Re: Democracy

[Fade the Butcher]

The idea of democracy is too allow everyone to contribute to an issue from their own perspectives, thereby creating political decisions which take into account how an action affects the entire population rather than a few select individuals.

I have numerous objections to democracy.

1.) Democracy elevates the individual over the collective by according voting rights on an individual basis. This encourages individualism, disunity, selfishness, irreverence and all sorts of other vices that weaken the collective. The weakness of the collective in turn undermines the vulnerable individual.

2.) Democracy reduces the community to the presently living; it is inherently biased in favor of the short term over the long term. The deceased and the unborn possess no voting rights. The wisdom of previous generations and the interests future generations are thus neglected. See abortion on demand and ongoing environmental destruction.

3.) Democracy reduces the qualitative content of social policy to quantitative majorities of individual preferences. This presupposes, of course, that there is no right way to act as such; that this cannot be known and any point of view is just as good as any other. The fool is the equal of the wise. The patriot is the equal of the parasite. Democracy substitutes individual egoism in government for wisdom and good counsel.

4.) Since the quantitative is privileged over the qualitative in democracy, power rests in the ability of politicians to sway the masses. The ignorant are ever more numerous than the wise and thus politics is reduced to the lowest common denominator. The trademark virtue of the democratic politician is not wisdom, but sophistry. He must flatter the masses with artful appeals to their prejudices, emotions, and base selfish interests in order to win elections. The democratic politician is thus rarely a truth teller.

5.) In order to wage a successful campaign, the democratic politician has to get his message out. This requires above all media access and lots of money. This systemic flaw of democracy has two major consequences: it privileges the owners of the discursive means of production and the owners of capital above other citizens. The democratic politician thus becomes a captive of such interests.

6.) The result, of course, is a masked inequality. Power is theoretically equally distributed in the electoral franchise, but in practice this is not the case. The real power in democracy is exercised through other channels (i.e., media power, campaign contributions, and party hierarchies). As Boss Tweed once put it, "I don't care who does the electin', so long as I do the nominatin'." This defeats the whole point of democracy which is give each individual an equal stake in his government.

7.) A democratic government, by its very nature, cannot be a good government, as its purpose is not efficient administration as such, but catering to the interests of powerful special interest groups. The politician is substituted for the statesman. The public purse becomes nothing more than the spoils of whatever coalition of interest groups (i.e., political party) has won an election.

8.) Democratic governments are thus unjust. A good government must concern itself with the common good of all its citizens, not the enrichment of factions at the expense of the whole.

[tempus fugit]

One problem I have with it is that almost all people are able to vote. Thus, your carefully considered, argued, and deliberated vote is cancelled out by a recently immigrated crack addicted welfare mother of eight.

[OVERWATCH]

Democracy needn't mean universal suffrage. One dunce-one vote is dumbocracy.

[cerberus]

I have numerous objections to democracy.


Which in itself allows you to voice them.

[Fade the Butcher]

Which in itself allows you to voice them.

I'm having an election. Would you care to voice your opinion in it?

[OVERWATCH]

1.) Democracy elevates the individual over the collective by according voting rights on an individual basis. This encourages individualism, disunity, selfishness, irreverence and all sorts of other vices that weaken the collective. The weakness of the collective in turn undermines the vulnerable individual.


People do have that individualist streak to them- it's our nature.


2.) Democracy reduces the community to the presently living; it is inherently biased in favor of the short term over the long term. The deceased and the unborn possess no voting rights. The wisdom of previous generations and the interests future generations are thus neglected. See abortion on demand and ongoing environmental destruction.


Again, human nature. The drive to further one's self relative to one's own group has always been very high.

3.) Democracy reduces the qualitative content of social policy to quantitative majorities of individual preferences. This presupposes, of course, that there is no right way to act as such; that this cannot be known and any point of view is just as good as any other. The fool is the equal of the wise. The patriot is the equal of the parasite. Democracy substitutes individual egoism in government for wisdom and good counsel.

It's hard to imagine that many educated and productive populations would stand for not being able to determine their government to an extent. It would work much better with a bunch of serfs.
You must pay attention to the quantitative value of democracy because we no longer live in a world of 2% high quality aristocrats and 98% peasants.


4.) Since the quantitative is privileged over the qualitative in democracy, power rests in the ability of politicians to sway the masses. The ignorant are ever more numerous than the wise and thus politics is reduced to the lowest common denominator. The trademark virtue of the democratic politician is not wisdom, but sophistry. He must flatter the masses with artful appeals to their prejudices, emotions, and base selfish interests in order to win elections. The democratic politician is thus rarely a truth teller.


Remove the civic power from the ignorant ;allow the learned and wise ones to direct things collectively. Who says democracy has to be a republic?

5.) In order to wage a successful campaign, the democratic politician has to get his message out. This requires above all media access and lots of money. This systemic flaw of democracy has two major consequences: it privileges the owners of the discursive means of production and the owners of capital above other citizens. The democratic politician thus becomes a captive of such interests.

Money makes the world go around, it powers our technological and cultural achievements. The best that can be done for a republican government is to force the reps to become like a quasi-religious order which renounces all materialism and must live lives of poverty. A leadership caste, if you will, but elected by the voting caste.

6.) The result, of course, is a masked inequality. Power is theoretically equally distributed in the electoral franchise, but in practice this is not the case. The real power in democracy is exercised through other channels (i.e., media power, campaign contributions, and party hierarchies). As Boss Tweed once put it, "I don't care who does the electin', so long as I do the nominatin'." This defeats the whole point of democracy which is give each individual an equal stake in his government.

Equality before the law is all that can be asked. A radically egalitarian demand that all be effectively equal is a ridiculous demand.

7.) A democratic government, by its very nature, cannot be a good government, as its purpose is not efficient administration as such, but catering to the interests of powerful special interest groups. The politician is substituted for the statesman. The public purse becomes nothing more than the spoils of whatever coalition of interest groups (i.e., political party) has won an election.

A democratic government can be a very efficient form of government, but not modern democracy.

8.) Democratic governments are thus unjust. A good government must concern itself with the common good of all its citizens, not the enrichment of factions at the expense of the whole.

Modern dumbcracy is a farce. Democracy itself has great potential if it is tweaked against it's modern weaknesses.

edit: some mistakes

[Petr]

People do have that individualist streak to them- it's our nature.

Equality before the law is all that can be asked. A radically egalitarian demand that all be effectively equal is a ridiculous demand.
I agree with these statements.


Petr

[tempus fugit]

Democracy needn't mean universal suffrage. One dunce-one vote is dumbocracy.

Democracy has never meant universal suffrage. I think we all agree that there are people who shouldn't be allowed to vote. The question is how deep in the bucket should we allow suffrage. Must the person be a high school graduate? People on welfare? College? Ex-felons? Women? Immigrants? etc.

[tempus fugit]

A democratic government can be a very efficient form of government, but not modern democracy.

Modern dumbcracy is a farce. Democracy itself has great potential if it is tweaked against it's modern weaknesses.

How, specifically, would you tweak it?

[OVERWATCH]

There can be different layers to voting. For instance, landholders and landholders only should be allowed votes with regards to levies and taxes against their land. Also, tests could be used for various 'spheres' of government, for instance 1. foreign affairs 2. cultural affairs 3. econmics, etc., which would give that citizen a right to vote in that sphere, and possibly(hopefully) multiple spheres.

As we know, today's world is extremely complex and people in first/second world nations are far more specialised than ever.

[Jonathan]

I have numerous objections to democracy.
While your criticisms may be valid, I see no better alternative.

1.) Democracy elevates the individual over the collective by according voting rights on an individual basis. This encourages individualism, disunity, selfishness, irreverence and all sorts of other vices that weaken the collective. The weakness of the collective in turn undermines the vulnerable individual.
The existance of competative-altruism, amoral-familism, and social-cleavages (Lipset & Rokkan) show that individualism isn't necessarily the product of democracy. The "Political Culture" (which is a product of other factors in society) of the enfranchised determines individualism (or the lack of).

2.) Democracy reduces the community to the presently living; it is inherently biased in favor of the short term over the long term. The deceased and the unborn possess no voting rights. The wisdom of previous generations and the interests future generations are thus neglected. See abortion on demand and ongoing environmental destruction.
Maybe so, but how are we(the present) to know what would be in posterities best interest anyway?

3.) Democracy reduces the qualitative content of social policy to quantitative majorities of individual preferences. This presupposes, of course, that there is no right way to act as such; that this cannot be known and any point of view is just as good as any other. The fool is the equal of the wise. The patriot is the equal of the parasite. Democracy substitutes individual egoism in government for wisdom and good counsel.
1)Better Ochlocracy than Tyranny and Oligarchy.
2)The majority are not necessarily the least intelligent. The least knowledgeable, perhaps, but this is part of the Political Culture (and society at large) not necessarily democracy itself.

4.) Since the quantitative is privileged over the qualitative in democracy, power rests in the ability of politicians to sway the masses. The ignorant are ever more numerous than the wise and thus politics is reduced to the lowest common denominator. The trademark virtue of the democratic politician is not wisdom, but sophistry. He must flatter the masses with artful appeals to their prejudices, emotions, and base selfish interests in order to win elections. The democratic politician is thus rarely a truth teller.
The politician is in the pocket of others (as you allude to further on). Furthermore, the "masses" and the "ignorant" are driven by the social norms (political culture) which is set by a minority.

5.) In order to wage a successful campaign, the democratic politician has to get his message out. This requires above all media access and lots of money. This systemic flaw of democracy has two major consequences: it privileges the owners of the discursive means of production and the owners of capital above other citizens. The democratic politician thus becomes a captive of such interests.
This is the main problem with democracy. The "owners of the discursive means of production and the owners of capital" set the agenda (what a candidate runs for, what an electorate votes for). This is why Liberalism, Individualism, Consumerism etc is the norm, because it is the will of that minority. They control the Political culture.

6.) The result, of course, is a masked inequality. Power is theoretically equally distributed in the electoral franchise, but in practice this is not the case. The real power in democracy is exercised through other channels (i.e., media power, campaign contributions, and party hierarchies). As Boss Tweed once put it, "I don't care who does the electin', so long as I do the nominatin'." This defeats the whole point of democracy which is give each individual an equal stake in his government.
Are 5) and 6) not the same?

7.) A democratic government, by its very nature, cannot be a good government, as its purpose is not efficient administration as such, but catering to the interests of powerful special interest groups. The politician is substituted for the statesman. The public purse becomes nothing more than the spoils of whatever coalition of interest groups (i.e., political party) has won an election.
This is only a problem when the "special interest groups" are only out for their own interests (Oligarchy). Were it the case that the "special interest groups" were concerned with the general good, then democracy would work out for the better. Once again, the problem is the political culture of these interest groups.

8.) Democratic governments are thus unjust. A good government must concern itself with the common good of all its citizens, not the enrichment of factions at the expense of the whole.
The problem is that Democracy (which should serve the general good) is just set up to control "factions" (Fed 10.), which at the moment do not serve the common good, but this is not necessarily the permenant state of any society.

If it were the case that one lived in a democracy where the population belonged to one uniform culture, with the best interests of the collective at heart, those enfranchised would consistantly return to office those best fit to serve that end.

The task is moulding those enfranchised into a uniform culture (through State education, religion, compulsory service etc whatever) that would value the whole collective.

The problem is that the Libertarian Proffesional class runs an Oligarchy.

[Jonathan]

People do have that individualist streak to them- it's our nature.
I disagree - amoral familism for example.

Modern dumbcracy is a farce. Democracy itself has great potential if it is tweaked against it's modern weaknesses.
I agree. It is a case of changing the political culture (through mass media perhaps, although this would necessitate a change in the mentality of the Libertarian class who run the media, and I can't see this happening).

[Jonathan]

There can be different layers to voting. For instance, landholders and landholders only should be allowed votes with regards to levies and taxes against their land.
Rationalists would argue that this would lead to "no taxation" which would be bad for the collective in the long run.

[OVERWATCH]

How, specifically, would you tweak it?

Establishment of an executive leadership caste which is bound by oaths of poverty and rejection of materialism, elected by the voting caste(which would be probably half the population or so)

Movement from one caste to another would be possible, as long as that person me the requirements of material status or intelligence.

Democracy works best on a local level, so a confederacy would be preferrable, but the central government cannot be too weak.

[OVERWATCH]

Rationalists would argue that this would lead to "no taxation" which would be bad for the collective in the long run.

Sounds possible until one sees how many yuppies who own $200,000 McMansions here that vote for the ever present come tax-time school levy.

[Jonathan]

Establishment of an executive leadership caste which is bound by oaths of poverty and rejection of materialism
Complete Ascetics? Can't see that happening(and even if it did, they'd probably be head-the-balls and not statesmen).

elected by the voting caste(which would be probably half the population or so)
Why about half?

Democracy works best on a local level, so a confederacy would be preferrable, but the central government cannot be too weak.
Where to strike the balance?

[Fade the Butcher]

People do have that individualist streak to them- it's our nature. Again, human nature. The drive to further one's self relative to one's own group has always been very high.

I disagree. By nature, human beings are social and tribal. We cooperate with each other more than we compete. Individualism is actually a modern phenomena. The notion of a distinct human self lacking any essential place or collective has only emerged in the West during the last few centuries.

It's hard to imagine that many educated and productive populations would stand for not being able to determine their government to an extent.

These people by and large don't determine the policies of their governments. They participate in elections and that gives them the feeling that their voices are being heard, but power doesn't actually work that way.

It would work much better with a bunch of serfs.

The medieval serf had a much more realistic view of the world.

You must pay attention to the quantitative value of democracy because we no longer live in a world of 2% high quality aristocrats and 98% peasants.

I think that is the key to the success of democracy. It gives the masses the illusion of representation and equality, but the substance of power remains in the hands of wealthy elite that governs in its own interests. The wealthy own vast propaganda machines which systematically lie to the general public about the nature of their own interests.

Remove the civic power from the ignorant ;allow the learned and wise ones to direct things collectively. Who says democracy has to be a republic?

I personally believe government should be a profession like any other practice.

Money makes the world go around, it powers our technological and cultural achievements.

Money corrupts government just like it corrupts music.

The best that can be done for a republican government is to force the reps to become like a quasi-religious order which renounces all materialism and must live lives of poverty.

You are going beyond republicanism here.

A leadership caste, if you will, but elected by the voting caste.

The ignorant have a hard enough time understanding their own true interests. It seems unreasonable to me to expect them to know what is best for society as a whole.

Equality before the law is all that can be asked. A radically egalitarian demand that all be effectively equal is a ridiculous demand.

I would say this is already asking too much.

A democratic government can be a very efficient form of government, but not modern democracy.

How is democracy efficient? Is it an efficient way for special interest groups to exploit the resources as society as a whole?

Modern dumbcracy is a farce. Democracy itself has great potential if it is tweaked against it's modern weaknesses.

How can democracy be reformed?

