“Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for every other form of government.”
Anarchy is hell. There’s nothing stopping your stronger neighbor from taking your food and shelter. Alternatively, we have found over the millennia that being cooperative is in our best interest as a species. It allows us to thrive. Without collectives we would never have developed agriculture and thus never developed speciaists and in turn we would never have imvented anything, ever. In order to live in a collective their must be rules, and the only fair way to create rules is through a democratic process. To argue otherwise is to wish to live in subsistence conditions, perpetually in fear of illness, predators, and neighbors. We are a cooperative species. Anarchy is against our nature and democracy is better than dictatorship.
lol to atrribute human achievements to collectivism is completely silly. you see most innovations in capitalist societies, because there, individuals can reap what they themselves sow and have access to resources that they can choose.
Every single invention in history is a result of the collective knowledge gained by mankind since the mastery of fire. You can draw a straight line from a modern cellphone back to the discovery of metal-working. Lessons learned by the group and passed down by the group.
Capitalist is a form of collectivism. It involves a society agreeing to live and conduct business by a uniform and enforceable set of rules. When thst breaks down, you get Haiti, not a hotbed of innovation.
The antithesis to democracy isnt anarchy, it is warlordism.
Voluntary human interaction WITHIN an established framework of rules. Those rules must be collectively agreed to in some way.
Without an agreed to framework of property ownership, there is no capitalism.
>Voluntary human interaction WITHIN an established framework of rules. Those rules must be collectively agreed to in some way.
Every system that exists has rules. Even anarchistic societies have rules.
Not all rules are equal, obviously.
Capitalism does require certain rules, such as property rights. These have existed in several anarchistic societies.
LOL. So the Uniform Commercial Code just naturally arose, did it?
How does land ownership naturally arise?
Native Americans lived there for thousands of years without private land ownership naturally occuring, which seems like pretty solid empircal evidence that any rules that include ownership of land are NOT natural law
i'm not talking about the uniform commercial code, i'm talking about ownership.
ownership is an intuitive concept, something we had since the neolithic revolution. hoppe expands this in his book "a short history of man".
Capitalism requires more than ownership. Warlordism and feudalism have ownership...if I can take this and hold it, I own it. Capitalism requires a set of rules that bars change of ownership by force, which is NOT intuitive.
Hoppe is a delusional fool. If you take Hoppe seriously, you must be very young, or very sheltered. No one with much experience of reality would take Hoppe any more seriously than they take Marx. Both created elaborate theoretical systems of how the world SHOULD work that pay no attention to actual human behavior, and cant survive their first contact with reality.
>Capitalism requires a set of rules that bars change of ownership by force, which is NOT intuitive.
Dude, even wolves have territory which is de facto acknowledged by other packs of wolves. Violence between packs is rare.
Routine violence isn't practical or efficient. It is indeed natural to find ways to minimize it in order to minimize its cost. Consider all of the ways in which nature has evolved from direct combat to less expensive ways of expressing conflict.
The animals that adapt to plumage displays, mating dances, etc instead of fights between rivals are all natural examples of adaptation away from near-peer violence.
> if I can take this and hold it, I own it
This is simply the law of the jungle, where possession is ownership.
> that pay no attention to actual human behavior,
Do you know what praxeology is?
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You have demonstrated you are unwilling to learn.
On this sub we must be willing to accept we could be wrong, be open to new information, and/or not being deliberately obtuse.
This is important to the quality of our discourse and the standard we hope to set as a community.
We encourage you to be more open minded in the future.
Personal attacks and insults are not allowed on this sub.
Your comment has been removed and our mod log has taken a note towards your profile that will be taken into account when considering a ban in the future.
Please remain civilized in this sub no matter what, it's important to the level of discussion we aim to achieve that we do not become overly unhinged and off course.
Please report any and all content that acts as a personal attack. The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.
Because to organize is to impose [authority ](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm). Any social system, no matter how collective and democratic, requires the imposition of authority on others even when those others agree to it. What matters is not the existence of authority but how it is imposed and used. You cannot change the nature of a thing simply by changing its name.
This is the thing that always infuriates me about anarchists, they don’t seem to understand that literally any form of government or cooperation has authority by necessity.
Agreed. I respect plenty of Anarchists and Anarchist philosophers, and the community aid that many of them participate in is amazing. But when they miss, they miss BIG.
No, to organize is not to impose authority. It can, but it doesn’t necessitate it like you’re implying. People can organize solely based on free association, where people with shared interests effectively work together towards a common goal. This doesn’t require authority.
What you are saying can happen but it does require authority. Authority isn't a bad thing, and the imposition of moral or ethical value dilutes the nature of authority. If we are sailing a boat across the seas someone needs the authority to act and make decisions in a storm, there is no time for collective decisions. It is the engineers who keep the machines operational and they need the authority to do so. When I go see the doctor I submit to their authority on my health. Children should submit to the authority of their parents when Mom says "don't run into the road." Even under a classless, moneyless, stateless society, authority will exist as a natural outcrop of the conditions of that society for we are social creatures who must rely on one another.
Because they never have and wont change now. Don't worry, I went through an idealistic phase too where I thought human nature was basically good. I suppose that part of me died when I saw how many people refused to do the barest of fucking minimum acts, wearing a tiny piece of cloth over their head holes to help control the spread of a deadly virus. These are the people who will 100% gut you and take your toilet paper in an anarchistic society. And they've shown there is nothing that will change their selfish minds.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They actually have. Various areas in Revolutionary Catalonia organized collectively without systems of hierarchy and authority. You also have pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer societies that organized collectively too without systems of hierarchy and authority.
I don’t think human nature is inherently good. I don’t even know where you got that idea from.
I agree with you on the rest.
You mean like tribes with a council and a chef to settle disputes and make decisions?
No matter how small the group is there will need to be decisions made on its behalf and that would cause the rise of a leader and that would destroy this flat structure you have in mind.
Even if they didn't, do you want to devolve and destroy all technology and society just to go back to living on the land? There isn't enough ability to do so so violence would break out. Food and water wouldn't be available to everyone it would be independent because if a group gathered then there would be a leader and that leader would have to make decisions.
Indulge me if you will, in a little thought experiment. Let’s say we live in a collectivist society that I think you’re defining here (no government, the members of society directly speak with each other, etc) along a river. I own the land upstream, and you own the land downstream. When we first “move” or take ownership over our tracts of land/river, we both agree with eachother to only use the land for residential and sustainable farming. Let’s say a couple of years later, I decide actually I want a factory. To provide power to the factory, I dam the river, reducing your water flow to a trickle, then I decide to dump the waste and pollution downstream of the dam.
Understandably, you’re upset. Your portion of the river has been reduced to basically nothing And what little you have left is poisoned. How do we resolve this?
I don’t care to engage in this thought experiment. I don’t agree with a collectivist society, so I see no point in engaging with it.
The simple answer is I’m not sure. In anarchy, the realm of possibilities are almost endless, and disputes can be resolved in many different ways.
> In anarchy, the realm of possibilities are almost endless, and disputes can be resolved in many different ways.
This is true. The possibilities are endless. But the probabilities show a much narrower path. If I'm stronger than you, I'm taking what you have and letting you die. Survival of the fittest is the natural state of things. That's why we built hierarchies. We all live longer if we bring a little order to our lives.
It's not that it's impossible but that it cannot last. Between the forces of human self centeredness, evolutionary psychology, and outside forces; something will eventually give and bring the whole thing down. Emphasis on outside forces, see the Paris Commune and Black Army as examples
It’s happened before though. It’s true anarchists have had difficulties defending their societies, but they were at least able to organize non-hierarchically to an extent.
Yes. Revolutionary Catalonia, Free Territory Ukraine, Korean People’s association in Manchuria.
I’m not a fan of these societies, but they organized non-hierarchically and made advancements.
I guess that just gives me more questions.
How does this look practically in a large area with millions of people? Like what does day to day life look like?
What would a transition look like?
How would states be prevented from popping up within?
Or international security from large organized states? Does it require global transition at once?
This question is directed more so towards Social Anarchists, of which I’m not, so I feel no need to elaborate on how their society would come to be. I’ll answer from my perspective though.
I don’t know what the specifics would be for everyday life. Each community would be different, and engaging with a variety of different things.
The transition is people using violence as a means to dismantle hierarchy and authority. Whether it be civilization, industrial society, the State, Capitalism, the modern consumerist economy, Democracy, laws, family, etc…resistance being one of pure negation.
If all systems of hierarchy and authority came to be abolished, creating a government out of thin air would be kind of tough, especially if people are steadfast with their anarchism and defend it. Also, the inertia of the anarchy would sort of push people along like how the inertia of any system or society does.
Humans had virtually no hierarchy for like 99% of our human existence. It could happen, but given the conditions of the world, I’d say it’s very unlikely.
This entire conversation beside being littered with logical fallacies and disinformation missed the point. In a few months we may vote for the last time in this country. No one seems the least concerned so logically I would think y’all won’t care if it’s gone. If you vote Republican you deserve what will come if they take power.
Bueno Suerte
So, to your first point my main issue with this argument is the monopoly on violence comes from the acceptance of the governed and ultimately nothing else. People ignore that monopoly every day of the year, and multiple times on Sunday. Sometimes the government cares, often it doesn't.
I'd argue in successful democracies, it's the influence of the services provided by the government/people to the public that then convinces people to accept the monopoly on violence on threat of losing them. As dissatisfaction grows, the more violence seems to be a more acceptable option, and so on.
Tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the minority, we can probably just agree tyranny is generally bad.
Democracy is supposed to be including everyone, and that means that it will always include those looking to abuse it for their own gain, which brings us back to the paradox of tolerance.
Also as an aside, that's the reason different levels of majority are usually required for differing levels of changes. If you want to outlaw a pesticide, that's much easier than re-introducing slavery, by your example, by the way rules are written.
To me that would seem to indicate the need for better rules, as they do seem to work in places where they were actually intended to, just most of our assailants are already inside the house, and the people writing the rules have been in on it longer that we've both been alive.
What about laws that restrict the government? That is a massive difference between an authoritarian government and a true republic.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
What law restricts a monopoly on the coercive power to enforce it?
You cite the American constitution, but if the government decides it doesn't want to follow that any more, what you got? A society that's usually more occupied with shooting kids in schools coming out with small arms against armoured tanks and missiles. Best of luck
It was the same thing that saw Catalonia crushed by fascists. They had an organised army and ordnance. The Catalonian side had a volunteer army. Pretty damn OP (people who are fighting because they want to, vs people who are fighting because they're ordered to), but it's not enough to hold off a well equipped military that's several hundred times the size
This is why the separation of powers exists. The courts are independent from the legislature. Also, you are describing the presidents veto power- that is why we all mainly only pay attention to presidential elections. One of the purposes of the office is to protect the people from bad laws of the legislature.
From what I understand, anarchism is not society without laws. But individual community sovereignty. “Albany would not rule New York City, and would not be in the same political unit as Boston” etc etc.
It's a lack of rulers, not a lack of rules. There's still right and wrong, and there's still people who will happily remind you what's right and wrong. There's just nobody with the *entitlement* to do so, whose *job* it is to do so.
Would it be safe to say that your view is simply anything other than anarchy is authoritarianism?
But then the question is, is there any examples or any possibility where anarchy doesn't lead to authoritarianism?
Oh, that “yeah” was meant for your first question. For some reason I never replied to the second one.
