''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.
"no infrastructure to deal with tyranny" is a assumption. Why couldn't there be. Like a "Constitutional direct democracy"
Who enforces a constitution under a direct democracy? hat entrenches it? If vox populi is all that is needed to make decisions, how can a contitution exist under anarchy?
Democracy does not equal "Majority vote"
In direct democracy, it does. What other decision making mechanisms are there. Every decision on every issue has to be reacxhed democratically for any form of power to be deemed legitimate.
How the problems of elections and representation are still inherent to such a form of democracy, I don't understand
There would be no safegaurds against tyranny of the majority. As for interest groups, these would still exist under a direct democracy. If all that is needed to enact legislation is a majority vote, you don't even need lobbyists anymore. Just emotive rhetoricians to persuade people.
However, trade would not cease to exist under anarchism.
Basic trade of course wouldn't. But what I'm trying to highlight is that in a post industrial world, much of the materials we need to sustain a post industrial lifestyle are sourced from all parts of the world, and organised in such a manner that it would be impossible to make local decisions regarding them. So for example Thames Water is owned by a company based in France. How could we Londoners make decisions on local water supply?
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?
Not every single book from all their works, but the works which are considered seminal to each individual thinker. For Rothbard 'man economy and state', Mises,'Human Action', Kropotkin,'Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evoilution' and Bakunin,'God and the State'. I really don't see why it's so impluasible that someone studying political philosophy has read the some works of the anarchist movement. Although I wouldn't put Mises up there with the rest. I'd probably replace him with Nozick.
What are your main concerns with the "fundamental problems"?
With regard to those on the right wing of the anarchist spectrum, they have a hopelessley optimistic conception of the free market. The Austrian school of economics really is BS. The idea that society can be entirely self regulating is absurd, and flies in the face of simple behavioural traits.
With regard to those on the left (this goes doubly for Kropotkin in particular since he tries to back it up scientifically), the idea that human beings are that atruistic is to me ubelievable. I'm no psychologist, but I've studied enough at A2 to realise given the right incentives, humans are capable of anything. There is very little in the way of natural universal moral coding.
That's why I much prefer thinkers like Stirner. He acceps this fact, acknowledges that anarchy will likely result in terror, but justifies its use anyway. At least he's being honest about it.
i think democracy is one of the worst but at the same time the fairest political system
now my theory about the best political system: a dictatorship yes bu not one of those dictators which walked the earth earlyer no im thinking of a dictator who acts in the best interset of the people has a good sytem of jurisdiction and no violence the only difference to a good democracyis that all that bureaucratic sh*t is cut out this would make it faster to release new laws. this would make it possible to react faster on recent events or it would be easier to realease laws two factions are arguing about and just wont solve the problem ( like the debate about the medical insuarnce in the USA) So i would say and PLEASE dont missunderstand me a dictate like hitlers germany WITH an OTHER idealistic background and of course WITHOUT the GENOCIDE of the jews would be a good working political system
To be honest, democracy is better than theocracy and dictatorship. However, A direct democracy would never work which is why the idea of electing people to speak on our behalf is better.
now my theory about the best political system: a dictatorship yes bu not one of those dictators which walked the earth earlyer no im thinking of a dictator who acts in the best interset of the people has a good sytem of jurisdiction and no violence
And how do you ensure that a dictator does not have that type of agenda? And if a dictator emerges that does have an agenda that is not in the best interests of his people, how do you remove him from power? This is the fundamental argument against monarchies and dictatorships.
They are perfect, as long as the regent or ruler are acting solely in the best interests of the majority of the citizens. However due the nature of their authority, there is little recourse for the citizens if the ruler begins acting out of concert with the best interests of the people. This is why freedom demands a democratic republic.
While vox populi may not hold sway 100% of the time, it definitely has some impact, and it allows citizens some recourse should the current party not be acting with the interests of the people.
Even as you see here in the US now, many libertarian and tea party politicians are being elected into office by the people who are realizing the partisan pandering and the lobbyists buying policy. While it may not change everything, it certainly is having, and will continue to have, an impact on the future of politics here in the US.
However, A direct democracy would never work which is why the idea of electing people to speak on our behalf is better.
To a point. However I believe that the people should vote on the house and senate bills BEFORE the house and senate get to. This would provide more power to the people. Let the politicians propose the measures and draft them. Then they come to a pass/fail vote from the people. If we allow the bill to pass, then it goes into it's current system, through the house and senate, and on for presidential approval. This would rip the power of the lobbyists right out from under them, as the people would decide what laws and proposals we wish for our elected officials to consider.
I believe democracy is only a good political system for small groups of people once that population becomes too large then a republic should be used. After skimming a few pages I would like to say to people that in the United States we have a Democratic-Republic which is neither a democracy or a republic but a combination of both. Also i believe communism would be a good form of government in a small group of people who have limited resources, while a socialism would be good to replace a communism when the population grows.
Democracy is about the providing the political freedom for all in order to organize society by the principles of individual freedom free from political and economic hierarchy. It is not a specified political system in which everything is decided by a "opular vote". Making gains in women's rights, black's rights, and all other oppressed groups and equalizing the balance of power is thus a step toward democracy.
While a direct vote is a efficient way of representing the popular action, it does not define the whole entity of what is known as democracy.
And how do you ensure that a dictator does not have that type of agenda? And if a dictator emerges that does have an agenda that is not in the best interests of his people, how do you remove him from power? This is the fundamental argument against monarchies and dictatorships.
They are perfect, as long as the regent or ruler are acting solely in the best interests of the majority of the citizens. However due the nature of their authority, there is little recourse for the citizens if the ruler begins acting out of concert with the best interests of the people. This is why freedom demands a democratic republic.
THIS is exactly the reason why we dont have dictatorships in free countrys dicatorships dont work beacause of the dictators I dont want to say that we should live in a dictatorship democary works pretty good and there is no need to change that i say dictatorship is in theory the best political system but in reality IT JUST DONT WORK
