Democracy and alternatives

[Perpetuall]

[Moderator note: This thread was split off from the Trumpmageddon discussion.]

I don't know if this is the end of American democracy but it will be the end of many people's lives.

What democracy?
American's literally only have two choices. That is not a democracy. That is a thinly veiled dictatorship.
At least here in Britain, there's a chance that a party other than Labour or the Conservatives can get in power (it's unlikely, but it's possible). And even if your chosen party doesn't win, if they get enough votes, then they get a voice.
But America? Don't confuse that for a democracy.

As for this being the end of many people's lives though, that is definitely true. But nobody ever cares, even in these cases.
Sure, people sometimes pretend to care. But they don't really. 
But that's a discussion for another day.

Democracy isn't about freedom anyway, it's about control just like every other form of government. It has been since the first democratic republic was established back in Ancient Rome, you know, that paragon of virtue and fairness where the leaders were regularly assassinated by their peers not long after getting into office, put their own family members to death to remove rivals, and the common people liked to watch women and children being ripped apart by wild beasts for entertainment because they wouldn't worship the right gods and dared to think a different way. That worked out well, didn't devolve into dictatorship or a collapse of civilization at all.

When Kamala Harris said the peaceful transfer of power was a hallmark of democracy in her concession speech I really had to laugh.

If 49% of the population votes for blue and 51% vote for red, that's not freedom of choice, because, first of all, your only choices to begin with are blue and red. What if you want purple or green or yellow or any other color of the rainbow?
And secondly, the 49% are forced to accept a president they did not vote for. That is not freedom, that is tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Panarchy is the only logical solution, and in this age there's no logical reason why we can't have it. Any group of individuals can come together and agree to live by a specific set of rules, even children can do that. We have enough resources to create as many micronations as we want. We could literally take all the trash from the ocean and turn them into floating islands and solve both the pollution problem and the population problem at the same time if we wanted to. Let each island choose their own form of government with their own leader and let the people choose which one they want to live in but we don't do that. Why?

Because it's not about freedom, it's about control. There's nothing logical about it. The elites have always wanted to exercise control over the masses, and they invent new ways to do so. "Democracy" is the chosen method of today. As @Danvzare said, people pretend to care, but they don't, not really. The best way to manipulate people is through their emotions, not logic or reason, because if we were in the habit of using our brains we'd realize we were born into a situation we never agreed to and we can also choose not to accept it because it doesn't truly benefit us.

But that sounds overwhelming to think about and I'm drained from living my cushy 21st century life with all its amenities and artificial stressors so I guess I'll just go back to playing video games and forget about it like everyone else. It's easier that way. I'll just leave it to the politicians to pass a bill to give us what we supposedly want that will be overturned next year. "Trump will fix it". Or was that Bob the Builder..?

I better keep my mouth shut or they'll start sending agents in here to influence public opinion in order to further "democracy" like they did when they infiltrated communities in Nicaragua during the Cold War. But don't worry, guys, it was all in the name of freedom.

[Blondbraid]

Be careful you don't cut yourself on all that edge.

Seriously, no one is claiming democracy is a flawless system, but it's been better than every other system implemented so far. Also, most actual democracies don't have the idiotic two-party system and electoral college the US has. It's like saying we should abolish healthcare altogether because USA has a terrible version of it.

Also, panarchy and small communes and micronations? Those are even more vulnerable into devolving into cults, being toppled by other nations and/or have their systems toppled by a few strong and ruthless leaders. If anything, it just reminds me of the "Soverign citizen" movement in the US, and all the tinfoil hats it attracts. Also, in the case of Panarchy, as defined by wikipedia;

In an 1860 article, de Puydt first proposed the idea of panarchy: a political philosophy that emphasizes each individual's right to freely choose (join and leave) the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. A proponent of laissez-faire economics, he wrote that "governmental competition" would let "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members."

Yeah, what's to stop somebody from abusing it by committing a crime and just go "nuh-uh, I don't want these laws to apply to me"?

 It reminds me of those libertarian dudes that wanted to start a crypto-island and, in a mask-off moment, one of the guys responsible let slip that there wouldn't need to be any age of consent on the island.

Spoiler

[close]

Any group of individuals can come together and agree to live by a specific set of rules, even children can do that.

You clearly haven't read Lord of the Flies. Heck, I've worked in daycare and I can tell from experience that it would devolve into the oldest and strongest deciding everything if we adults weren't around to ensure everyone had to respect each other and no one was allowed to beat one another.