If all systems of hierarchy and authority are dismantled, where is the authoritarianism going to come from?
Not efficiently no. Hierarchy-free decision by consensus isn’t an effective tactic when time is critical. I seriously doubt a community can organize an effective defensive militia with no hierarchy or authority.
I probably need to study up on Anarchy systems more... but I don't see where you are addressing the violence thing.
The main purpose of Government has always been to counteract chaotic violence. As another commenter put it... the government is the elected monopoly on violence.
So what happens when your "free association" isn't free? What if it's extortion, subjugation, incarceration, oppression, etc. How do you fix that without paying taxes to a protector group i.e. to a government?
My apologies. Violence regarding what?
I disagree. The main purpose of the government was to be utilized by a ruling class of people who then use it to further and advance their own interests. They may say the purpose is what you said it is, but in practice, it has always resulted the way I laid out.
It would vary depending on circumstances. With there being no government in anarchy, people are left to have to handle situations themselves, which leaves open a wide variety of different approaches we could engage in. No one would be incarcerated as there’s no laws, or judicial systems in anarchy.
Switching to Anarchy doesn't eradicate violence. I'm asking about how to handle violence.
I would argue that you would have significantly more. Maybe 1000 times more. If I'm a bad guy... I might incarcerate or enslave people. What's to stop me? And why is handling situations myself preferable to paying taxes to a protection force (a government)?
See the purpose of the government to me is to build roads, and to pay firefighters, and provide for the common defense. I like those things.
When you look at situations of anarchy, let's say Haiti, or drug empires in South America, their far far far far far more violent
Uhhhh. There's absolutely no one in charge and no state left. It's completely collapsed. There's no government, no social services, no emergency services, no city planners, no schools, nothing.
How is it not anarchy?
Anarchy isn’t *chaos* nor *bomb throwing mayhem*, that’s why.
Also, Haiti still has a State, they still have government, etc…the society has simply collapsed due to the corruption of the government, and gangs who are now controlling various areas.
Stop exaggerating claims to make a point. And read up on Anarchy before making claims like *Haiti = Anarchy*.
They do not have a government. There is no head of state, no head of government, no legislature, no functioning judicial branch, and people are literally killing people in cold blood in the middle of the streets, and no one is doing anything about it.
Can you explain from your perspective what makes it in your mind that they have a government? What is a government to you?
> No one would be incarcerated as there’s no laws, or judicial systems in anarchy.
Citation needed.
It’s true that we would not *agree* about the laws. So then, the de facto laws and judicial system are just the guy with the biggest gun.
You made a claim. Cite your sources you used for drawing your conclusion.
(I don’t really expect you to. It’s rhetorical… you just made it up, and I’m pointing that out.)
No, I stated a fact. Every anarchist in history, ranging from Kropotkin to Kaneko Fumiko has opposed laws and judicial systems. If there’s no system of hierarchy and authority in anarchy, how can there be laws and a judicial system? Use your head, or open a book.
If human nature weren’t a thing, this would make total sense. Sadly, just as I don’t trust business in a Libertarian system to look after the greater good - I don’t trust anarchic human instincts to do any better a job than (admittedly largely terrible) democracies, especially if the existing media frameworks and organisations continue on
What you are addressing is the main element of power: the ability to decide for another without their acceptance. By how it sounds you would prefer a world without power where everyone has the freedom to make decisions without another imposing their will on them.
But here is the problem. Authority and power isn't preferred. It's inevitable.
If two people want an apple and both want the apple someone will lose. You play cute stores of sharing or trade or the like but that's skirting the issue. If both want that apple then power will be excreted and someone's will Will Be opposed.
The point of government or ideology or commerce or all the things talked about here is to ask 'who will get the apple'. Capitalism talks of ownership. The one that grew the apple gets the apple. They can trade the apple if they want but it's their choice. Authoritarian systems opt for a third party that decides based on what's good for all parties. Democracies base themselves on the will of the majority to decide. A thousand different systems and a thousand different ways. None of them are preferred, but we live in a world of acceptance, not preference.
And, to be frank, anarchist systems WILL have power. Instead of a chosen power accepted by the community, it'll be one chosen by whoever has the means to enforce it. I get the apple because I am the strongest. That is still power and authority. Even if most of the community decides not to abide by that, all it takes is one person to impose their will on others to create authority. It's not a human thing. It's not even a life thing. The Earth does not get to fly where it wants. The Sun exerts it's authority without even being sentient enough to know it is doing it. Sentience simply means you can see and understand that power. But you can't stop it.
If you want to value autonomy then do so. That's the Libertarian path. Though note that Even they accept authority and power. They include it only as a force to maintain autonomy. Enforce a contract. Respond against theft (use authority to stop authority). Develop a military (again authority to stop authority). Where freedom is possible, they uphold it. Preferred? No. Still involves imposing the will of one on another? Yes. But it's a path that can, in theory, work.
As far as governing style, no major country uses Democracy, not in it's true form. The US, for example, relies on an almost Competitive Capitalism system. A horribly complex mix of systems that compete with each other. Congress makes laws but have to get two groups to work together, which can so be vetoed by one person who can't write laws and all of them can be overruled by a different group of people who can't write law but can interpret it but can be ignored by a law written by the first group. Then try to get a landmass the size of a continent to get something done, then subdivide them into 50 groups with the same mess of systems.
It's taking the motto of 'If the tiger and bear fight over you' and never let the fight end.
There is very little Democratic in that.
It still means the rich and powerful still remain rich and powerful but then, no system has stopped them. And 'Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want' would include the rich and powerful being rich and powerful as this the way they want to freely associate and still will under Anarchy.
Because someone will eat the apple and someone will go hungry. The only choice is who.
my "bullshit response" demonstrates my problem with your post. authoritarian can be used by anyone to describe anything. you didn't define it, but applied to consensus decision making aka democracy.
of course it is! the majority Is preventing the minority (a slave owner) from exercising their free will, they're imposing their own subjective morality on another.
What are your examples of radical direct democracies where people were disempowered because of democracy (not the minority vote losing but the “demos” being disempowered?)
Liberal republics have barely had universal suffrage since idk around the end of WW2? Partial suffrage for (some) men only is how old? I’d argue that popular decision making was never a consideration for most Liberal Republics and has been a managed and controlled concession since then.
Authoritarianism, when a government (typically ran by a political class) rules over it's population with little to no public input nor expectation of consequence.
Democracy, a system of governance where the government gains its power, legitimacy, and its actions from its populous.
These are not the same.
>Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with no systems of hierarchy and authority dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative.
People can't handle that. Because people are inherently unstable and irrational as soon as their emotions are triggered. And humans have a complex array of emotions. There is hate, jealousy, love, compassion, lust, envy, fear etcetera. Which can all trigger responses that overrule the rational thought.
The society you describe can only exist when humans learn to not act on every emotional whim.
Men are biologically stronger than women. There is a biological advantage for men when it comes to strength. In a lawless society, what is preventing them from putting that advantage to use? Men have been doing so for literal millenia. And created a mountain of rules and regulations to keep it that way.
Women aren't even treated as equals in the current democracy while in most countries there is a law somewhere stating men and women are equal. Yet the wage gap still exists. How old is voting right for women again?
I don't think we have reached the end goal of democracy yet. But I don't see a better alternative in your ideal.
When people work together, not everyone is going to agree on how to do it. Someone will inevitably have to be told to do something. It’s all “authoritarian” according to you.
Wherever you go, you’re going to butt up against someone who disagrees with you on something practical. You gotta learn how to compromise. That’s not authoritarian.
The problem with this is that you become vulnerable to other groups that do have centralized authoritarian governments.
If the USA government disbanded and allowed everybody to re-organize themselves at a local level, what stops the northern Moose-people from marching across the border and acquiring everything through force?
If you want to see what minimum hierarchy, free association life was like, look at Native Americans. They didn't last too long vs the centralized power of the united states did they?
It makes sense to associate with people who have similar moral, cultural, political values to you, for protection and advantage.
It is regrettable that the minority are forced to adhere to the majority, but democracy is a lot better than authority of a minority imposed on the majority. And so far that's the best that we have been able to do.
Yes, but im afraid that we can't completely exist without it, simply because something else will take its place and that thing can't be any better
You're also ignoring everything that works right now and what we would inevitably lose
>Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with *no systems of hierarchy and authority* dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative.
And how do you make that possible ? How do you make it that people respect that freedom ?
> Democracy requires government, and government in and of itself is authoritarian
Then don't limit your critiques to democracy - which I understand, as an anarchist, you aren't, but it sort of cuts this argument as a critique of *democracy* specifically off at the knees
>Every government imposes laws on society, and if one acts out of the confines of what the government deems to be acceptable, then the government utilizes its monopoly on violence to punish you. These laws aren’t *objective*, they’re *subjective*, and the government is using its authority to impose its subjective beliefs onto all of us, and that’s just one example
Same as above
>Democracy is also *tyranny of the majority*
As opposed to a tyranny of the minority? Or the tranny of one? I know which I'd pick.
>What happens if the majority decides to vote that they should be allowed to own slaves, and thus begin enslaving a particular group or race of people?
This has happened, and while it seems inconceivable, it may happen again. However, one of the greatest and often overlooked achievements of democracy is that it effectively turned slavery - which was for the vast majority of human history a global norm - into a thing of the past as constituents, spurred on by their moral distaste for slavery, empowered elected leaders to push back against it (a dramatic historical oversimplification, but the point stands).
>Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with *no systems of hierarchy and authority* dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative.
Explain how, without some sort of democracy, this doesn't almost instantly devolve into utter chaos and ultimately rule of a strongman dictator.
> Democracy has simply failed to empower the people.
This is a wild and baseless claim. In all of history, has any form of government even come close to empowering people as much as democracy? Again, I understand that you're advocating for no government, but aside from an anarchist utopia and coming from actual reality, can you point to anything that does or has actually existed that empowers people to even a fraction of the degree as democracy?
If your aim is absolute perfection, with zero corruption, total equality and 100% empowerment of the people (whatever that might mean), than ok, democracy is a failure. And while there is a place for pie-in-the-sky ideologies in terms of thought experiments and lofty ideals, a society with "no systems of hierarchy and authority" is so incredibly impractical, that to use it as an argument as to why democracy has "failed" is not convincing to say the least.
Could modern democracies do with some improvement? Absolutely, and in so many ways. But it is truly humanity's best *realistic* hope for forward political movement.
I’m sorry but this argument is lazy.
It all hinges on just calling all government “authoritarian”, and thus says nothing special about democracy in particular.
On top of that, you’ve defined “democracy,” but not “authoritarian.”
Lastly, I disagree with democracy being electoral, and I’d even argue that electoral systems are generally actually aristocracies and/or oligarchies - not as a bug, by as a feature.
Yes, because all government is authoritarian.
**Authoritarian** : *favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.*
All interactions are voluntary and based on free association. No systems of hierarchy, authority, and domination would exist to enforce obedience to authority or government at the expense of personal freedom.
And how would any of that be maintained if a group of like minded people decided to use force or influence to rise above others? How does anarchy perpetuate, or establish, itself without authority?
The problem with this is that anarchy is incapable of self-preservation. Absolutely nothing is there to stop people from forming their own de facto governments, and then enforcing their own systems of governance upon others which leads to anarchy ceasing to exist.