[Ahknaton]

In my opinion democracy is an abomination and should be abolished in favour of some form of authoritarian rule, possibly modelled after Lee Kwan Yew's successful stewardship of Singapore (Singapore is nominally a democracy, but it is essentially a farce and not worthy of the name, which earns it my admiration not approbation).

However if some limited franchise is to be allowed in a hypothetical White ethno-state, it should obviously be restricted on a racial basis, since those outside the race do not have an interest in maintaining the genetic basis of the national identity and will therefore tend towards the cosmopolitan/universalist policies that are in place now.

[Fade the Butcher]

While your criticisms may be valid, I see no better alternative.

I have put forth a better alternative in the past.

The existance of competative-altruism, amoral-familism, and social-cleavages (Lipset & Rokkan) show that individualism isn't necessarily the product of democracy.

Democracy presupposes individualism. Does democracy create individualism? Not necessarily. It stems from it.

The "Political Culture" (which is a product of other factors in society) of the enfranchised determines individualism (or the lack of).

Clarify.

Maybe so, but how are we(the present) to know what would be in posterities best interest anyway?

This wouldn't be a problem. It is not the role of the common man to decide such things. That is the role of the statesman.

1)Better Ochlocracy than Tyranny and Oligarchy.

Democracy is just a useful front for oligarchy in our society.

2)The majority are not necessarily the least intelligent.

The majority are of average intelligence.

The least knowledgeable, perhaps, but this is part of the Political Culture (and society at large) not necessarily democracy itself.

Is it wise to let the least knowledgeable run anything?

The politician is in the pocket of others (as you allude to further on). Furthermore, the "masses" and the "ignorant" are driven by the social norms (political culture) which is set by a minority.

This is what I said in my post.

This is the main problem with democracy. The "owners of the discursive means of production and the owners of capital" set the agenda (what a candidate runs for, what an electorate votes for). This is why Liberalism, Individualism, Consumerism etc is the norm, because it is the will of that minority. They control the Political culture.

Yes. They are a faction that rules over the populace and exploits it in accordance with their own selfish interests. They get away with this because they own the media and deluge the public with propaganda.

Are 5) and 6) not the same?

They are part of the same argument, yes.

This is only a problem when the "special interest groups" are only out for their own interests (Oligarchy).

Perhaps I should use democracy/oligarchy from now on as they are essentially the same thing these days.

Were it the case that the "special interest groups" were concerned with the general good, then democracy would work out for the better.

Why would they be concerned with the general good?

Once again, the problem is the political culture of these interest groups.

Then how should the political culture be set? Are you suggesting here that some higher power should set the political culture?

The problem is that Democracy (which should serve the general good) is just set up to control "factions" (Fed 10.), which at the moment do not serve the common good, but this is not necessarily the permenant state of any society.

The whole idea of democracy is based on individualism which is radically opposed to such collectivism.

If it were the case that one lived in a democracy where the population belonged to one uniform culture, with the best interests of the collective at heart, those enfranchised would consistantly return to office those best fit to serve that end.

Democracy does not work that way in reality.

The task is moulding those enfranchised into a uniform culture (through State education, religion, compulsory service etc whatever) that would value the whole collective.

You are already moving away from democracy. In such a society, philosophers would establish an educational cirriculum which would mold politicians into statesmen concerned only with the common good. Now what does that sound like? :p

The problem is that the Libertarian Proffesional class runs an Oligarchy.

And maintain their legitimacy with an electoral puppet show in which real substantial issues are rarely addressed.

[Leif]

I have numerous objections to democracy.

1.) Democracy elevates the individual over the collective by according voting rights on an individual basis. This encourages individualism, disunity, selfishness, irreverence and all sorts of other vices that weaken the collective. The weakness of the collective in turn undermines the vulnerable individual.

How does collective decision making undermine the collective? Everyone votes based upon their individual situation, and when all votes are combined one gets an idea of whether an action will benefit most people. Compare this to oligarchy or monarchy where a few select individuals are able to exploit the weakness of others for their own gain, and in doing so undermine society as a whole.

Were the American people given a chance to vote on the war in Iraq?

Were the American people given a chance to vote whether Central American immigrants should be transported by corporations into food processing plants in Carolina?

Were we given the chance to vote on whether our wages should be sabotaged by millions of desperate immigrants that breed like rabbits and abuse our health care system?

Fact: When polled, the MAJORITY, approximately 70% of citizens, believe the government should do more about immigrants. http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

Hell, the Minutemen, many of which are retired individuals, have taken it upon themselves to patrol the border because our corrupt government-oligarchy refuses to do so.

2.) Democracy reduces the community to the presently living; it is inherently biased in favor of the short term over the long term. The deceased and the unborn possess no voting rights.

The same "present living" could apply to any other type of political organization. How is this inherent in democracy?

The wisdom of previous generations and the interests future generations are thus neglected. See abortion on demand and ongoing environmental destruction.

The oligarchs are the ones selling out the nation for cheap-wages and government subsidies. You can't seriously think that working people profit most from environmental destruction.

3.) Democracy reduces the qualitative content of social policy to quantitative majorities of individual preferences. This presupposes, of course, that there is no right way to act as such; that this cannot be known and any point of view is just as good as any other.

No it doesn't. "Political quality" depends on the calibre of the people and not the arrangement of their political organization. Democratic republics actually have basic principles from which they act, unlike hereditary monarchies or oligarchies.

The fool is the equal of the wise. The patriot is the equal of the parasite. Democracy substitutes individual egoism in government for wisdom and good counsel.

There have been many foolish and inept leaders in all systems.

4.) Since the quantitative is privileged over the qualitative in democracy, power rests in the ability of politicians to sway the masses. The ignorant are ever more numerous than the wise and thus politics is reduced to the lowest common denominator. The trademark virtue of the democratic politician is not wisdom, but sophistry. He must flatter the masses with artful appeals to their prejudices, emotions, and base selfish interests in order to win elections. The democratic politician is thus rarely a truth teller.

The majority of people are ignorant because the powerful few desire it.

5.) In order to wage a successful campaign, the democratic politician has to get his message out. This requires above all media access and lots of money. This systemic flaw of democracy has two major consequences: it privileges the owners of the discursive means of production and the owners of capital above other citizens. The democratic politician thus becomes a captive of such interests.

This is the problem with "bourgeois democracy." It will never work as planned because political equality is impossible with economic inequality. The latter translates into power over the former.

6.) The result, of course, is a masked inequality. Power is theoretically equally distributed in the electoral franchise, but in practice this is not the case. The real power in democracy is exercised through other channels (i.e., media power, campaign contributions, and party hierarchies). As Boss Tweed once put it, "I don't care who does the electin', so long as I do the nominatin'." This defeats the whole point of democracy which is give each individual an equal stake in his government.

I completely agree.

7.) A democratic government, by its very nature, cannot be a good government, as its purpose is not efficient administration as such, but catering to the interests of powerful special interest groups. The politician is substituted for the statesman. The public purse becomes nothing more than the spoils of whatever coalition of interest groups (i.e., political party) has won an election.

The purpose of democracy is not catering to special interest groups. Such groups are inherently anti-democratic and their power exists in their ability to sway elected officials with bribes and personal profit. Again, this would not exist in an actual democracy.

8.) Democratic governments are thus unjust. A good government must concern itself with the common good of all its citizens, not the enrichment of factions at the expense of the whole.

This is the problem with our current oligarchy.

Money makes the world go around, it powers our technological and cultural achievements. The best that can be done for a republican government is to force the reps to become like a quasi-religious order which renounces all materialism and must live lives of poverty. A leadership caste, if you will, but elected by the voting caste.

Or make society such that private property, and thus private profit, can not exist.

Equality before the law is all that can be asked.

There can be no social/judicial equality unless there is economic equality. The wealthy few will always be able to manipulate the system in their favor otherwise.

The ignorant have a hard enough time understanding their own true interests. It seems unreasonable to me to expect them to know what is best for society as a whole.

The majority of people are kept ignorant. People aren't supposed to "know what's best for society as a whole" in a democracy, rather they are supposed to put forward what they believe is best for themselves, and when this individual "will" is combined with the "will of the people," a consensus of action is formed. The political body as a whole becomes something more than a merely a collection of atomized parts.

The idea that group of people would completely transcend their own desires for the good of the collective is a fantasy. That is the flaw with the "benevolent dictator" and "philosopher king" types of government. Individuals obey the collective on the condition that the collective represents their will as a whole.


A summary of my thoughts:

-"Democracy" as it exists fails for one reason: in a society where individual profit gives social power- collective action will always be sabotaged.

-Individual interests can never be removed because all life fights for its own interests. However, collective interest is often tied with the individual. What's good for society as a whole is usually good for everyone in the long-term.

[Björn]

My argument is two-fold. One is on the political practicality the other is on an esoteric matter in that it is based on secular and materialistic principles.

This idea that democracy some how brings about "rights" and "freedom" is an illusion. Since democracy's popularity boom the amount of laws and regulations applying to the average man has sky rocketed. Not only that but real freedoms such as owning land, supporting a family are outweighed in the realm of emphasis by base desires and vice. The vast majority of any society is often cattle-like and turns the focus of leadership from quality of life to quantity of life.

[Pablo Escobar]

1.) Democracy elevates the individual over the collective by according voting rights on an individual basis. This encourages individualism, disunity, selfishness, irreverence and all sorts of other vices that weaken the collective. The weakness of the collective in turn undermines the vulnerable individual.

Humans are born selfish, individualistic, disunited, selfish and irreverent.
Without those 'faults' humans would be insects.

In fact, the very people who created the world we live in and shaped it
with their inventions, art and thought were selfish and individualistic.

Hive-minded drones are only good for sustaining other people's lifestyles
which bring actual progress once in a while.

IMO democracy doesn't exist.
It's just a front for a system
where big businesses decide the fate of the world.

[Jonathan]

I have put forth a better alternative in the past.
If your "better alternative" was that "Class of Statesmen who are educated do legislate for the common good in a society of guilds" that you were posting about before, then I'm not convinced. My problem with the system which you were advocating is/was that it would degenerate into Oligarchy, and I'd rather Ochlocracy (due to simple mathematics).

I doubt that we can come to an agreement on this issue.