[Mandle]

Democracy isn't about freedom anyway, it's about control just like every other form of government.

Yes, we have governments because without control we are horrible. I don't understand why you present control as a negative.

[Matti]

Democracy isn't about freedom anyway, it's about control just like every other form of government.

Yes, we have governments because without control we are horrible. I don't understand why you present control as a negative.

Ah, because without cops, you would be running around killing, robbing and raping people? But with the government in charge, you don't?

Not agreeing with Pertpetuall though. A (democratic) state is not about controlling people, it's about operating a capitalist nation-state.

[Mandle]

Democracy isn't about freedom anyway, it's about control just like every other form of government.

Yes, we have governments because without control we are horrible. I don't understand why you present control as a negative.

Ah, because without cops, you would be running around killing, robbing and raping people? But with the government in charge, you don't?

You are implying that, without laws and a way to enforce them, that the crime rate would stay within reasonable limits, just through the personal restraint and good nature of people?

I'm gonna just mostly ignore the weirdly personal slant of your reply to me, as it was obvious from my post that I was talking about society in general, and not a private desire to cause death and pain to others. I'll just take it as the childish attempt to troll that I suspect it is.

[cat]

Panarchy sounds like an interesting concept in theory. In practice, I wonder if things like even basic infrastructure would work. My guess:

Spoiler

No.

[close]

[Blondbraid]

Democracy isn't about freedom anyway, it's about control just like every other form of government.

Yes, we have governments because without control we are horrible. I don't understand why you present control as a negative.

Ah, because without cops, you would be running around killing, robbing and raping people? But with the government in charge, you don't?

Not agreeing with Pertpetuall though. A (democratic) state is not about controlling people, it's about operating a capitalist nation-state.

We already tried having a society without cops in Sweden. It was called the Viking age.

[Perpetuall]

Hmmm, I wasn't expecting all this from an off-the-cuff remark. There's a lot here and I appreciate you all took the time to use your brain and think for yourselves, articulate your thoughts and perspectives, even if we do not agree. That is all I could have ever hoped to gain from sharing my own thoughts, even if we do not agree entirely. The more we can dialogue and share a diversity of perspectives, the closer we can get to the truth of any matter. I believe this was the original idea behind a free democracy-and a noble one at that.

There's a lot here, so let me just respond one at a time.

Seriously, no one is claiming democracy is a flawless system, but it's been better than every other system implemented so far. Also, most actual democracies don't have the idiotic two-party system and electoral college the US has. It's like saying we should abolish healthcare altogether because USA has a terrible version of it.

I never expected it to be, and there is no flawless system. Any humanly created system is flawed, because humans are-but necessary to maintain order.

I never stated we should abolish democracy, nor did I advocate replacing it. Quite the contrary. In spite of its flaws, personally, I think democracy is still probably the best form of human government that currently exists in the world-for most people.

And I add that little qualification at the end there, because, there are some people who do not want democracy. These are often the types of people outlined in Eric Hoffer's book, "The True Believer". These are people for whom life is not working out the way they planned. They get discouraged, seek a scapegoat, and blame the authorities in power for all their troubles. If only we could replace democracy with communism or fascism or insert ism here, then all our troubles would be solved-a very naive idealism. A logical fallacy I think we all can fall prey to in various ways in our lives. We look for simple solutions to complex problems, and we overlook the fact that our proposed solution will probably cause more problems than it solves.

So revolutions and wars occur, because people have differences of opinion and want different things. As it states in James 4:1-11, "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel."

Democracy gives us at least a degree of feeling of having control over our circumstances to avoid the impending catastrophe of a violent clash over differences in ideals, because there is always hope that next term you will get what you want. But what if you're not in the majority? Then you will likely never get what you want, and you may blame democracy for this dilemma. So then you will seek to find control over your life through other means-by bucking the system, or tearing it down altogether.

Panarchy, at least one that's properly planned and implemented, in my mind would allow for a peaceful solution, averting violence. Instead of overthrowing the current form of government, whatever it may be, you simply change to a nation that aligns with your own ideals.

More likely than not, you will still struggle with the same problems you had before. You will still be unpopular. You will still be misunderstood. You will still be marginalized. And you will still have all the same flaws, whatever they may be, that made you all those things-you're lazy, arrogant, or whatever. You'll either realize it's not the government's fault and start to take some responsibility for your own life, and start trying to confront reality and adjust, instead of making the world conform to your liking, or, you'll actually find some place you belong and thrive where other people want the same way of life as you do and you can live by the same rules. Either way it's win win, and you didn't have to start a war over it.