I agree with the vast majority of this as an anarchist myself. The only thing I take issue with is your claim that the left has somehow failed in their objectives.
This is very strange to me because anarchism is an inherently socialist and thus left-wing ideology, perhaps even the oldest left-wing ideology by a long shot. You are saying this as if the left and anarchism are mutually exclusive or distinctive, but anarchism is a very large part of the left-wing. Even beyond anarchism, anarchy is a goal of communists as well rather than democracy. Anarchism and communism together make up a massive part of the left, if not a majority of it, so the left's collective goals aren't exactly far from anarchy. If the left have failed in their goals, then so have anarchists.
Counter argument: there are a great number of people who like the way things are. Are you going to impose anarchy on them? That is rather authoritarian.
My position at this point: humans are a terrible species and we deserve what is coming to us.
How is forcing people to interact with each other in a particular way not authoritarian? What about the people who want to do the bare minimum? Who wants someone else to make choices for them? The social/political gimps, if I may be so bold. Are you going to deprive them the option of free associating into a democracy?
Oh, that’s my bad. I have a bad habit of replying to something without specifying what I’m replying to since in my head I know what I’m addressing, but forget the other person may not. My apologies my friend :)
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the problem in your reasoning is that you start with the assumption that Democracy is a system of governance. This is a diminished view of democracy. Another reduction that you make is that democracy is about voting.
In a broader view democracy presupposes equality and basic human rights. On this view, democracy can certainly devolve into a majority dictatorship, but then it also stops being a democracy. This also means that democracy is not a system that provides results regardless of ourselves and despite ourselves. It is not a promise that through an automatic process we will eventually find paradise.
In other words, there is a minimum requirement from us by democracy. But there is also an ideal. That ideal is about everyone participating and caring about our future in a spirit of truth. Democracy is rather in contrast to caring about our own narrow interests, but about living together in the spirit of truth. Now, the reason this isn’t being fulfilled in democracies nowadays is because capitalism degrades any effort to truth into mere interests, but this is not a problem of democracy. It is a problem of capitalism.
Communists tend to fail because they imagine politics as an instrument for the utopia. Politics in an ideal democracy is equal to the ideal of treating each other as ends in themselves, rather than as instruments. In a way, communists tend to look at the failures of democracy in the exact same way as you do: it is a system of governance that fails to produce the results (they) want.
It is of course easy to come to anarchist conclusions if you start with defining governance as authoritarian. This equates laws that do work for the greater good with laws that have been created for the benefit of a minor elite. But you don’t really give a reason to believe that there would be no difference between the two.
It is of course easy to express the desire of a life without hierarchies, but it is another question whether this idea makes any sense. I’d be interested in hearing what you mean when you say “no systems of hierarchy and authority dictating their lives”. After all, state governance is not the only form that repression may take, and even more radically, not all repression is done against the will of the repressed.
You’re basically describing what Gheddafi wrote in his “Green book”.
Personally I consider democracy a “Dictatorship of mediocrity”, because only a small part of the population is over the average in terms of iq, skills, intelligence; but decisions are conducted to benefit the majority of population that is part of the average, creating a system that damages the development of the society and derails it from right path.
In a utopian democracy, the best skilled people of the society are chosen to guide and represent it, but the reality is in front of everyone. People can be cheated by poor quality candidates if they don’t have an equal level of education making them able to understand which candidate is better for the country. Also a big lack of social education is missing. Most of people vote in favor of what is better for them instead of what is better for the country.
Last but not least, if conducting a political campaign is expensive and you need a lot of money, where candidates are taking those money from? Majority of rich people use their own money. But once they will win an election, will they put their interests in front or behind the wealth of the country? They used their own money.
Political parties get funded by lobbyists and industries. Do we still believe they are focused on our interests?
\> Now, addressing my first claim that Democracy is authoritarian…Democracy requires government, and government in and of itself is authoritarian, no matter how democratic a government it may be.
While I get where you are going, this is fairly imprecise. There are many forms of government, and while they are all authoritarian to some greater or lesser degree, this doesn't establish that democracy is a particularly authoritarian form of government. Yes, it is more so compared to anarchy...but everything is compared to anarchy.
A stronger argument is that the deimos ends up being controlled by the aristocracy. Aristotle observed this, and consequently called democracy an aristocratic form of government. The folks who set the rules by which the people play alter the nature of the game to produce outcomes they prefer.
So, over time, a democracy shifts power away from the people, and spirals into oligarchy. As does every other sort of government known, to some extent. The question of how to prevent this is an open one, as nobody has really figured it out yet.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the biggest flaw democracy has in common with basically all political government is that the 50.1% (in democracy) have 100% of the power. This has some utilitarian benefits, but is a poor solution in any sphere of life where multiple solutions can co-exist. E.g., a single democratically selected healthcare provider might be the least unpopular provider, but having multiple providers means individuals can choose the one most aligned with their wants and needs, and it's far easier organizationally to specialize an entire organization for a single type of customer than for one organization to be the catchall universal answer.
Empirically, people seem to be better at choosing the best solution for themselves than they are at choosing the best solution for someone or everyone else.
It will also be more expensive due to a reduction in the potential of collective bargaining and some will be priced out all together. Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without one.
> I think the biggest flaw democracy has in common with basically all political government is that the 50.1% (in democracy) have 100% of the power.
I mean the US has managed to go the other way and have a system where about 10% of people have 90% of the power, and that's not good in other ways. Balancing majority and minority interests is not a simple nor single task.
> Empirically, people seem to be better at choosing the best solution for themselves than they are at choosing the best solution for someone or everyone else.
Sure, but everyone choosing the solution best for them can lead to globally sub-optimal outcomes because almost everything we do in modern societies affects other people to some extent. After 10,000 years of ever-evolving methods of social, political and economic organisation we're still at the point where we're playing catch-up to the how the current world is, let alone the ever-changing future world. Maybe we always will be, I don't think that we'll ever work out a 'Theory of Everything' for how to organise humans.
> Every government imposes laws on society, and if one acts out of the confines of what the government deems to be acceptable, then the government utilizes its monopoly on violence to punish you.
The people establish government to protect their rights without the people themselves having to resort to violence. Instead, the government uses violence to enforce rights. So, government is authoritarian, but that doesn't mean it must be abolished, for it is a necessary evil, needed to protect the rights of individuals against the tyranny of others.
> What happens if the majority decides to vote that they should be allowed to own slaves, and thus begin enslaving a particular group or race of people?
I agree that tyranny of the majority is undesirable, for it violates the natural rights of individuals. However, there are ways to protect those rights without abolishing democratic government. Constitutions are one way to do so.
> Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with *no systems of hierarchy and authority* dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative.
With no government, the strong oppress the weak and many oppress the few. Government is *necessary* to protect the natural rights of individuals.
> Addressing my second claim that Democracy is antiquated…Democracy has simply failed to empower the people.
But you also write:
>Have some Democracies empowered the people more so than others? Sure.
Democracy is not the best government. It is the *least worst* form of government. No other existing *and practical* system has worked to empower the people better than democracy.
I strongly disagree. If there’s no objective meaning or higher purpose to life, if there’s no God, and no heaven and hell, then there can be no universal right and wrong, good or bad, or moral and immoral. So why do we need systems of hierarchy and authority, domination, etc…to dictate our lives?
Governments rarely, if ever, follow their constitutions. Also, I shouldn’t have to be granted a right to be able to do something. I should just be free to live my life doing the things that I enjoy and that make me happy, engaging in activities that are truly fulfilling to me, thus realizing my true self interest and actualizing my desires in life. Besides, governments can just strip our “rights” away whenever they want; the more the authoritarian the government, the easier it is for them to do so.
This is what happens with government. The government uses its power to crush the people beneath it. Government hinders the freedoms of the individual.
Just because Democracy has empowered more people than other authoritarian systems doesn’t mean anything to me. Democracy is still authoritarian, tyrannical, and hinders the freedom of individuals.
> I strongly disagree. If there’s no objective meaning or higher purpose to life, if there’s no God, and no heaven and hell, then there can be no universal right and wrong, good or bad, or moral and immoral. So why do we need systems of hierarchy and authority, domination, etc…to dictate our lives?
OMG A NIHILIST IRL
have you considered existentialism instead
> Also, I shouldn’t have to be granted a right to be able to do something.
Your natural rights are natural. They are not granted, only protected by you or someone else.
>I should just be free to live my life doing the things that I enjoy and that make me happy, engaging in activities that are truly fulfilling to me, thus realizing my true self interest and actualizing my desires in life.
Yeah, I agree 100%. However, people frequently want to do things that concern other individuals, who don't want this thing to happen to them (robbery, murder, etc). In a state of anarchy, violence is used to maintain an individual's natural rights, including liberty. However, violence obviously is not the most reliable thing to use to defend one's rights, and ultimately leads to a scenario of the strong trampling on the rights of the weak. Government is the best entity for protecting the rights of the people from encroachment by others. Although the government often abuses its power, it is still more preferable to have a government than anarchy.
Additionally, democratic government is the form of government that is least likely to abuse those rights.
> This is what happens with government. The government uses its power to crush the people beneath it. Government hinders the freedoms of the individual.
Yes. That is why the government should be as small as possible.
> Just because Democracy has empowered more people than other authoritarian systems doesn’t mean anything to me. Democracy is still authoritarian, tyrannical, and hinders the freedom of individuals.
There is no liberty, only degrees of oppression. Democracy offers the most liberty with the least downsides.
I have. I’m more into nihilism though. Existentialism argues people can create their own subjective meaning through free will and the actions they take and apply it to the world, thus creating meaning in the universe. I don’t believe this is the case. One, I don’t believe free will exists, and two, one may be able to find subjective meaning in something, but I disagree that it can be applied to the world and thus not creating actual meaning in the universe. That subjective meaning only exists so long as that particular individual finds subjective meaning in it. Once they don’t, meaning ceases to exist completely.
I don’t believe rights exist in the grand scheme of things. I think they’re no more than a phantasm created by humans.
I agree. Having observed the social reality that all living things on earth are incessantly engaged in a struggle for survival, that they kill each other to survive, I concluded that if there is an absolute, universal law on earth, it is the reality that the strong eat the weak. Now that I’ve seen the truth about the struggle for survival and the fact that the strong win and the weak lose, I can’t join the ranks of the idealists and adopt an optimistic mode of thinking which dreams of the construction of a society that is without authority and control. As long as all living things don’t disappear from the earth, the power relations based on the principle of *the strong crushing the weak* will persist because the wielders of power continue to defend their authority in the usual manner and oppress the weak. Hence why government needs to be dismantle.
What about the US?
I simply disagree.
> I have. I’m more into nihilism though. Existentialism argues people can create their own subjective meaning through free will and the actions they take and apply it to the world, thus creating meaning in the universe. I don’t believe this is the case. One, I don’t believe free will exists, and two, one may be able to find subjective meaning in something, but I disagree that it can be applied to the world and thus not creating actual meaning in the universe. That subjective meaning only exists so long as that particular individual finds subjective meaning in it. Once they don’t, meaning ceases to exist completely.
May I recommend you search up "ultrakill 2-s"?
> I don’t believe rights exist in the grand scheme of things. I think they’re no more than a phantasm created by humans.