Democracy presupposes individualism. Does democracy create individualism? Not necessarily. It stems from it.
That's my point. Democracy doesn't create individualism. Individualism comes from else where - the Political Culture.


Clarify.
The Political culture, as in, the mores of society.

In America, for example, this would be individualism, consumerism, materialism, liberalism, anti-authoritarianism etc. which came about through the American nations historical development (the former 3 or 4 driven by Capitalism/Puritan work-ethic, the latter 1 or 2 from the anti-British rule feeling of the first colonies).

Similarly, scholars have argued that the political culture of 1910s Ireland, for example, was characterised by nationalism, authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, personalism, and amoral familism (the 1st coming from the anti-British sentiments, the second and third from strict Catholicism, and the fourth and fifth from isolated, rural, parochialism).

This political culture in turn determines which way people will vote (and which parties/candidates even run). Thus in America you get the Republicans and the Democrats, while in Ireland we got the Home Rulers and Sinn Féin.

This wouldn't be a problem. It is not the role of the common man to decide such things. That is the role of the statesman.
lol. Are you saying "it wouldn't be a problem because you[us/anyone] are the common man, and it wouldn't be your business to decide, so you can just leave it up to the Statesmen." ?

What I was asking though was "How are we(the present[Statesmen included]) to know what would be in posterities best interest anyway?".

Why/How would todays greatest minds be sure of posterities best interests?

Democracy is just a useful front for oligarchy in our society.
This is true. Like I posted myself, it's the Libertarian, Professional class who set the agenda.

The majority are of average intelligence.
That's my point. There is the potential that the majority can be educated and outnumber the least intelligent, thus democracy need not necessarily cater to the most ignorant above all others.

Is it wise to let the least knowledgeable run anything?
No, of course not. My point is that the majority need not be the least knowledgeable. There will always be a minority who know more, but there may be a minority who know less, thus the majority is not the least knowledgeable.

This is what I said in my post.
I felt that it was of such importance to me that I would repeat it myself. I was agreeing with you.

Perhaps I should use democracy/oligarchy from now on as they are essentially the same thing these days.
I would second that.

Why would they be concerned with the general good?
They wouldn't. That's the problem, not just with democracy, but with humanity.

Then how should the political culture be set? Are you suggesting here that some higher power should set the political culture?
This would probably have to be the case (like I said, democracy isn't ideal, just the best of a bad lot - all systems degenerate).

The whole idea of democracy is based on individualism which is radically opposed to such collectivism.
Democracy may be based on individualism, but not the other way around.

Democracy does not work that way in reality.
True, either the collective would do-away with such pointless democracy, or else degenerate, themselves.

You are already moving away from democracy. In such a society, philosophers would establish an educational cirriculum which would mold politicians into statesmen concerned only with the common good. Now what does that sound like? :p
When you were posting about your ideal system a while ago, I asked you who would set the ball rolling, you replied "for now, I get to be king maker".

Well now I'm saying "Ideally, I'd set the political culture, and be king maker" :p

I recognise that in every democracy there will be agenda-setters (hence I agree with your designation - democracy/oligarchy). Still I'd rather this than Tyranny or Oligarchy (I'm certain that all Monarchy and Aristocracy would/will degenerate into Tyranny and Oligarchy) with an unsatisfied subject population. At least in the Democracy/Oligarchy the majority are blissfully ignorant and/or submissively tolerant.

I suppose this comes down to my views on the bovine existance.


[edited] Oh, I suppose that if I were part of the ruling elite, then I wouldn't mind what system I was part of, but I tend to see myself as one of the common people in all scenarios (Because I always think in terms of the general good :p).

[Leif]

Like I posted myself, it's the Libertarian, Professional class who set the agenda.

That's not the best way to describe it. The ruling class of an oligarchy is never "libertarian." They only oppose the state when it attempts to curb their profits, but they have no inherent problem with the state itself. The United States and China actively support their business elites. NAFTA/CAFTA and other "free trade agreements" have the specific goal of cheapening the cost of labor and reducing taxes for the business elite. These things benefit the wealthy but hurt everyone else.

[Vindex]

I don't mind the way the Spartans did there government, you really had to earn your right to have a say in the government. Now any two bit retard is allowed to have a say no matter how worthless. Democracy runs on the lie of equality knowing that, it should be obvious by the fruits of democracy where it has existed and still exists just how corrupt and destructive of a system it really is, and how it always ends.

A natural/Folk based meritocracy, where one is allowed to pursue there talent to the fullest and thus doing so put it to use for the greater good of the whole while at the same time enjoying doing there job, and has a basic set of rights. And the State is run by the best of the Folk who have proven thought service and intelligence they are best for it. The State needs to be run with the welfare of the People in mind and needs to be understood as a service to the whole not selfish power holding. The ruling group must be the greatest and most wise of guardians and honest servants of the Folk.

I can see over time in a system such as that the Castes being naturally created and acting as a balance. At the same time in a Folk State there has to be a powerful Folk based religion/Tradition to act as the fixed pole and gule of society. A Race is both a spiritual componet and physical one. A Folk starts to degenerate when the spiritual wanes, then it becomes manifest in the physical as today shows.