Also, panarchy and small communes and micronations? Those are even more vulnerable into devolving into cults, being toppled by other nations and/or have their systems toppled by a few strong and ruthless leaders.

Absolutely agree and it would definitely happen, as it already does now.
This is why such a system would have to have a higher system to which it has to answer to-a set of very general principles and rules that every nation would have to abide by. Similar to how NATO and EU and other alliances work-but the idea is they would all agree to enforce a common constitution with some general laws such as, "No nation may exercise force upon its citizens, but each person is free to leave any nation they so choose."  And "No nation may attack another nation, but every government is free to exercise its own sovereignty." This is actually similar to how the states work, actually. It would just allow each state/nation to have an even higher degree of autonomy.

Of course cults would still form-they are free to exist already. In fact, I just talked to a cult member for hours yesterday. There are two cults in my neighborhood, really bonkers, and I always try to talk to them when I see them because I'm really scared they're gonna lose it and commit suicide, as they often do, and I really want to talk some sense into them. But the thing is if you have freedom these cults will always be able to exist. Democracy doesn't stop that, and if it did it wouldn't be free anymore.

Yeah, what's to stop somebody from abusing it by committing a crime and just go "nuh-uh, I don't want these laws to apply to me"?

Excellent point, and I agree wholeheartedly! I never understood how de Puydt thought he might implement such a system that doesn't seem to make any sense to me at all. Without territorial borders, how do you determine what laws somebody is supposed to live by? I think the only reasonable way to implement a multi-governmental system is with physical borders. Which is why you would have to have floating islands, or buildings, or some sort. I actually thought of the idea of "panarchy" myself independent of de Puydt, as others have, wondered if such a thing already existed and googled it. It does, but I don't think my ideas of what it would look like are the same as de Puydt's, even if he had some good ideas. I think his ideas are largely economical, they're more like buying insurance than enforcing justice.

It reminds me of those libertarian dudes that wanted to start a crypto-island and, in a mask-off moment, one of the guys responsible let slip that there wouldn't need to be any age of consent on the island.

Spoiler

[close]

Yes, the rights of individuals would need to be protected by a higher council prevailing over all the micronations, as I stated before. Minors would be considered citizens of this overarching alliance of governments, and therefore protected under its constitution from exploitation until they were old enough to decide for themselves what micronation they wanted to join, and at any point they could appeal to this higher court and ask to be transferred if they were uncomfortable living where they were. There would be a system of counsellors set up for this purpose and to help them along the way, checking up on them and making sure there was no abuse of power and that their needs were cared for and rights protected. And, if they deemed it necessary or the individual desired to, they could go to a neutral boarding school until they were of age. Always it would be the rights of the individual that would be forefront, and this council would exist solely to protect that.

Always there will be some flaws in any given system though, some "what if"s that pop up, and I don't anticipate them to go away.

You clearly haven't read Lord of the Flies. Heck, I've worked in daycare and I can tell from experience that it would devolve into the oldest and strongest deciding everything if we adults weren't around to ensure everyone had to respect each other and no one was allowed to beat one another.

On the contrary, next to the Picture of Dorian Gray, Lord of the Flies is my favorite book! And I love both movies as well. I think it is a great demonstration of how human nature really works, and how, when people depart from the Rule of Law, they are led astray by their own desires, especially when there's group-think involved. In all actuality, this is the problematic tendency I am talking about: a government that is ruled by the majority is prone to the hysteria of the masses. It is far more popular to do what you want, than to do what is right, and that is why in the end, Ralph, with his logical, by-the-book, dutiful attitude was rejected in favour of the populist leader Jack, who let people do whatever the heck they wanted. And more often than not, that is what people will incline to do, which leads to chaos. That's why you can't have just a pure democracy where only the majority get to decide to do whatsoever they like, because most people are not disciplined and rational enough to think logically all the time to think what will lead to the best outcome down the road, but are led by their emotions and what they want right now, and that's when dictators come in with their big promises and rule of force to take over.

Intelligent response. We probably have far more in common than you think. I think my words, though indeed edgy and unfiltered, have been largely misinterpreted. I am not anti-Democracy, in fact I support it. I just believe freedom should be taken to another level, and actually enforced. I don't see it actually being exercised as a principle so much in our world today, it's become more like an empty mantra people use to justify all sorts of abuse of power. See CIA documents.