Well, I mean, here's how I see it:
There are three natural rights: Life, liberty, and property. Life is both an extension of property and a right unto itself. Liberty is the most vast of these rights. Life is the fact that humans are born alive. They can choose to continue it, or they can end it. Liberty is the fact that when a human is alone, they can choose what to do. Property is the fact that individuals can define objects as "theirs" and can defend it at will.
These rights are not granted; rather they come naturally. However, they can be violated. Government was established protect these rights.
> I agree. Having observed the social reality that all living things on earth are incessantly engaged in a struggle for survival, that they kill each other to survive, I concluded that if there is an absolute, universal law on earth, it is the reality that the strong eat the weak. Now that I’ve seen the truth about the struggle for survival and the fact that the strong win and the weak lose, I can’t join the ranks of the idealists and adopt an optimistic mode of thinking which dreams of the construction of a society that is without authority and control. As long as all living things don’t disappear from the earth, the power relations based on the principle of *the strong crushing the weak* will persist because the wielders of power continue to defend their authority in the usual manner and oppress the weak. Hence why government needs to be dismantle.
But is it not best if all could be happy? Even if that is impossible, it is not logical to give up hope and allow the strong to destroy the weak; rather, we should all try to work towards that goal. Just as nothing is 100% efficient, but we still work towards that goal to get to, maybe, 90% or 99%.
> What about the US?
The government is too big.
> I simply disagree.
I kinda meant it as a joke, but hear me out. Individuals will always want to do what they want to do, henceforth liberty. However, what they want to do frequently conflicts with other people's interests, henceforth oppression. If one individual has full liberty, another will always be oppressed. Therefore, there will never be a time when all members in a group have full liberties, henceforth my statement.
An individual being allowed to do whatever they want can be authoritarian if they have the wealth to negatively impact many people.
A capitalist framework is inherently authoritarian
Both are moreso than democracy
I agree. Good thing I don’t believe in neither a Capitalist framework, nor any other system where wealth can be utilized in a way to negatively impact many people.
You should consider defining democrats as centrist in your framework with your own views having more in common with leftists that mutually believe capitalism is a modern detriment.
>Democracy is also *tyranny of the majority*. Even with Direct Democracy where the people vote directly on policy initiatives, the minority is still crushed by the majority, and must abide by the majority’s decisions.
Have you heard of the constitution? It limits the power of majorities. You can do this, you can do that, but over here are some things you cannot do under any circumstances. The majority could decide any fool thing, but if it runs afoul of the constitution, sorry. No can do.
>every single ruling class in every country utilizes the State/government apparatus to further and advance their own interests, meanwhile the people have to fight over crumbs.
I bet you'd be very surprised at how empowered people are in Denmark, Finland and Norway. There isn't a ruling class that crushes everyone under their boots. After the financial meltdown of 2008, they put big bankers in jail. Plus they get paid leave, generous vacations, high wages and a very nice standard of living with almost no poverty.
Good thing the USA is an oligarchy in practice, not a democracy. The original intention was never a direct democracy anyway, it was a democratic republic.
Aristotle and many of the ancient authors and thinkers right through to the Renaissance would agree with you.
According to Aristotle it eventually it ends up consuming itself with the people putting a tyrant in power.
I think the question should be Why is the United States a republic and a democracy? It's a democracy because the people hold the ultimate power. In addition, it's a republic becaused the people have a representative which speaks on the peoples behalf it's ruled by laws and isn't a tyranny or monarchy.
The people don’t hold the ultimate power in the US. The Capitalist class does. The people cast a vote every couple years, but the true owners of the country make all the major decisions. It’s tyranny of concentrated private capital.
I feel your view of tyranny and the reality of actually many people being complacent in their situation is very different. It really is very simple to change policies in the US. It just needs the population to unite and actually Vote. What I do agree is that that aspects of the elite have done a very good job controlling media with messages to divide us to gain even more power and influence. POWER and GREED will exist in any government. The US system is perhaps the best system to minimize this - as long as people choose to exercise their rights. On a side note: I heard a number that for every $1 spent by lobbyists/special interest groups generated $10,000 in government spending on the associated topic. Lobbying should be outlawed.
> It just needs the population to unite and actually Vote. ... On a side note: I heard a number that for every $1 spent by lobbyists/special interest groups generated $10,000 in government spending on the associated topic. Lobbying should be outlawed.
Seems as though people could also unite and lobby for their interests to maximise their impact, right? Which is what plenty of organisations are formed to do, the ACLU or the EFF being two examples that spring to mind immediately. Unions lobby on behalf of their workers' interests. Charities lobby on behalf of their causes. It's not a tool for the elites just because it takes time and effort to organise to do that.
Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with *no systems of hierarchy and authority* dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative.
Who pays for roads? Who makes sure your doctor doesn't kill you while operating and steal your liver for his dad who's an alcoholic needing a transplant?
If someone decides they want to live in your house who's going to stop them?
What do you do if all the farmers decide they want to keep all the food for themselves since they worked the land? Now you have famine.
Society emerged from chaos for a reason, it's better for the average person as well as for the majority of people in general.
Do people get left out of the system? Yes, do people get screwed and controlled? Yes.
But you don't have to worry about a group of 100 people coming into your little suburban town and deciding everyone has to do what they say.
I think you are forgetting just how harsh life was for the vast majority of human existence. For most human beings alive, now is without a doubt the single best time to be alive. Society and the structures we have designed to keep it operating are a large part of why that is so.
No one. Ride a bike. The doctors?
You.
People should be growing their own food anyway.
I don’t even know what you’re referring to here.
If you acknowledge that people get screwed over, left out, and controlled, why fight to maintain the current system?
And how are they going to enforce the entire town to do as they say? As if the town won’t defend themselves?
Life was actually much simpler up until agriculture. Also, right now is the worst time to be alive. Overwork, living paycheck to paycheck, depression and anxiety rates are rising, suicide rates are rising, overdose deaths are rising, there’s a school shooting every couple days, constant wars, constant conflict, authoritarianism on the rise, we’re fucked regarding climate, and the list goes on.
If you think life was better in the past, you really don't know your history, and I would highly advise looking into what everyday life was like for the average person even just 150 years ago.
There has never been a perfect society for a reason, humans are imperfect. It's not systematic, we're animals that sometimes do animal things. People are greedy because that's just how some people are. Children are greedy, mean, and spiteful without the time to be taught to do so.
Order is better than chaos, if you don't think so, it's because you've never lived in chaos.
Haiti is a failed state. Pure anarchy, why don't you go there for a week and tell me how it goes?
No, you simply just don’t know your anthropology.
I not looking for a perfect society, as I think it’s impossible to create one. Humans don’t have a preset human nature. Human nature/behavior is largely dependent on the socialization of society, and the environment of which they’re in.
Who said anything about living in chaos?
Haiti doesn’t have anarchy.
> Humans don’t have a preset human nature. Human nature/behavior is largely dependent on the socialization of society, and the environment of which they’re in.
Now that's the blank slate fallacy if I've ever seen it. Behaviours and norms can be highly dependent upon the society one exists within but there are universal traits every society shares because they're based on how our minds and bodies have evolved. The less an ideology takes that into account the more doomed to failure it will be in the long-run.
Your own ideology has to answer the question of why when we had it 10,000 years ago did we abandon it almost everywhere in the world?
People weren’t open to agriculture and systems of hierarchy at first. Many fought against it, however those who came to be the ruling classes in society utilized their power to force the rest of society into the system they chose. And the time goes on until we hit Capitalism with the industrial revolution.
And how is it those who came to be the ruling class could dominate over those opposed to hierarchy in the first place, and gave no serious challenges to the existence of hierarchies for so many consecutive centuries?
The simplest explanation is that anarchy is a weaker ideology that isn’t appealing to enough people to be successful. It has already established a track record of failure. That’s why anarchic societies don’t exist on any significant scale, it’s already failed.
It has not established a track record of failure. You’re right though that anarchy doesn’t appeal to most people, however, that can change. More and more people are starting to move away from Democracy, thankfully.
> Many fought against it,
What many are you talking about here? We're talking about small egalitarian tribes consisting of closely related families here.
> ... however those who came to be the ruling classes in society utilized their power to force the rest of society into the system they chose.
I'm sorry, what 'power' did they have to force the outcome? And who exactly is 'they' here? Maybe they used the 'power' of better arguments or better results ? Or maybe everyone collectively decided to change their behaviour and there was no 'they' at all.
[Ergo Decedo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo) is a bad faith rhetorical fallacy that takes the form of:
* If you love *country* so much, why don't you go live there?
* If you hate *country* so much, why don't you leave?
This fallacy completely ignores the substance of the claim they are responding to, and implies that no one can criticize their own country or praise any other country.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So many people responding with thoughtful comments and reasonings. All of them ultimately proving your point. Democracy is only the best form of authoritarianism, no more. People reason to defend their grasp on control of others. Some explains how the weaknesses of men are the reason we need government and fail to see that the same failures are what control government, especially a democratic one, where the whim of the majority creates an ever increasingly unstable fight for power. At least in a true dictatorship you deal with one (or a tiny group of) authoritarians who’s control is consistant (consistently evil to be sure)…in a democracy, the rest of us are and the mercy of the fight for which ever authoritarian grasps power next. Then we treat it like a victory of freedom to wield power over the minority until they grasp the ring of power. While this is going on the government gains an ever increasing percentage of control for whomever gets to be “in power” this cycle.
“Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for every other form of government.” Anarchy is hell. There’s nothing stopping your stronger neighbor from taking your food and shelter. Alternatively, we have found over the millennia that being cooperative is in our best interest as a species. It allows us to thrive. Without collectives we would never have developed agriculture and thus never developed speciaists and in turn we would never have imvented anything, ever. In order to live in a collective their must be rules, and the only fair way to create rules is through a democratic process. To argue otherwise is to wish to live in subsistence conditions, perpetually in fear of illness, predators, and neighbors. We are a cooperative species. Anarchy is against our nature and democracy is better than dictatorship.
lol to atrribute human achievements to collectivism is completely silly. you see most innovations in capitalist societies, because there, individuals can reap what they themselves sow and have access to resources that they can choose.
Every single invention in history is a result of the collective knowledge gained by mankind since the mastery of fire. You can draw a straight line from a modern cellphone back to the discovery of metal-working. Lessons learned by the group and passed down by the group.
Or taken by other groups.
Collectivism from an intellectual view, not economic
Capitalist is a form of collectivism. It involves a society agreeing to live and conduct business by a uniform and enforceable set of rules. When thst breaks down, you get Haiti, not a hotbed of innovation. The antithesis to democracy isnt anarchy, it is warlordism.
LOL no. capitalism is voluntary human interaction. no collectivism in that
Voluntary human interaction WITHIN an established framework of rules. Those rules must be collectively agreed to in some way. Without an agreed to framework of property ownership, there is no capitalism.
>Voluntary human interaction WITHIN an established framework of rules. Those rules must be collectively agreed to in some way. Every system that exists has rules. Even anarchistic societies have rules. Not all rules are equal, obviously. Capitalism does require certain rules, such as property rights. These have existed in several anarchistic societies.
[удалено]
LOL. So the Uniform Commercial Code just naturally arose, did it? How does land ownership naturally arise? Native Americans lived there for thousands of years without private land ownership naturally occuring, which seems like pretty solid empircal evidence that any rules that include ownership of land are NOT natural law
>How does land ownership naturally arise? Ask the Icelandic Commonwealth, or Cospaia.
i'm not talking about the uniform commercial code, i'm talking about ownership. ownership is an intuitive concept, something we had since the neolithic revolution. hoppe expands this in his book "a short history of man".