[Fade the Butcher]

Humans are born selfish, individualistic, disunited, selfish and irreverent.

Humans are not born as individualists.

Without those 'faults' humans would be insects.

There are several species of insects that actually have a lot in common with humans. Ants transform their environment in significant ways and live in complex social hierarchies. Bees (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=36156#post36156) are also capable of abstract thought.

In fact, the very people who created the world we live in and shaped it with their inventions, art and thought were selfish and individualistic. Hive-minded drones are only good for sustaining other people's lifestyles
which bring actual progress once in a while.

I don't buy into the theory of individual genius. Genius is a social product. The people who have done the most to shape the world we live in did so by drawing upon the resources of others and working within the context of practices and traditions.

IMO democracy doesn't exist. It's just a front for a system where big businesses decide the fate of the world.

It exists at a theoretical level, but I agree that it is largely a facade for oligarchic power.

[Jonathan]

That's not the best way to describe it.
Probably not.

The ruling class of an oligarchy is never "libertarian."
I disagree with this. I think it is reasonable to say that the current ruling class are Libertarians (certainly in Ireland, and also in the US as far as I can see).

They only oppose the state when it attempts to curb their profits, but they have no inherent problem with the state itself.
1)Isn't that the definition of a Libertarian though? One who advocates maximum individual freedom and minimum state intervention? If they opposed the satte constantly, then I'd call them Anarchists.
2)On another point, I disagree with the way that you say "they[Liberarian elite] oppose the state[legislators]" as if we are talking about two distinct groups. The whole point of the matter is that the Libertarians almost are the state in so far as they control it.

The United States and China actively support their business elites.
For Libertarians by Libertarians (doesn't have the same ring to it as FUBU).

NAFTA/CAFTA and other "free trade agreements" have the specific goal of cheapening the cost of labor and reducing taxes for the business elite. These things benefit the wealthy but hurt everyone else.
What about the increased productivity? Where's Otto to defend capitalism! :p

[Eddy]

Isn't that the definition of a Libertarian though? One who advocates maximum individual freedom and minimum state intervention?

The American ruling class certainly doesn't do this, unless one thinks Ron Paul rules the US.

Taxation used for social programs, foreign inverventionism and aid, the War on Drugs and Poverty, business regulations which favor large corporations at the expense of small business, anti-discrimination laws, and the growing insertion of government regulation into the everyday life of the citizens is not libertarian.

You live in a representative democracy which merges some liberal and conservative elements, since the populace is a mix of more liberal-minded and conservative-minded folk. The country as a whole certainly isn't liberal and individualistic. Even a large portion of people inappropriately called liberal are often just authoritarian-minded progressives. The people who complain on the internet about individualism are usually more individualistic in practice than the population at large, which generally just blends into society and goes along with everything without giving things a second thought.

The individualist vs collectivist argument is a false dichotomy. Societies and humans are a blend of both tendencies. The "individualist" is usually just saying that the "collective" should not rule over every aspect of someone's life by force of government decree. Many libertarians stress the importance of voluntary collectives over state force, which they view as alienating and counterproductive.

[Jonathan]

The American ruling class certainly doesn't do this, unless one thinks Ron Paul rules the US.
Of course I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, America seems to be relatively right-wing on economics and relatively left-wing on social policy. I'd call that Libertarianism. How and ever . . .

Taxation used for social programs, foreign inverventionism and aid, the War on Drugs and Poverty...
American taxation is much lower than most European states though, no?

business regulations which favor large corporations at the expense of small business
A lack of regulations(free market) usually suits large corporations over small businesses (laissez-faire capitalism...libertarian economics). I don't profess to be an expert in American economics but the proliferation of MacDonald's, Walmart etc at the expense of indigenous business looks like the free market to me. You could probably fill me in though.

anti-discrimination laws
Is just one example (in fact, it is a by product of left-wing social policy). On the other side though, you've got Gay Pride Movements, Feminism, Minority Pride movements, diverging tastes in music, art, film etc.

and the growing insertion of government regulation into the everyday life of the citizens is not libertarian.
What regulation (apart from what you've just mentioned)? When was the last time George W. told Rupert Murdoch where to stick it?

You live in a representative democracy which merges some liberal and conservative elements, since the populace is a mix of more liberal-minded and conservative-minded folk.
That's true, although the mentality of the "Dortlanders" is ever disproportionately prevalent.

The country as a whole certainly isn't liberal and individualistic.
We're certainly turning that way though (driven by the Dortlanders).

Even a large portion of people inappropriately called liberal are often just authoritarian-minded progressives.
Maybe so, but there is a clear mentality among most Dortlanders.

The people who complain on the internet about individualism are usually more individualistic in practice than the population at large, which generally just blends into society and goes along with everything without giving things a second thought.
This is an irony of many internet users (among several others) that I am all too aware of.

The "individualist" is usually just saying that the "collective" should not rule over every aspect of someone's life by force of government decree.
I think they go a tad further than that.

Welcome back btw.