Taking the original concept of a free, democratic government to its logical conclusion would allow other forms of government to exist underneath it, as the rights of minorities are supposed to be protected from the majority. This should also allow for them to be able to choose the form of government and laws they want to abide by as long as they are not harming anybody else or violating their rights. This is exactly what Ralph exemplified in Lord of the Flies.

Anyways, I have another matter to attend to, but I would love to hear more of your thoughts on the matter. I'll read the rest of the comments when I return, and I am looking forward to it.

Peace and love. And I mean that in the most non-culty way possible.

[Mandle]

@Perpetuall Gotta admit, when I read your original post, it came off to me as ridiculous. Then, when I saw your second post just now, I thought "Oh, Jesus... A book full of more nonsense?"

Then I read every single word and found it fascinating. Thanks for the measured and honest responses to each topic.

[Matti]

You are implying that, without laws and a way to enforce them, that the crime rate would stay within reasonable limits, just through the personal restraint and good nature of people?

I wanted to imply that this society produces the reasons for people to go against each other. You imply that there is some sort of human nature that needs to be tamed.. by other people. And you should also keep in mind that law enforcement usually doesn't prevent these crimes, but merely punish them.

I'm gonna just mostly ignore the weirdly personal slant of your reply to me, as it was obvious from my post that I was talking about society in general, and not a private desire to cause death and pain to others. I'll just take it as the childish attempt to troll that I suspect it is.

I'm sorry if it came across like a personal slant or trolling, that was not my intention. I was also talking about the society in general. But that's exactly the issue: Why is it always the others and not you? I meant the question seriously: Would you behave shitty against other people, just because you don't have a force stopping you from doing so? I would say that the often violent competitive behavior derives from the society we live in. If you don't have a private desire to inflict pain on others, why do other people have it?

[Mandle]

If you don't have a private desire to inflict pain on others, why do other people have it?

I would say upbringing, social circumstance, and education are the main factors.

Also, thanks for the explanation on your reply. All good. Cheers.

[Blondbraid]

@Perpetuall I was pleasantly surprised to see such a thoughtful reseponse adressing each point.  An interesting read.

You are implying that, without laws and a way to enforce them, that the crime rate would stay within reasonable limits, just through the personal restraint and good nature of people?

I wanted to imply that this society produces the reasons for people to go against each other. You imply that there is some sort of human nature that needs to be tamed.. by other people. And you should also keep in mind that law enforcement usually doesn't prevent these crimes, but merely punish them.

I'm gonna just mostly ignore the weirdly personal slant of your reply to me, as it was obvious from my post that I was talking about society in general, and not a private desire to cause death and pain to others. I'll just take it as the childish attempt to troll that I suspect it is.

I'm sorry if it came across like a personal slant or trolling, that was not my intention. I was also talking about the society in general. But that's exactly the issue: Why is it always the others and not you? I meant the question seriously: Would you behave shitty against other people, just because you don't have a force stopping you from doing so? I would say that the often violent competitive behavior derives from the society we live in. If you don't have a private desire to inflict pain on others, why do other people have it?

My problem with people arguing for the abolishment of prisons and police force is that not all criminals become criminal because some easily explained social circumstances like poverty and disenfranchisement.

I've heard enough testimonies from women in my life that I think simply getting dangerous men off the streets, even if they can't or won't be rehabilitated, is enough of a goal on it's own.

And while the majority of people has empathy and human decency restraining them from doing crimes even if there was no fear of consequences, it only takes a small minority lacking this to cause an untold amount of damage to everyone. Yes, many people get into crimes because of society, but lots of crime, like sexual or domestic abuse and crimes against children, happens because some people are sociopaths who will only respond to the threat of punishment.

[milkanannan]

If 49% of the population votes for blue and 51% vote for red, that's not freedom of choice, because, first of all, your only choices to begin with are blue and red. What if you want purple or green or yellow or any other color of the rainbow?
And secondly, the 49% are forced to accept a president they did not vote for. That is not freedom, that is tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Tyranny? I think this goes a little far. I mean, in many countries claiming to be democracies, you could in theory register your own party and if you have the support of the people, your party could gain the potential for being voted into office. So, yes you're right that when an election comes around you're probably not going to be successful voting in your random cousin Fred, but that's only because Fred hasn't gained the political momentum to be an option for the country.