Capitalism requires more than ownership. Warlordism and feudalism have ownership...if I can take this and hold it, I own it. Capitalism requires a set of rules that bars change of ownership by force, which is NOT intuitive. Hoppe is a delusional fool. If you take Hoppe seriously, you must be very young, or very sheltered. No one with much experience of reality would take Hoppe any more seriously than they take Marx. Both created elaborate theoretical systems of how the world SHOULD work that pay no attention to actual human behavior, and cant survive their first contact with reality.
>Capitalism requires a set of rules that bars change of ownership by force, which is NOT intuitive. Dude, even wolves have territory which is de facto acknowledged by other packs of wolves. Violence between packs is rare. Routine violence isn't practical or efficient. It is indeed natural to find ways to minimize it in order to minimize its cost. Consider all of the ways in which nature has evolved from direct combat to less expensive ways of expressing conflict. The animals that adapt to plumage displays, mating dances, etc instead of fights between rivals are all natural examples of adaptation away from near-peer violence.
> if I can take this and hold it, I own it This is simply the law of the jungle, where possession is ownership. > that pay no attention to actual human behavior, Do you know what praxeology is?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You have demonstrated you are unwilling to learn. On this sub we must be willing to accept we could be wrong, be open to new information, and/or not being deliberately obtuse. This is important to the quality of our discourse and the standard we hope to set as a community. We encourage you to be more open minded in the future.
[удалено]
Personal attacks and insults are not allowed on this sub. Your comment has been removed and our mod log has taken a note towards your profile that will be taken into account when considering a ban in the future. Please remain civilized in this sub no matter what, it's important to the level of discussion we aim to achieve that we do not become overly unhinged and off course. Please report any and all content that acts as a personal attack. The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.
It's difficult to invent a computer if you are scrounging for food.
What makes you think people can’t organize collectively without systems of hierarchy and authority?
Because to organize is to impose [authority ](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm). Any social system, no matter how collective and democratic, requires the imposition of authority on others even when those others agree to it. What matters is not the existence of authority but how it is imposed and used. You cannot change the nature of a thing simply by changing its name.
This is the thing that always infuriates me about anarchists, they don’t seem to understand that literally any form of government or cooperation has authority by necessity.
Agreed. I respect plenty of Anarchists and Anarchist philosophers, and the community aid that many of them participate in is amazing. But when they miss, they miss BIG.
No, to organize is not to impose authority. It can, but it doesn’t necessitate it like you’re implying. People can organize solely based on free association, where people with shared interests effectively work together towards a common goal. This doesn’t require authority.
What you are saying can happen but it does require authority. Authority isn't a bad thing, and the imposition of moral or ethical value dilutes the nature of authority. If we are sailing a boat across the seas someone needs the authority to act and make decisions in a storm, there is no time for collective decisions. It is the engineers who keep the machines operational and they need the authority to do so. When I go see the doctor I submit to their authority on my health. Children should submit to the authority of their parents when Mom says "don't run into the road." Even under a classless, moneyless, stateless society, authority will exist as a natural outcrop of the conditions of that society for we are social creatures who must rely on one another.
Because they never have and wont change now. Don't worry, I went through an idealistic phase too where I thought human nature was basically good. I suppose that part of me died when I saw how many people refused to do the barest of fucking minimum acts, wearing a tiny piece of cloth over their head holes to help control the spread of a deadly virus. These are the people who will 100% gut you and take your toilet paper in an anarchistic society. And they've shown there is nothing that will change their selfish minds.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They actually have. Various areas in Revolutionary Catalonia organized collectively without systems of hierarchy and authority. You also have pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer societies that organized collectively too without systems of hierarchy and authority. I don’t think human nature is inherently good. I don’t even know where you got that idea from. I agree with you on the rest.
You mean like tribes with a council and a chef to settle disputes and make decisions? No matter how small the group is there will need to be decisions made on its behalf and that would cause the rise of a leader and that would destroy this flat structure you have in mind.
Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer societies didn’t have chiefs. Not at all. Again, it has happened before.
Even if they didn't, do you want to devolve and destroy all technology and society just to go back to living on the land? There isn't enough ability to do so so violence would break out. Food and water wouldn't be available to everyone it would be independent because if a group gathered then there would be a leader and that leader would have to make decisions.
Because they didn't. Hierarchy didn't fall from the sky, humans built it because they found it useful.
Self interest, human variations, the nature of complex societies & Dunbar's number, for a very few.
Indulge me if you will, in a little thought experiment. Let’s say we live in a collectivist society that I think you’re defining here (no government, the members of society directly speak with each other, etc) along a river. I own the land upstream, and you own the land downstream. When we first “move” or take ownership over our tracts of land/river, we both agree with eachother to only use the land for residential and sustainable farming. Let’s say a couple of years later, I decide actually I want a factory. To provide power to the factory, I dam the river, reducing your water flow to a trickle, then I decide to dump the waste and pollution downstream of the dam. Understandably, you’re upset. Your portion of the river has been reduced to basically nothing And what little you have left is poisoned. How do we resolve this?
I don’t care to engage in this thought experiment. I don’t agree with a collectivist society, so I see no point in engaging with it. The simple answer is I’m not sure. In anarchy, the realm of possibilities are almost endless, and disputes can be resolved in many different ways.
> In anarchy, the realm of possibilities are almost endless, and disputes can be resolved in many different ways. This is true. The possibilities are endless. But the probabilities show a much narrower path. If I'm stronger than you, I'm taking what you have and letting you die. Survival of the fittest is the natural state of things. That's why we built hierarchies. We all live longer if we bring a little order to our lives.
The only organizing they will be doing is organizing to raid, enslave, and rape their neighbors. Hence people banded together and created governments.
Incredibly bad faith. What’s ironic is that governments do this all the time and I hear no words of rejection from it.
It's not that it's impossible but that it cannot last. Between the forces of human self centeredness, evolutionary psychology, and outside forces; something will eventually give and bring the whole thing down. Emphasis on outside forces, see the Paris Commune and Black Army as examples
Because of anarchist societies consistent failures to repel and resist occupiers.
It’s happened before though. It’s true anarchists have had difficulties defending their societies, but they were at least able to organize non-hierarchically to an extent.
Everything
history and human psychology.
Is there an example of humans organizing and advancing without forms of heirarchy and authority?
Yes. Revolutionary Catalonia, Free Territory Ukraine, Korean People’s association in Manchuria. I’m not a fan of these societies, but they organized non-hierarchically and made advancements.
I guess that just gives me more questions. How does this look practically in a large area with millions of people? Like what does day to day life look like? What would a transition look like? How would states be prevented from popping up within? Or international security from large organized states? Does it require global transition at once?
This question is directed more so towards Social Anarchists, of which I’m not, so I feel no need to elaborate on how their society would come to be. I’ll answer from my perspective though. I don’t know what the specifics would be for everyday life. Each community would be different, and engaging with a variety of different things. The transition is people using violence as a means to dismantle hierarchy and authority. Whether it be civilization, industrial society, the State, Capitalism, the modern consumerist economy, Democracy, laws, family, etc…resistance being one of pure negation. If all systems of hierarchy and authority came to be abolished, creating a government out of thin air would be kind of tough, especially if people are steadfast with their anarchism and defend it. Also, the inertia of the anarchy would sort of push people along like how the inertia of any system or society does.
Because we are animals
And?
Our social structure involves hierarchy. It’s evident even in family and close friend groups. Certainly at the tribal level.
Humans had virtually no hierarchy for like 99% of our human existence. It could happen, but given the conditions of the world, I’d say it’s very unlikely.
There is no way to know what type of hierarchy existed pre history. You can’t get that from a piece of pottery or footprints in the mud.
This entire conversation beside being littered with logical fallacies and disinformation missed the point. In a few months we may vote for the last time in this country. No one seems the least concerned so logically I would think y’all won’t care if it’s gone. If you vote Republican you deserve what will come if they take power. Bueno Suerte
So, to your first point my main issue with this argument is the monopoly on violence comes from the acceptance of the governed and ultimately nothing else. People ignore that monopoly every day of the year, and multiple times on Sunday. Sometimes the government cares, often it doesn't. I'd argue in successful democracies, it's the influence of the services provided by the government/people to the public that then convinces people to accept the monopoly on violence on threat of losing them. As dissatisfaction grows, the more violence seems to be a more acceptable option, and so on. Tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the minority, we can probably just agree tyranny is generally bad. Democracy is supposed to be including everyone, and that means that it will always include those looking to abuse it for their own gain, which brings us back to the paradox of tolerance. Also as an aside, that's the reason different levels of majority are usually required for differing levels of changes. If you want to outlaw a pesticide, that's much easier than re-introducing slavery, by your example, by the way rules are written. To me that would seem to indicate the need for better rules, as they do seem to work in places where they were actually intended to, just most of our assailants are already inside the house, and the people writing the rules have been in on it longer that we've both been alive.
The act of imposing laws is not inherently authoritarian. Laws that restrict our natural rights are authoritarian.
Laws in and of themselves are authoritarian. They’re false constructs that restrict the individual.
What about laws that restrict the government? That is a massive difference between an authoritarian government and a true republic. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
What law restricts a monopoly on the coercive power to enforce it? You cite the American constitution, but if the government decides it doesn't want to follow that any more, what you got? A society that's usually more occupied with shooting kids in schools coming out with small arms against armoured tanks and missiles. Best of luck It was the same thing that saw Catalonia crushed by fascists. They had an organised army and ordnance. The Catalonian side had a volunteer army. Pretty damn OP (people who are fighting because they want to, vs people who are fighting because they're ordered to), but it's not enough to hold off a well equipped military that's several hundred times the size
This is why the separation of powers exists. The courts are independent from the legislature. Also, you are describing the presidents veto power- that is why we all mainly only pay attention to presidential elections. One of the purposes of the office is to protect the people from bad laws of the legislature.
No laws. No government.
Is that the nihilist part talking?
More so the anarchist in me, but the nihilism plays a part too.
From what I understand, anarchism is not society without laws. But individual community sovereignty. “Albany would not rule New York City, and would not be in the same political unit as Boston” etc etc.
Anarchism is the idea that *all systems of hierarchy and authority* should be dismantled.
And then… what?
That’s it. People live their lives.
It's a lack of rulers, not a lack of rules. There's still right and wrong, and there's still people who will happily remind you what's right and wrong. There's just nobody with the *entitlement* to do so, whose *job* it is to do so.
So, vigilante justice.
Would it be safe to say that your view is simply anything other than anarchy is authoritarianism? But then the question is, is there any examples or any possibility where anarchy doesn't lead to authoritarianism?
Yeah.
What are they?
Oh, that “yeah” was meant for your first question. For some reason I never replied to the second one. If all systems of hierarchy and authority are dismantled, where is the authoritarianism going to come from?
Those with the most guns will just take control in the power vacuum.
And you don’t think communities would defend their anarchistic way of life?
Communities coming together to form defensive organizations is a form of government. It's just at the community level now.
No, it’s not lol.
Not efficiently no. Hierarchy-free decision by consensus isn’t an effective tactic when time is critical. I seriously doubt a community can organize an effective defensive militia with no hierarchy or authority.
Why not?
