If you are a statist, you probably agree with the notion that there are some activities undertaken by people, which should be regulated by the state. Even if you are a minarchist, you probably agree with the statement, that at least some offices should be available only for those who meet certain critiria prescribed by the law, assuring their ability to correctly exercise powers vested in them.
Moreover – if you are an average person, not really interested in politics, but intellectually “flowing” with the mainstream ideas, I bet you think that even some of the professions not necessairly connected to any government activity should be regulated in some way (doctors, lawyers, etc. should be required to have certain formal education confirmed by diplomas and certificates of various nature).
That being said, you are probably a democrat, and not, e.g. a monarchist or a supporter of some kind of mixed govermnent, where rulers are appointed partly by aristocracy having much stronger vote than the rest of the people, and so on.
And why is that so? Why is the idea of letting anyone (competent or not) to vote for a president or a member of parliament that appealing to you? In what way is it reasonable for a respected and well-educated citizen who had never lived on welfare to have a vote of equal power to a vote of someone who is a convicted felon with no knowledge of politics at all and lived all his life only at the expense of taxpayers' money?
Why is this huge inconsistency in the opinions of most of your fellow compatriots (demanding from doctors to have certain level of education while not demanding any from the people who decide who is going to rule the whole state) not even properly discused? Moreover, an attempt to suggest a discussion that challenges the legitimacy of democracy can be even conceived as an act of a secular blasphemy.
People nowdays, especially those thinking of democracy as of one of the greatest inventions in the history of humanity, tend to think of themselves as “rationalists” and so often deny the existence of God. But isn't the believe in righteousness of democracy as unfounded in facts as the believe in the existence of God (and, by the way – more pernicious).
Humans have organized themselves democratically since the invention of language, they organized themselves in groups since they were hunters and gatherers, how would you like society to function?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As far as I know history, there are many alternatives to democracy. For example monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, and other possible mixes of these. That being said, I would like to point out, that in the first "democratic" state of contemporary world, USA (I exclude ancient greece and cities like Athens, where, to be perfectly accurate, not everyone had right to vote - among other groups, women and slaves were excluded), initially only around 10% of inhabitants had the right to vote, because they were required to meet certain critiria (knowledge of the English language, in some states having real property, and so on). This model is far from what we ordinarly today call "democracy".
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Right, I understand that there are alternatives, all the ones you listed are worse, and I understand that there is no country on earth currently, that has a 100% functioning democracy, mostly because the richest people always take over governments and rule. From what you wrote it seems that you don't think a society is able to organize itself democratically, so I am just curious what you think is a better alternative to democracy?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not papinian, but we share some of the ideas (from what I have gathered) and I would say that the best style of government is the one in which the smalles amout of people may rule over other, that means anarchy. If anarchy is not a posible solution then I would say a minarchistic state, preferably a (constitutional) monarchy as monarchy is often cheaper than a republic or democracy, the line of succesion forces the monarch to think not about the nest election but about the country he wil hand over to his children, a long reign wil be beneficial in therms of diplomacy and as a libertarian I wil say that the fact that monarch would not be able to raise taxes or have a deficit in budget and could not make populistic promises to change that is just another positive aspect. And last but not least you have a few people who stand responsible for the governing of the country, that means if somebody fuck up you know where to look for him. The third option is republic, not democracy but republic. it will go quite well for some time, but since the politicians will not care about next elextion and not the benefit of the country it will go down with time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What are the arguments which led you to believe, that all these alternatives are worse than democracy?
Why do you think, that "there is no country on earth currently, that has a 100% functioning democracy, mostly because the richest people always take over governments and rule"? Isn't it rather true, that these rich people rule through democracy by sponsoring politicians who promise to make a payback once they will be in power? Isn't it rather an essential problem of democracy, that average people have no idea about politics and so they usually vote for those who spent a lot of money on the election campaigns and are therefore "lauder" - but not necessarily "better" (however we are going to define this "betterness") than their opponents?
From what I wrote it does not follow that I don't think a society is unable to organize itself democratically. I only suggest, that it is not the best way to organize society, even if we would agree (just for the sake of this discussion) that there should be some form of government in existence.
I think that hereditary monarchy is generally more reasonable way of ruling a country. It is especially evident if we consider the notion known to economists as "time preference" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference ). The time preference of democratically appointed rulers is in most cases much higher than that of a monarch in a hereditary monarchy. Why is that so? Because in democracy, the current group of rulers know that even if some policy is "good" (setting aside the definition of "good") in a long run, it is not a valid argument for them to enact it, since their cadence lasts, let's say 5 years and the good effects of this choice may be observed just after their opponents came to power. On contrary, in a hereditary monarchy, the monarch knows that even if he is not going to see these benevolent effects of his politics, it is his son (or some other member of his dynasty) who is going to be the next ruler, therefore he has incentive to be as good of a ruler as he can - for the sake of wellness/prestige/popularity of his family.
More arguments against democracy and supporting monarchy/aristocracy are presented in this ingenious book by Hans Herman-Hoppe, which I recommend you to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy%3A_The_God_That_Failed
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My arguments are human history, most oppressive monarchies have been destroyed by humans via revolution (some have been taken over peacefully), when the rich have too much power the poor kill them, because there are always more poor people than rich people, that has happened many times in many countries throughout human history.
When the rich take over a government it is no longer a democracy it becomes an oligarchy. The rich do not rule by democracy they destroy democracy and create an oligarchy (they may create an illusion of democracy but when laws/rules are created/destroyed that only benefit the wealthy minority that is not a democracy). The problem with political education is a symptom of oligarchies/monarchies, when the wealthy are in charge they do no adequately fund schools for the majority because an uneducated population is easier to control.
I do not agree that hereditary monarchy is more reasonable, it is just another form of government where the minority wealthy control everyone else.
Democracy does not fail it is destroyed when the wealthy take over a government. Democracy only works when everyone has equal voting power and the decisions made with that voting power benefit the majority of the population. When money is introduced into politics and government officials are bribed and bought the government is no longer a democracy because voting power is no longer equal. If those government decisions continue to increase wealth inequality and the government starts becoming oppressive than we will just have history repeating itself and another revolution...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@originalworks
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @papinian to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit