|
|
General Discussion
Started by Brad Reddekopp at 12-20-2005 10:13 PM. Topic has 28 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 12-20-2005, 10:13 PM
|
Brad Reddekopp
 
Joined on 12-19-2005
British Columbia
Posts 6
|
|
|
Democracy and liberty are so closely linked in the popular imagination that to separate the two seems unthinkable. Perhaps it's time to think it. Various arguments against democracy are found at donotvote.net and non-voters.org but the one that I find most interesting at this time is as follows: ultimately, democracy makes the absurd proposition that something is true or good if the majority say that it is true or good. If the majority decide that capital punishment is good, then capital punishment is good. If the majority want religion to be subsidized by tax dollars, then that is the right thing to do -- according to democratic principles. (I'm assuming that to say that deciding what is the thing we should do, which is what democracy is all about, is the same as deciding what is the right thing to do.)
When confronted with democracy's flaws, defenders of democracy will often say, "It's not perfect, it's merely the very best that we've got". Well, how are we going to discover a better way when we keep assuming that we've already got the best? How are we going to get to something better if we each keep giving our personal sanction to the organized coercion that is democracy by voting in elections and referenda? I've stopped voting. How about you?
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good."
- H. L. Mencken
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-20-2005, 10:49 PM
|
Francois Tremblay
Joined on 12-19-2005
Posts 18
|
|
|
|
Good work, Brad. I think the problem of the whole "it's still the best
we've got" is that they don't understand that the system itself is
irrational and immoral, not just individuals within it.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 1:13 AM
|
Andy_X69
Joined on 12-15-2005
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
|
Remember, many people tend to conflate "democracy" and "individual rights" (this happens a lot in the US!). However, they are seperate doctrines. Pure democracy is rule by popular opinion, Individual Rights means "even if its not popular, X is still legal, period." Individual Rights, in many ways, is the opposite of democracy because it declares X, Y and Z to be beyond the realm of the hive's power.
The conflation of 'democracy' and 'individual rights' is absolutely terrible. The former results in violations of the latter.
However, I think 'not voting' is not the best way. I think that if we want to minimize violations of rights, the only thing we can do is get politicians sympathetic to small/minimal government in. Either that or "lock 'n' load Revolution."
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 4:05 AM
|
Francois Tremblay
Joined on 12-19-2005
Posts 18
|
|
|
|
I can't possibly agree with such an alternative. To vote is to sanction
a coercive system of social warfare and epistemic confusion. Voting for
a "less statist politician" is simply to trade a rigorous slavemaster
for a slightly less rigorous slavemaster. Furthermore, since your vote
has zero impact on anything, you are not even doing that.
The only way we can effect permanent change is by changing people's
hearts, and getting them to join us in refusing to morally sanction the
system. No system, whatever its nature, can survive total apathy.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 12:16 PM
|
Francois Tremblay
Joined on 12-19-2005
Posts 18
|
|
|
|
And the only way to overthrow a monopoly of force is by apathy. At
least, it's the only way that's ever worked in history. Negociating
with bullies has never worked. Fighting them makes you equally evil.
Running away - well, that's not possible any more. Governments cover
the globe, even the Arctic.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 2:37 PM
|
Brad Reddekopp
Joined on 12-19-2005
British Columbia
Posts 6
|
|
|
|
Andy_X69, can you really justify the use of collectivist means (democracy and war) to achieve individualist ends?
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 2:51 PM
|
Erik C. Christensen
Joined on 12-08-2005
Posts 13
|
|
|
|
Francois Tremblay,
Surely you are not equating those who wish to overthrow an oppresive, tyrannical government which denies its citizens life, liberty, and happiness, with the anti-life, evil, nihllistic, and corrupted absolute power of such a goverment they are trying to overthrow? To be sure, forcible revolution should be a last resort, but to equate such great strides for mankinds liberation from despotism and tryanny, such as the American Revolution evil, is utterly absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 2:57 PM
|
Francois Tremblay
Joined on 12-19-2005
Posts 18
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's "utterly absurd" to classify warfare and organized
murder as equally immoral, regardless of the "good intentions" behind
it. The American Revolution is perhaps the only armed conflict that has
yielded obvious benefits, but that does not excuse the immorality of
organized murder. The use of coercion only engenders more coercion, and
power only shifts from one hand to another. The only way permanent
change can be achieved is by changing people's morality.