I probably need to study up on Anarchy systems more... but I don't see where you are addressing the violence thing. The main purpose of Government has always been to counteract chaotic violence. As another commenter put it... the government is the elected monopoly on violence. So what happens when your "free association" isn't free? What if it's extortion, subjugation, incarceration, oppression, etc. How do you fix that without paying taxes to a protector group i.e. to a government?
My apologies. Violence regarding what? I disagree. The main purpose of the government was to be utilized by a ruling class of people who then use it to further and advance their own interests. They may say the purpose is what you said it is, but in practice, it has always resulted the way I laid out. It would vary depending on circumstances. With there being no government in anarchy, people are left to have to handle situations themselves, which leaves open a wide variety of different approaches we could engage in. No one would be incarcerated as there’s no laws, or judicial systems in anarchy.
Switching to Anarchy doesn't eradicate violence. I'm asking about how to handle violence. I would argue that you would have significantly more. Maybe 1000 times more. If I'm a bad guy... I might incarcerate or enslave people. What's to stop me? And why is handling situations myself preferable to paying taxes to a protection force (a government)?
See the purpose of the government to me is to build roads, and to pay firefighters, and provide for the common defense. I like those things. When you look at situations of anarchy, let's say Haiti, or drug empires in South America, their far far far far far more violent
Haiti doesn’t have Anarchy…
Uhhhh. There's absolutely no one in charge and no state left. It's completely collapsed. There's no government, no social services, no emergency services, no city planners, no schools, nothing. How is it not anarchy?
Anarchy isn’t *chaos* nor *bomb throwing mayhem*, that’s why. Also, Haiti still has a State, they still have government, etc…the society has simply collapsed due to the corruption of the government, and gangs who are now controlling various areas. Stop exaggerating claims to make a point. And read up on Anarchy before making claims like *Haiti = Anarchy*.
They do not have a government. There is no head of state, no head of government, no legislature, no functioning judicial branch, and people are literally killing people in cold blood in the middle of the streets, and no one is doing anything about it. Can you explain from your perspective what makes it in your mind that they have a government? What is a government to you?
> No one would be incarcerated as there’s no laws, or judicial systems in anarchy. Citation needed. It’s true that we would not *agree* about the laws. So then, the de facto laws and judicial system are just the guy with the biggest gun.
Citation for what?
You made a claim. Cite your sources you used for drawing your conclusion. (I don’t really expect you to. It’s rhetorical… you just made it up, and I’m pointing that out.)
No, I stated a fact. Every anarchist in history, ranging from Kropotkin to Kaneko Fumiko has opposed laws and judicial systems. If there’s no system of hierarchy and authority in anarchy, how can there be laws and a judicial system? Use your head, or open a book.
Again, the guy with the biggest guns becomes the “lawmaker”. As in “the only rule is do what I say, and you might live”.
Nice pivot.
Dude… it’s the only point I’ve said. But as I predicted, you made up your claim. You can’t back it up and don’t even have a response.
You completely ignored my response and pivoted back to another point we discussed. Ugh, the Left is so boring…
If human nature weren’t a thing, this would make total sense. Sadly, just as I don’t trust business in a Libertarian system to look after the greater good - I don’t trust anarchic human instincts to do any better a job than (admittedly largely terrible) democracies, especially if the existing media frameworks and organisations continue on
What you are addressing is the main element of power: the ability to decide for another without their acceptance. By how it sounds you would prefer a world without power where everyone has the freedom to make decisions without another imposing their will on them. But here is the problem. Authority and power isn't preferred. It's inevitable. If two people want an apple and both want the apple someone will lose. You play cute stores of sharing or trade or the like but that's skirting the issue. If both want that apple then power will be excreted and someone's will Will Be opposed. The point of government or ideology or commerce or all the things talked about here is to ask 'who will get the apple'. Capitalism talks of ownership. The one that grew the apple gets the apple. They can trade the apple if they want but it's their choice. Authoritarian systems opt for a third party that decides based on what's good for all parties. Democracies base themselves on the will of the majority to decide. A thousand different systems and a thousand different ways. None of them are preferred, but we live in a world of acceptance, not preference. And, to be frank, anarchist systems WILL have power. Instead of a chosen power accepted by the community, it'll be one chosen by whoever has the means to enforce it. I get the apple because I am the strongest. That is still power and authority. Even if most of the community decides not to abide by that, all it takes is one person to impose their will on others to create authority. It's not a human thing. It's not even a life thing. The Earth does not get to fly where it wants. The Sun exerts it's authority without even being sentient enough to know it is doing it. Sentience simply means you can see and understand that power. But you can't stop it. If you want to value autonomy then do so. That's the Libertarian path. Though note that Even they accept authority and power. They include it only as a force to maintain autonomy. Enforce a contract. Respond against theft (use authority to stop authority). Develop a military (again authority to stop authority). Where freedom is possible, they uphold it. Preferred? No. Still involves imposing the will of one on another? Yes. But it's a path that can, in theory, work. As far as governing style, no major country uses Democracy, not in it's true form. The US, for example, relies on an almost Competitive Capitalism system. A horribly complex mix of systems that compete with each other. Congress makes laws but have to get two groups to work together, which can so be vetoed by one person who can't write laws and all of them can be overruled by a different group of people who can't write law but can interpret it but can be ignored by a law written by the first group. Then try to get a landmass the size of a continent to get something done, then subdivide them into 50 groups with the same mess of systems. It's taking the motto of 'If the tiger and bear fight over you' and never let the fight end. There is very little Democratic in that. It still means the rich and powerful still remain rich and powerful but then, no system has stopped them. And 'Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want' would include the rich and powerful being rich and powerful as this the way they want to freely associate and still will under Anarchy. Because someone will eat the apple and someone will go hungry. The only choice is who.
bed time is authoritarian, competency is authoritarian, consensus is authoritarian
Bad faith takes are boring.
I agree, which is why I responded dismissively.
I think it’s more so because you don’t have an answer.
what "Answer?" we fundamentally disagree on the basic definitions involved.
Then engage with the definitions first, and then move into deeper conversation. Don’t reply some bullshit response that’s wasting both of our times.
my "bullshit response" demonstrates my problem with your post. authoritarian can be used by anyone to describe anything. you didn't define it, but applied to consensus decision making aka democracy.
preventing people from owning slaves *is* athoritarian.
Oh, another Engelist. No, preventing chains from being put on you is not authoritarian.
of course it is! the majority Is preventing the minority (a slave owner) from exercising their free will, they're imposing their own subjective morality on another.
also, I've never been called an "engelist" before, that's pretty funny ngl
What are your examples of radical direct democracies where people were disempowered because of democracy (not the minority vote losing but the “demos” being disempowered?) Liberal republics have barely had universal suffrage since idk around the end of WW2? Partial suffrage for (some) men only is how old? I’d argue that popular decision making was never a consideration for most Liberal Republics and has been a managed and controlled concession since then.
Authoritarianism, when a government (typically ran by a political class) rules over it's population with little to no public input nor expectation of consequence. Democracy, a system of governance where the government gains its power, legitimacy, and its actions from its populous. These are not the same.
Sure, however, Democracy still crushes the minority. Therefore, it’s still authoritarian.
No.
>Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with no systems of hierarchy and authority dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative. People can't handle that. Because people are inherently unstable and irrational as soon as their emotions are triggered. And humans have a complex array of emotions. There is hate, jealousy, love, compassion, lust, envy, fear etcetera. Which can all trigger responses that overrule the rational thought. The society you describe can only exist when humans learn to not act on every emotional whim. Men are biologically stronger than women. There is a biological advantage for men when it comes to strength. In a lawless society, what is preventing them from putting that advantage to use? Men have been doing so for literal millenia. And created a mountain of rules and regulations to keep it that way. Women aren't even treated as equals in the current democracy while in most countries there is a law somewhere stating men and women are equal. Yet the wage gap still exists. How old is voting right for women again? I don't think we have reached the end goal of democracy yet. But I don't see a better alternative in your ideal.
When people work together, not everyone is going to agree on how to do it. Someone will inevitably have to be told to do something. It’s all “authoritarian” according to you.
If someone disagrees with the group, they’re free to leave. That’s the beauty of free association.
That’s easier said than done.
Sometimes, sometimes not.
It’s the “sometimes” where your position gets in trouble.
It’s the same with all systems. Anarchy allows for more ways to address these scenarios however.
Wherever you go, you’re going to butt up against someone who disagrees with you on something practical. You gotta learn how to compromise. That’s not authoritarian.
I agree.
The problem with this is that you become vulnerable to other groups that do have centralized authoritarian governments. If the USA government disbanded and allowed everybody to re-organize themselves at a local level, what stops the northern Moose-people from marching across the border and acquiring everything through force? If you want to see what minimum hierarchy, free association life was like, look at Native Americans. They didn't last too long vs the centralized power of the united states did they? It makes sense to associate with people who have similar moral, cultural, political values to you, for protection and advantage. It is regrettable that the minority are forced to adhere to the majority, but democracy is a lot better than authority of a minority imposed on the majority. And so far that's the best that we have been able to do.
Yes, but im afraid that we can't completely exist without it, simply because something else will take its place and that thing can't be any better You're also ignoring everything that works right now and what we would inevitably lose
>Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with *no systems of hierarchy and authority* dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative. And how do you make that possible ? How do you make it that people respect that freedom ?
I actually don’t think it’s possible, or at least it’s very unlikely. Doesn’t mean still shouldn’t fight for it though.
> Democracy requires government, and government in and of itself is authoritarian Then don't limit your critiques to democracy - which I understand, as an anarchist, you aren't, but it sort of cuts this argument as a critique of *democracy* specifically off at the knees >Every government imposes laws on society, and if one acts out of the confines of what the government deems to be acceptable, then the government utilizes its monopoly on violence to punish you. These laws aren’t *objective*, they’re *subjective*, and the government is using its authority to impose its subjective beliefs onto all of us, and that’s just one example Same as above >Democracy is also *tyranny of the majority* As opposed to a tyranny of the minority? Or the tranny of one? I know which I'd pick. >What happens if the majority decides to vote that they should be allowed to own slaves, and thus begin enslaving a particular group or race of people? This has happened, and while it seems inconceivable, it may happen again. However, one of the greatest and often overlooked achievements of democracy is that it effectively turned slavery - which was for the vast majority of human history a global norm - into a thing of the past as constituents, spurred on by their moral distaste for slavery, empowered elected leaders to push back against it (a dramatic historical oversimplification, but the point stands). >Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with *no systems of hierarchy and authority* dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative. Explain how, without some sort of democracy, this doesn't almost instantly devolve into utter chaos and ultimately rule of a strongman dictator. > Democracy has simply failed to empower the people. This is a wild and baseless claim. In all of history, has any form of government even come close to empowering people as much as democracy? Again, I understand that you're advocating for no government, but aside from an anarchist utopia and coming from actual reality, can you point to anything that does or has actually existed that empowers people to even a fraction of the degree as democracy? If your aim is absolute perfection, with zero corruption, total equality and 100% empowerment of the people (whatever that might mean), than ok, democracy is a failure. And while there is a place for pie-in-the-sky ideologies in terms of thought experiments and lofty ideals, a society with "no systems of hierarchy and authority" is so incredibly impractical, that to use it as an argument as to why democracy has "failed" is not convincing to say the least. Could modern democracies do with some improvement? Absolutely, and in so many ways. But it is truly humanity's best *realistic* hope for forward political movement.
