« Artists are the antennae of the race. »
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Eran wrote:Everybody on this forum seems to agree that democracy, both representative and direct, is highly problematic. Yet we can all agree that it is better than alternative forms of government.
Why don't we draw the logical conclusion, namely that government is inevitably corrupt, and rather than try to reform it, look for alternatives?
The US was founded on the idea of "checks and balances". We now have ample historic evidence that such checks and balances don't work as long as power can be monopolized by a small group of people.
If we adopted free trade and peace as founding principles, and setting aside national defence, what other issues genuinely require a national, rather than local (not state or regional, truly local) government?
And again we see the insurmountable stumbling block of Anarchy as a viable form of politico-social organization - its inability to propose a credible system of dealing with foreign aggression.
Eran wrote:Dealing with foreign aggression has not been credible dealt with by governments.
Anarchists have proposed several mechanisms and reasons to expect that members of an anarchic society would be safer from foreign aggression than comparable members of a state-run society.
In neither case, it should be clear, can total security be guaranteed.
Ombrageux wrote:Have any of you read about ancient Athens? It was the most powerful state in the Greek world and held a vast overseas empire. This was compatible with direct democratic rule (obviously within the constraints of the time, citizens in Athens, no immigrants, women, etc). The mechanisms were of direct democracy however, big decisions of war and law being made by majority vote, politicians and generals being elected every year. Granted, Athens had its fair share of military and political disasters, but the same is true of any state regardless of regime.
Why not repeat the experiment somewhere now that the combination of technology, leisure and education (at least in developed countries) have eliminated all practical obstacles to direct democracy? The ruling class is always tends to become privileged, lawless, and abusive of its power. Why not try a practical mechanism to keep them in check?
septimine wrote:If you put the employees in charge of the store, they vote themselves pay raises whether or not the store is able to support it, or if the money would be better spent trying to grow the business. I'd give that store 6 months before they close. It doesn't work well to let people who feed off of the society decide how much they get, and it doesn't work well to have people who don't understand business deciding how to run a business.
Phred wrote:Tell that to post-1945 European countries whose inhabitants no longer have to worry about being forced to speak German. Or to the inhabitants of South Korea who thank the memory of the Allies every day they don't have to endure the conditions their neighbors to the north do.
Phred wrote:You missed my key qualifier - "credible".
I merely point out that the proposal of Anarchists to deal with foreign aggression without any kind of modern weaponry to speak of will come nowhere within hailing distance of "total security".
Happyhippo wrote:Except that businesses where the workers own the business themselves work out pretty well.
tCan wrote:People would just vote without considering alternative ramifications of the outcome. Like wanting public health care without paying taxes for it. It wouldn't work.
Eran wrote: They are quite rare as soon as you go beyond the family size. They could work, but there is probably a reason why the vast majority of medium to large scale businesses are not organized that way.
newguy wrote: Democracy is defined by each person having equal rights to vote on subjects that affect them; and much of the world's countries follow democracy, although perhaps most (if not all) do not apply it in its direct form. A typical system is that political parties are voted based on their views and then the members of the party may decide on the outcome of subjects raised in parliament. This seems appropriate since it is not feasible to have the entire population of a country in one place to discuss these subjects and vote. However, what results is that many disagree with the choices made by the party which they elected for (perhaps through corruption), but although they have the right to vote on these subjects they are not given the opportunity to do so.
With the presence of the internet, why have countries not employed the idea of enabling the people to on all subjects brought up in parliament and take this power out of the small number of politicians? A website could be developed to enable the public to discuss issues concerning the country, vote on these issues, view the country's budget and spending, make decisions on how it should be spent, etc.
But if that sort of life requires you to forever […]
I think Bernie nailed it in this interview: https[…]
The Times view on tensions between Greece and Tu[…]
@ckaihatsu There is a huge difference betwe[…]