilised society. When asked years later why he did it because of its unpopuylarity at the time, he basically said, people are ignorant, I know better, and that certain rights are inalienable.

I don't necessaarily agree with the first two things he said, but I agree with the last one. Unless anarchic societies are willing to codify some sets of human rights, then any minority is open to severe abuse which any humanist would totally object to, simply because they don't have the same voting power.

What stops people from voting to be an anarchy?

Seeing as we are assuming this anarchic society already exists, then that would be unnecessary. Or do you mean why don't people vote anarchy under the current system? Because most ordianry people value stability over radical change, even if that means tolerating the evils of representative democracy.

And we can't have human rights under anarchism?

How would you gaurantee this? What if the people do not want these laws? Unless you are willing to indoctrinate children into becoming productive members of society who don't break any of these unwritten human rights, this would not be gauranteed. There are plenty of societies with scant regard for life.

And it has been the state that has pushed for racist, homophobic, and sexist attitudes.

I rather think it is the people. The state does what is popular. Do not tell me that the civil rights movement in the 60s was started because it was the state oppressing blacks. It was racist white individuals, and the same goes for sexism and homophobia. I'm no pessimist, but I don't think people are as accepting of other viewpoints as you make out, especially in a society like America, where so many people are simply bloody ignorant and intolerant.

It is rather the progressiveness of the working class people that we have such concepts and progressive laws be pushed into power, not the goodness of the state.

The bill of rights in America which codified such rights was written by white upper class people with no input from any ordinary Americans whatsoever. The working classes are most commonly those who are most ignorant due to a lack of education, and consequently most intolerant.

I am no proponent of a large state. But if there's one thing liberal democracies do rather well is protect their own people from human rights abuses. Anarchy simply has no mechanism to deal with the fact that not all human beings are paragons of virtue. The common argument,''just because there aren't laws telling you not to kill, doesn't mean you will''. What if the other person has a knife and attacks me? Is it right then? The fact is, there are harsh punishments for such actions, yet they continue to occur within a state which can even take your life in retribution. Why do you think that if you remove the state people will decide of their own accord that it's wrong to kill when people continue to do so under current conditions?