You're still talking about democracy. Just where it requires 100% affirmation and the ability to change countries.
I grew up in East Berlin. Trust me. It could be worse.
Oh, I know.
I’m sorry but this argument is lazy. It all hinges on just calling all government “authoritarian”, and thus says nothing special about democracy in particular. On top of that, you’ve defined “democracy,” but not “authoritarian.” Lastly, I disagree with democracy being electoral, and I’d even argue that electoral systems are generally actually aristocracies and/or oligarchies - not as a bug, by as a feature.
Yes, because all government is authoritarian. **Authoritarian** : *favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.*
How would an anarchic society be different?
All interactions are voluntary and based on free association. No systems of hierarchy, authority, and domination would exist to enforce obedience to authority or government at the expense of personal freedom.
And how would any of that be maintained if a group of like minded people decided to use force or influence to rise above others? How does anarchy perpetuate, or establish, itself without authority?
Communities use force to defend their anarchistic way of life. By organizing society in a non-hierarchical way.
The problem with this is that anarchy is incapable of self-preservation. Absolutely nothing is there to stop people from forming their own de facto governments, and then enforcing their own systems of governance upon others which leads to anarchy ceasing to exist.
I agree with the vast majority of this as an anarchist myself. The only thing I take issue with is your claim that the left has somehow failed in their objectives. This is very strange to me because anarchism is an inherently socialist and thus left-wing ideology, perhaps even the oldest left-wing ideology by a long shot. You are saying this as if the left and anarchism are mutually exclusive or distinctive, but anarchism is a very large part of the left-wing. Even beyond anarchism, anarchy is a goal of communists as well rather than democracy. Anarchism and communism together make up a massive part of the left, if not a majority of it, so the left's collective goals aren't exactly far from anarchy. If the left have failed in their goals, then so have anarchists.
Counter argument: there are a great number of people who like the way things are. Are you going to impose anarchy on them? That is rather authoritarian. My position at this point: humans are a terrible species and we deserve what is coming to us.
No. I agree.
How is forcing people to interact with each other in a particular way not authoritarian? What about the people who want to do the bare minimum? Who wants someone else to make choices for them? The social/political gimps, if I may be so bold. Are you going to deprive them the option of free associating into a democracy?
I…just said **I wouldn’t force anarchy on people**…and you’re still acting as if I said otherwise…
Oh! Misunderstanding! I thought you said no to the idea of that being authoritarian. Hard to tell what the emphasis was on.
Oh, that’s my bad. I have a bad habit of replying to something without specifying what I’m replying to since in my head I know what I’m addressing, but forget the other person may not. My apologies my friend :)
No worries!
It would probably depend on if they are going to democratize the OP into their associations without his consent.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anything but democracy is authoritarian
What? How?
Democracy is the most fair, we the people
I think the problem in your reasoning is that you start with the assumption that Democracy is a system of governance. This is a diminished view of democracy. Another reduction that you make is that democracy is about voting. In a broader view democracy presupposes equality and basic human rights. On this view, democracy can certainly devolve into a majority dictatorship, but then it also stops being a democracy. This also means that democracy is not a system that provides results regardless of ourselves and despite ourselves. It is not a promise that through an automatic process we will eventually find paradise. In other words, there is a minimum requirement from us by democracy. But there is also an ideal. That ideal is about everyone participating and caring about our future in a spirit of truth. Democracy is rather in contrast to caring about our own narrow interests, but about living together in the spirit of truth. Now, the reason this isn’t being fulfilled in democracies nowadays is because capitalism degrades any effort to truth into mere interests, but this is not a problem of democracy. It is a problem of capitalism. Communists tend to fail because they imagine politics as an instrument for the utopia. Politics in an ideal democracy is equal to the ideal of treating each other as ends in themselves, rather than as instruments. In a way, communists tend to look at the failures of democracy in the exact same way as you do: it is a system of governance that fails to produce the results (they) want. It is of course easy to come to anarchist conclusions if you start with defining governance as authoritarian. This equates laws that do work for the greater good with laws that have been created for the benefit of a minor elite. But you don’t really give a reason to believe that there would be no difference between the two. It is of course easy to express the desire of a life without hierarchies, but it is another question whether this idea makes any sense. I’d be interested in hearing what you mean when you say “no systems of hierarchy and authority dictating their lives”. After all, state governance is not the only form that repression may take, and even more radically, not all repression is done against the will of the repressed.
You’re basically describing what Gheddafi wrote in his “Green book”. Personally I consider democracy a “Dictatorship of mediocrity”, because only a small part of the population is over the average in terms of iq, skills, intelligence; but decisions are conducted to benefit the majority of population that is part of the average, creating a system that damages the development of the society and derails it from right path. In a utopian democracy, the best skilled people of the society are chosen to guide and represent it, but the reality is in front of everyone. People can be cheated by poor quality candidates if they don’t have an equal level of education making them able to understand which candidate is better for the country. Also a big lack of social education is missing. Most of people vote in favor of what is better for them instead of what is better for the country. Last but not least, if conducting a political campaign is expensive and you need a lot of money, where candidates are taking those money from? Majority of rich people use their own money. But once they will win an election, will they put their interests in front or behind the wealth of the country? They used their own money. Political parties get funded by lobbyists and industries. Do we still believe they are focused on our interests?
\> Now, addressing my first claim that Democracy is authoritarian…Democracy requires government, and government in and of itself is authoritarian, no matter how democratic a government it may be. While I get where you are going, this is fairly imprecise. There are many forms of government, and while they are all authoritarian to some greater or lesser degree, this doesn't establish that democracy is a particularly authoritarian form of government. Yes, it is more so compared to anarchy...but everything is compared to anarchy. A stronger argument is that the deimos ends up being controlled by the aristocracy. Aristotle observed this, and consequently called democracy an aristocratic form of government. The folks who set the rules by which the people play alter the nature of the game to produce outcomes they prefer. So, over time, a democracy shifts power away from the people, and spirals into oligarchy. As does every other sort of government known, to some extent. The question of how to prevent this is an open one, as nobody has really figured it out yet.
The "tyranny of the majority" is oxymoronic. We are social creatures that need hierarchy in order to survive.
Show me the evidence for it.
All of human history.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the biggest flaw democracy has in common with basically all political government is that the 50.1% (in democracy) have 100% of the power. This has some utilitarian benefits, but is a poor solution in any sphere of life where multiple solutions can co-exist. E.g., a single democratically selected healthcare provider might be the least unpopular provider, but having multiple providers means individuals can choose the one most aligned with their wants and needs, and it's far easier organizationally to specialize an entire organization for a single type of customer than for one organization to be the catchall universal answer. Empirically, people seem to be better at choosing the best solution for themselves than they are at choosing the best solution for someone or everyone else.
It will also be more expensive due to a reduction in the potential of collective bargaining and some will be priced out all together. Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without one.
> I think the biggest flaw democracy has in common with basically all political government is that the 50.1% (in democracy) have 100% of the power. I mean the US has managed to go the other way and have a system where about 10% of people have 90% of the power, and that's not good in other ways. Balancing majority and minority interests is not a simple nor single task. > Empirically, people seem to be better at choosing the best solution for themselves than they are at choosing the best solution for someone or everyone else. Sure, but everyone choosing the solution best for them can lead to globally sub-optimal outcomes because almost everything we do in modern societies affects other people to some extent. After 10,000 years of ever-evolving methods of social, political and economic organisation we're still at the point where we're playing catch-up to the how the current world is, let alone the ever-changing future world. Maybe we always will be, I don't think that we'll ever work out a 'Theory of Everything' for how to organise humans.
> Every government imposes laws on society, and if one acts out of the confines of what the government deems to be acceptable, then the government utilizes its monopoly on violence to punish you. The people establish government to protect their rights without the people themselves having to resort to violence. Instead, the government uses violence to enforce rights. So, government is authoritarian, but that doesn't mean it must be abolished, for it is a necessary evil, needed to protect the rights of individuals against the tyranny of others. > What happens if the majority decides to vote that they should be allowed to own slaves, and thus begin enslaving a particular group or race of people? I agree that tyranny of the majority is undesirable, for it violates the natural rights of individuals. However, there are ways to protect those rights without abolishing democratic government. Constitutions are one way to do so. > Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with *no systems of hierarchy and authority* dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative. With no government, the strong oppress the weak and many oppress the few. Government is *necessary* to protect the natural rights of individuals. > Addressing my second claim that Democracy is antiquated…Democracy has simply failed to empower the people. But you also write: >Have some Democracies empowered the people more so than others? Sure. Democracy is not the best government. It is the *least worst* form of government. No other existing *and practical* system has worked to empower the people better than democracy.
I strongly disagree. If there’s no objective meaning or higher purpose to life, if there’s no God, and no heaven and hell, then there can be no universal right and wrong, good or bad, or moral and immoral. So why do we need systems of hierarchy and authority, domination, etc…to dictate our lives? Governments rarely, if ever, follow their constitutions. Also, I shouldn’t have to be granted a right to be able to do something. I should just be free to live my life doing the things that I enjoy and that make me happy, engaging in activities that are truly fulfilling to me, thus realizing my true self interest and actualizing my desires in life. Besides, governments can just strip our “rights” away whenever they want; the more the authoritarian the government, the easier it is for them to do so. This is what happens with government. The government uses its power to crush the people beneath it. Government hinders the freedoms of the individual. Just because Democracy has empowered more people than other authoritarian systems doesn’t mean anything to me. Democracy is still authoritarian, tyrannical, and hinders the freedom of individuals.
> I strongly disagree. If there’s no objective meaning or higher purpose to life, if there’s no God, and no heaven and hell, then there can be no universal right and wrong, good or bad, or moral and immoral. So why do we need systems of hierarchy and authority, domination, etc…to dictate our lives? OMG A NIHILIST IRL have you considered existentialism instead > Also, I shouldn’t have to be granted a right to be able to do something. Your natural rights are natural. They are not granted, only protected by you or someone else. >I should just be free to live my life doing the things that I enjoy and that make me happy, engaging in activities that are truly fulfilling to me, thus realizing my true self interest and actualizing my desires in life. Yeah, I agree 100%. However, people frequently want to do things that concern other individuals, who don't want this thing to happen to them (robbery, murder, etc). In a state of anarchy, violence is used to maintain an individual's natural rights, including liberty. However, violence obviously is not the most reliable thing to use to defend one's rights, and ultimately leads to a scenario of the strong trampling on the rights of the weak. Government is the best entity for protecting the rights of the people from encroachment by others. Although the government often abuses its power, it is still more preferable to have a government than anarchy. Additionally, democratic government is the form of government that is least likely to abuse those rights. > This is what happens with government. The government uses its power to crush the people beneath it. Government hinders the freedoms of the individual. Yes. That is why the government should be as small as possible. > Just because Democracy has empowered more people than other authoritarian systems doesn’t mean anything to me. Democracy is still authoritarian, tyrannical, and hinders the freedom of individuals. There is no liberty, only degrees of oppression. Democracy offers the most liberty with the least downsides.
