''Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried''.
~Winston Churchill
This certainly seems like a plausible viewpoint, and to those whose minds are keen enough to realise the problems of democracy believe this. But does it really stand up to scrutiny?
A text I've been reading by Hans Hoppe called ''Democracy the God that Failed'' offered criticisms of democracy that never really occured to me. He is neither pro democratic, nor anti democratic. He emrely postulates that if the only choice was between monarchy and democracy, then monarchy is preferable. To many of you, this is simply an unthinkable position to take. But let me flesh out his ideas in a little more detail to stimulate some dicsussion:
Democracy he argues, if not restrained by strict adherence to a constitution, degenerates into special interest groups vying for governmental favour in the hope that their position will be enhanced (this point is especially poignant in the US where 17,000 lobbyists in Washington can effectively buy policy) at the expense of everyone else in society. He uses numerous examples to show that if American political history has taught us anything, it's that governments refuse to be limited by such trivial things like codified constitutions.
For a brief article that goes into more detail go here. For everyone else that can;t be bothered, I think what is written above is sufficient to start up a discussion.
Interesting idea. I'm not so sure how effective a system of governance it would be in the post industrial societies of the developed world. But I think it would be a compelling experiment if attemtped elsewhere. Not to mention culturally, non Europeans/North Americans would be much more conducive to the idea.
The only perfect governmental and economical system is communism. Of course, everything and everyone must be perfect in order for it to work correctly.
Failing this another way to get communism to work would be to have nearly unlimited resources.
Well strictly speaking, most forms of anarchy are centred around direct democracy, so they are still suspect to its flaws as mentioned in the OP.
OP's post contained no argument against direct democracy, but again Republican style of government, what we call "Representative democracy".
Not to mention its unviability in post industrial societies due to economies of scale.
Not unless you are proposing a regression to agrarian living, or exporting it to the developing world. If so, then go for it.
Anarchism does not entail primitivism, although there are anarcho-positivists. Abolishing the government does not equal the destruction of markets. There are many influential works you can read on the subject, ranging from the right to left. People like Rothbard and Mises on the right and Kropotkin and Bakunin on the left.
OP's post contained no argument against direct democracy, but again Republican style of government, what we call "Representative democracy".
Interest groups pushing their own agenda with no infrastructure to deal with tyranny of the minority of majority? The problems associated with representative democracy are amplified under direct democracy.
Abolishing the government does not equal the destruction of markets.
I never claimed it did. I don't however believe that the free market is efficient enough to allocate resources. If we've learnt any lessons from the 20th century, it's that the free market doesn't even gaurantee participation, let alone efficiency. At least wiith a command economic system, there is more raw data avilable to be considered by the capital owning body. Perfect knowledge simply doesn't exist in the real world.
People like Rothbard and Mises on the right and Kropotkin and Bakunin on the left.
I've read them. None of them have answered the fundamental problems with anarchic systems. Mainly how anarchies can maintain themselves as anarchies, and how tryanny is to be avoided.
Communism is the most extreme form of democracy when the communistic stage is actually reached. The USA is a republic, and the USSR and China were dictatorial socialist countries. Real Communism has only been achieved at hippie communes, where it worked beautifully because there were so few people.
Real Communism has only been achieved at hippie communes, where it worked beautifully because there were so few people.
Communism is more like a branch of anarchism. It works wonders when you have a small amount of people. Same with democracy, works good in low populations. The more people you add, the harder it becomes to control, while given political rights equality to the citizens. Sadly, democracy deteriorates into Oligarchy, ruled by few.
I never claimed it did. I don't however believe that the free market is efficient enough to allocate resources. If we've learnt any lessons from the 20th century, it's that the free market doesn't even gaurantee participation, let alone efficiency. At least wiith a command economic system, there is more raw data avilable to be considered by the capital owning body. Perfect knowledge simply doesn't exist in the real world.
That video was interesting, but far from a comprehensive rejection of command economies. If you look at the graph at about 5.50, the period under which Sweden was ''doing well'', the top income tax threshold was about 55%. This is still incredibly high. What we can take from Sweden's story is that taking things in moderation is the way forward. No doubt having massive taxation and welfare state can cause probloems. But the same can be said for having too little. Look at America. It is far from a utopia.
Interest groups pushing their own agenda with no infrastructure to deal with tyranny of the minority of majority? The problems associated with representative democracy are amplified under direct democracy.
"no infrastructure to deal with tyranny" is a assumption. Why couldn't there be. Like a "Constitutional direct democracy"
Representative "democracy" is far from my notion of society organized under anarchist principles. Democracy does not equal "Majority vote" but rather is measured by the participation and role of individuals in the economic and political aspect of society. Anarchism allows just that, voluntary organization -- democracy.
How the problems of elections and representation are still inherent to such a form of democracy, I don't understand
I never claimed it did. I don't however believe that the free market is efficient enough to allocate resources. If we've learnt any lessons from the 20th century, it's that the free market doesn't even gaurantee participation, let alone efficiency. At least wiith a command economic system, there is more raw data avilable to be considered by the capital owning body. Perfect knowledge simply doesn't exist in the real world.
Im not a free market anarchist so I'm not going to try and argue that path. However, trade would not cease to exist under anarchism.
I've read them. None of them have answered the fundamental problems with anarchic systems. Mainly how anarchies can maintain themselves as anarchies, and how tryanny is to be avoided.
I can't take it seriously that you read them. I doubt you read all their works, so if you can tell me specifically what you read please?
What are your main concerns with the "fundamental problems"?
It doesn't matter what type of government you have, Government is a "necessary evil" so all forms of government are bad, there is no perfect type bec. there will always be A-holes around. As for democracy i think it is the best, mainly because of all the freedoms. Now it may not work if all of the people in charge are a-holes. Pretend the gov. was a car, it could be a really good car but if you put a retard in it he's going to crash, just like if you have bad people in a good gov.