The Pilgrims emigrated to America because they wanted to be free to
oppress each other, instead of being oppressed by a government holding
a different religion. So American freedom is and has always been rooted
in moral slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 3:30 PM
|
Erik C. Christensen
Joined on 12-08-2005
Posts 13
|
|
|
|
Francois Tremblay,
It seems as though you do not understand context properly. Your last post implies that, other than the Amercican Revolution, if another Revolution to remove murderous tyrants who do not value man's freedom, from power by force were to take place, that such individuals who would fight in that struggle for independence to put a stop to tyranny and violence against their own nation by these corrupted men, would be considered engaging in 'organized murder'? Could you explain to me how rising up against slavery and tyranny, defending your life and liberty from tyrants, is 'organized murder'? Even if another Revolution for freedom failed in some nation somewhere in the world, how can you lump those people who strive and care for their lives, liberty, and property, with a tyrannical murderous regime of corrupt power who espouses and practices the antithesis of life affirming values? Let's reserve the word murder for criminals looking to unjustly usurp anothers right to life. By equating the word murder with a just and noble revolution for freedom you are incrimintaing yourself of practicing Orwellian newspeak, which is what collectivists are guilty of all of the time, manipulating the English langauge by hijacking their original didactic meanings. Also, it wasn't just the pilgrims who emigrated to America, but a wide variety of people from around the globe looking to escape oppression of every sort. To be sure, people do need to change their sense of life in order to effect positive change, but there may be a time and place when the individuals of a nation have no other choice and need to assert what was unjustly taken from them by a murderous, collective power, and what is rightly every man's by the very nature of their being; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You reasoning sounds more Libertarian than Objective.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 10:47 PM
|
Francois Tremblay
Joined on 12-19-2005
Posts 18
|
|
|
|
I really can't sympathize with your position. You can think the
American Revolution was pragmatically warranted all you want, but that
does not make it morally right. I'm going to go on a limb here and
guess that you are an imperialist American ? If so, I want nothing to
do with you. Nationalism is irrational.
The disgusting pragmatism about war (organized murder) is one of the
main reasons why I don't call myself an Objectivist any more.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2005, 11:06 PM
|
Erik C. Christensen
Joined on 12-08-2005
Posts 13
|
|
|
|
Then why waste your time posting on an OBJECTIVIST forum?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-23-2005, 2:44 AM
|
Andy_X69
Joined on 12-15-2005
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
|
As in "can I justify the use of force, directly or byproxy, as a retaliation against people that initiate force?" Why yes, I can. I have a right to self defense.
Erik,
it is true that Francois's resoning does not sound Objective, but it does not sound libertarian either (at least to me). It sounds something along the lines of Gandhi-ism.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-23-2005, 4:01 AM
|
Brad Reddekopp
Joined on 12-19-2005
British Columbia
Posts 6
|
|
|
|
Andy_X69, of course you have a right to self-defense. What does that have to do with justifying something so immoral and irrational as democracy?
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-23-2005, 4:06 AM
|
Brad Reddekopp
Joined on 12-19-2005
British Columbia
Posts 6
|
|
|
|
 Francois Tremblay wrote: | | I really can't sympathize with your position. You can think the
American Revolution was pragmatically warranted all you want, but that
does not make it morally right. I'm going to go on a limb here and
guess that you are an imperialist American ? If so, I want nothing to
do with you. Nationalism is irrational. |
|
Now you've done it. You've disparaged the real American collectivist religion. ;-)
Notice how Christenson leaps straight for your comment about no longer calling yourself an Objectivist rather than dealing with the substance of your post.
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 (29 items)
|
1 2 > |
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Democracy
|
|
|
|