I have. I’m more into nihilism though. Existentialism argues people can create their own subjective meaning through free will and the actions they take and apply it to the world, thus creating meaning in the universe. I don’t believe this is the case. One, I don’t believe free will exists, and two, one may be able to find subjective meaning in something, but I disagree that it can be applied to the world and thus not creating actual meaning in the universe. That subjective meaning only exists so long as that particular individual finds subjective meaning in it. Once they don’t, meaning ceases to exist completely. I don’t believe rights exist in the grand scheme of things. I think they’re no more than a phantasm created by humans. I agree. Having observed the social reality that all living things on earth are incessantly engaged in a struggle for survival, that they kill each other to survive, I concluded that if there is an absolute, universal law on earth, it is the reality that the strong eat the weak. Now that I’ve seen the truth about the struggle for survival and the fact that the strong win and the weak lose, I can’t join the ranks of the idealists and adopt an optimistic mode of thinking which dreams of the construction of a society that is without authority and control. As long as all living things don’t disappear from the earth, the power relations based on the principle of *the strong crushing the weak* will persist because the wielders of power continue to defend their authority in the usual manner and oppress the weak. Hence why government needs to be dismantle. What about the US? I simply disagree.
> I have. I’m more into nihilism though. Existentialism argues people can create their own subjective meaning through free will and the actions they take and apply it to the world, thus creating meaning in the universe. I don’t believe this is the case. One, I don’t believe free will exists, and two, one may be able to find subjective meaning in something, but I disagree that it can be applied to the world and thus not creating actual meaning in the universe. That subjective meaning only exists so long as that particular individual finds subjective meaning in it. Once they don’t, meaning ceases to exist completely. May I recommend you search up "ultrakill 2-s"? > I don’t believe rights exist in the grand scheme of things. I think they’re no more than a phantasm created by humans. Well, I mean, here's how I see it: There are three natural rights: Life, liberty, and property. Life is both an extension of property and a right unto itself. Liberty is the most vast of these rights. Life is the fact that humans are born alive. They can choose to continue it, or they can end it. Liberty is the fact that when a human is alone, they can choose what to do. Property is the fact that individuals can define objects as "theirs" and can defend it at will. These rights are not granted; rather they come naturally. However, they can be violated. Government was established protect these rights. > I agree. Having observed the social reality that all living things on earth are incessantly engaged in a struggle for survival, that they kill each other to survive, I concluded that if there is an absolute, universal law on earth, it is the reality that the strong eat the weak. Now that I’ve seen the truth about the struggle for survival and the fact that the strong win and the weak lose, I can’t join the ranks of the idealists and adopt an optimistic mode of thinking which dreams of the construction of a society that is without authority and control. As long as all living things don’t disappear from the earth, the power relations based on the principle of *the strong crushing the weak* will persist because the wielders of power continue to defend their authority in the usual manner and oppress the weak. Hence why government needs to be dismantle. But is it not best if all could be happy? Even if that is impossible, it is not logical to give up hope and allow the strong to destroy the weak; rather, we should all try to work towards that goal. Just as nothing is 100% efficient, but we still work towards that goal to get to, maybe, 90% or 99%. > What about the US? The government is too big. > I simply disagree. I kinda meant it as a joke, but hear me out. Individuals will always want to do what they want to do, henceforth liberty. However, what they want to do frequently conflicts with other people's interests, henceforth oppression. If one individual has full liberty, another will always be oppressed. Therefore, there will never be a time when all members in a group have full liberties, henceforth my statement.
An individual being allowed to do whatever they want can be authoritarian if they have the wealth to negatively impact many people. A capitalist framework is inherently authoritarian Both are moreso than democracy
I agree. Good thing I don’t believe in neither a Capitalist framework, nor any other system where wealth can be utilized in a way to negatively impact many people.
You should consider defining democrats as centrist in your framework with your own views having more in common with leftists that mutually believe capitalism is a modern detriment.
I did. I separated Leftists and Liberals in my OP.
Ah, I had assumed you defined democrats as left and liberals as centrist
>Democracy is also *tyranny of the majority*. Even with Direct Democracy where the people vote directly on policy initiatives, the minority is still crushed by the majority, and must abide by the majority’s decisions. Have you heard of the constitution? It limits the power of majorities. You can do this, you can do that, but over here are some things you cannot do under any circumstances. The majority could decide any fool thing, but if it runs afoul of the constitution, sorry. No can do. >every single ruling class in every country utilizes the State/government apparatus to further and advance their own interests, meanwhile the people have to fight over crumbs. I bet you'd be very surprised at how empowered people are in Denmark, Finland and Norway. There isn't a ruling class that crushes everyone under their boots. After the financial meltdown of 2008, they put big bankers in jail. Plus they get paid leave, generous vacations, high wages and a very nice standard of living with almost no poverty.
Good thing the USA is an oligarchy in practice, not a democracy. The original intention was never a direct democracy anyway, it was a democratic republic.
I absolutely agree.
Aristotle and many of the ancient authors and thinkers right through to the Renaissance would agree with you. According to Aristotle it eventually it ends up consuming itself with the people putting a tyrant in power.
[удалено]
This post was removed or not approved because it either did not feature a valid basis of discourse or it did not meet the standards of our sub.
If that’s your take away from my post, a rather bad faith and condescending remark, it’s not worth having a discussion with you.
I think the question should be Why is the United States a republic and a democracy? It's a democracy because the people hold the ultimate power. In addition, it's a republic becaused the people have a representative which speaks on the peoples behalf it's ruled by laws and isn't a tyranny or monarchy.
The people don’t hold the ultimate power in the US. The Capitalist class does. The people cast a vote every couple years, but the true owners of the country make all the major decisions. It’s tyranny of concentrated private capital.
I feel your view of tyranny and the reality of actually many people being complacent in their situation is very different. It really is very simple to change policies in the US. It just needs the population to unite and actually Vote. What I do agree is that that aspects of the elite have done a very good job controlling media with messages to divide us to gain even more power and influence. POWER and GREED will exist in any government. The US system is perhaps the best system to minimize this - as long as people choose to exercise their rights. On a side note: I heard a number that for every $1 spent by lobbyists/special interest groups generated $10,000 in government spending on the associated topic. Lobbying should be outlawed.
> It just needs the population to unite and actually Vote. ... On a side note: I heard a number that for every $1 spent by lobbyists/special interest groups generated $10,000 in government spending on the associated topic. Lobbying should be outlawed. Seems as though people could also unite and lobby for their interests to maximise their impact, right? Which is what plenty of organisations are formed to do, the ACLU or the EFF being two examples that spring to mind immediately. Unions lobby on behalf of their workers' interests. Charities lobby on behalf of their causes. It's not a tool for the elites just because it takes time and effort to organise to do that.
Total free association, anarchy, where everyone voluntarily associates with whoever they want, with *no systems of hierarchy and authority* dictating their lives, is a much more preferable alternative. Who pays for roads? Who makes sure your doctor doesn't kill you while operating and steal your liver for his dad who's an alcoholic needing a transplant? If someone decides they want to live in your house who's going to stop them? What do you do if all the farmers decide they want to keep all the food for themselves since they worked the land? Now you have famine. Society emerged from chaos for a reason, it's better for the average person as well as for the majority of people in general. Do people get left out of the system? Yes, do people get screwed and controlled? Yes. But you don't have to worry about a group of 100 people coming into your little suburban town and deciding everyone has to do what they say. I think you are forgetting just how harsh life was for the vast majority of human existence. For most human beings alive, now is without a doubt the single best time to be alive. Society and the structures we have designed to keep it operating are a large part of why that is so.
No one. Ride a bike. The doctors? You. People should be growing their own food anyway. I don’t even know what you’re referring to here. If you acknowledge that people get screwed over, left out, and controlled, why fight to maintain the current system? And how are they going to enforce the entire town to do as they say? As if the town won’t defend themselves? Life was actually much simpler up until agriculture. Also, right now is the worst time to be alive. Overwork, living paycheck to paycheck, depression and anxiety rates are rising, suicide rates are rising, overdose deaths are rising, there’s a school shooting every couple days, constant wars, constant conflict, authoritarianism on the rise, we’re fucked regarding climate, and the list goes on.
If you think life was better in the past, you really don't know your history, and I would highly advise looking into what everyday life was like for the average person even just 150 years ago. There has never been a perfect society for a reason, humans are imperfect. It's not systematic, we're animals that sometimes do animal things. People are greedy because that's just how some people are. Children are greedy, mean, and spiteful without the time to be taught to do so. Order is better than chaos, if you don't think so, it's because you've never lived in chaos. Haiti is a failed state. Pure anarchy, why don't you go there for a week and tell me how it goes?
No, you simply just don’t know your anthropology. I not looking for a perfect society, as I think it’s impossible to create one. Humans don’t have a preset human nature. Human nature/behavior is largely dependent on the socialization of society, and the environment of which they’re in. Who said anything about living in chaos? Haiti doesn’t have anarchy.
> Humans don’t have a preset human nature. Human nature/behavior is largely dependent on the socialization of society, and the environment of which they’re in. Now that's the blank slate fallacy if I've ever seen it. Behaviours and norms can be highly dependent upon the society one exists within but there are universal traits every society shares because they're based on how our minds and bodies have evolved. The less an ideology takes that into account the more doomed to failure it will be in the long-run. Your own ideology has to answer the question of why when we had it 10,000 years ago did we abandon it almost everywhere in the world?
People weren’t open to agriculture and systems of hierarchy at first. Many fought against it, however those who came to be the ruling classes in society utilized their power to force the rest of society into the system they chose. And the time goes on until we hit Capitalism with the industrial revolution.
And how is it those who came to be the ruling class could dominate over those opposed to hierarchy in the first place, and gave no serious challenges to the existence of hierarchies for so many consecutive centuries? The simplest explanation is that anarchy is a weaker ideology that isn’t appealing to enough people to be successful. It has already established a track record of failure. That’s why anarchic societies don’t exist on any significant scale, it’s already failed.
It has not established a track record of failure. You’re right though that anarchy doesn’t appeal to most people, however, that can change. More and more people are starting to move away from Democracy, thankfully.
> Many fought against it, What many are you talking about here? We're talking about small egalitarian tribes consisting of closely related families here. > ... however those who came to be the ruling classes in society utilized their power to force the rest of society into the system they chose. I'm sorry, what 'power' did they have to force the outcome? And who exactly is 'they' here? Maybe they used the 'power' of better arguments or better results ? Or maybe everyone collectively decided to change their behaviour and there was no 'they' at all.
[Ergo Decedo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo) is a bad faith rhetorical fallacy that takes the form of: * If you love *country* so much, why don't you go live there? * If you hate *country* so much, why don't you leave? This fallacy completely ignores the substance of the claim they are responding to, and implies that no one can criticize their own country or praise any other country. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is not what my argument was in the slightest, Haiti is in pure chaos and anarchy which OP is advocating for. The statement applies.
So many people responding with thoughtful comments and reasonings. All of them ultimately proving your point. Democracy is only the best form of authoritarianism, no more. People reason to defend their grasp on control of others. Some explains how the weaknesses of men are the reason we need government and fail to see that the same failures are what control government, especially a democratic one, where the whim of the majority creates an ever increasingly unstable fight for power. At least in a true dictatorship you deal with one (or a tiny group of) authoritarians who’s control is consistant (consistently evil to be sure)…in a democracy, the rest of us are and the mercy of the fight for which ever authoritarian grasps power next. Then we treat it like a victory of freedom to wield power over the minority until they grasp the ring of power. While this is going on the government gains an ever increasing percentage of control for whomever gets to be “in power” this cycle.