[Thomas777]

The individualist vs collectivist argument is a false dichotomy. Societies and humans are a blend of both tendencies. The "individualist" is usually just saying that the "collective" should not rule over every aspect of someone's life by force of government decree. Many libertarians stress the importance of voluntary collectives over state force, which they view as alienating and counterproductive.

Libertarians operate under the delusion that there exists some discernable cleft between public and private authority.

[Kodos]

Libertarians operate under the delusion that there exists some discernable cleft between public and private authority.

I think you are talking more about nutcase ancaps rather then minarchists.

[Leif]

Of course I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, America seems to be relatively right-wing on economics and relatively left-wing on social policy. I'd call that Libertarianism. How and ever . . .

A libertarian wants a free market, that is, no state intervention and no monopolies. That is the complete opposite of the United States.

The State gives contracts to dozens of big companies in Iraq (Halliburton), practically handing out billions.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/contracts/iirii.html

Less than 200 companies in the U.S. own 1/3 of our 12 trillion-dollar GNP.

http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-2000/U.S.%20leads%20the%20pack.htm
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

[Jonathan]

A libertarian wants a free market, that is, no state intervention and no monopolies.
eh, I thought that would go under "Anarchist" rather than Libertarian.

That is the complete opposite of the United States.
Come on, it's not as if the US government "owns the means of production" in America now is it? I don';t think you're comparing like with like here.

The State gives contracts to dozens of big companies in Iraq (Halliburton), practically handing out billions.
Leting them run free in Iraq, that's quite lassez-faire to me. It's not as if the US owns those companies.

Less than 200 companies in the U.S. own 1/3 of our 12 trillion-dollar GNP.
Would you not say that this has more to do with the free market(Capitalism leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of the few etc - Marx) than state intervention?

[Eddy]

Of course I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, America seems to be relatively right-wing on economics and relatively left-wing on social policy. I'd call that Libertarianism. How and ever . . .

"Right-wing" and "left-wing" are not political parties. Both the economic and social sphere of American life are entwined with government intervention. Government inserts itself into business with anti-discrimination law, minimum wage law, disabilities act, environmental regulations, and corporate welfare. None of these are libertarian.

The goverment inserts itself into private life with the war on drugs, various sexual laws which are relics of old religious values (sodomy laws, laws against polygamy, etc), and family law.

Again, not libertarian.

American taxation is much lower than most European states though, no?

Relatively lower taxes than governments which tax at very high levels does not make a government libertarian. Libertarians at most support taxes for things like defensive military. The astronomical levels of bureaucracy and pork in the American government makes me wonder how anyone could think of it as even remotely libertarian.

A lack of regulations(free market) usually suits large corporations over small businesses (laissez-faire capitalism...libertarian economics). I don't profess to be an expert in American economics but the proliferation of MacDonald's, Walmart etc at the expense of indigenous business looks like the free market to me. You could probably fill me in though.

Ok, as an example - large corporations can afford to pay an increasinly high mininum wage. They aren't going to go out of business by needing to comply with regulations, where as smaller businesses who need all the edge they can are slowed down by increasing numbers of speed bumps. Large corporations also have the influence to gain pork at taxpayer expense.

Is just one example (in fact, it is a by product of left-wing social policy). On the other side though, you've got Gay Pride Movements, Feminism, Minority Pride movements, diverging tastes in music, art, film etc.

Those groups are also balanced by large portions of the populace who do not support such things. In the US, there are very large "Family Values" lobbies, for example. If one can point to a gay pride rally to claim that the US is liberal, why can't another point to the Christian Right to claim that it's not? The US is obviously a mix of competing values and interests, much like the rest of the world.

[Eddy]

eh, I thought that would go under "Anarchist" rather than Libertarian.

No, that is libertarian.

The difference between minarchist libertarians and anarchist libertarians is that minarchists believe that a state is legitimate for protecting citizens from force and fraud, whereas the anarchists believe no state is morally legitimate and that private, voluntary networks are the only moral defenses from force and fraud.

[Fade the Butcher]

If your "better alternative" was that "Class of Statesmen who are educated do legislate for the common good in a society of guilds" that you were posting about before, then I'm not convinced.

That would the system I am referring to.

My problem with the system which you were advocating is/was that it would degenerate into Oligarchy, and I'd rather Ochlocracy (due to simple mathematics).

I don't see how it my system would degenerate into oligarchy, as excessive wealth amongst the political class would be proscribed. Plato himself argued in favor of outlawing private property altogether amongst the Guardians. Democracy, on the contrary, quite often goes hand in hand with rule by the wealthy. Contemporary America is a good example of this.

I doubt that we can come to an agreement on this issue.

We should first try to establish some common ground and then proceed to reason from these principles. I think we agree on more than we disagree.

That's my point. Democracy doesn't create individualism. Individualism comes from else where - the Political Culture.

Democracy, as far as I am concerned, is more of an effect of individualism than a cause of it. This isn't to say that democracy doesn't lend itself to advancing individualism. It does. The chain of causation operates in both directions. Individualism is a bourgeois philosophy that ultimately stems from the underlying economic structure.

The Political culture, as in, the mores of society.

The mores of society are established by elites.

In America, for example, this would be individualism, consumerism, materialism, liberalism, anti-authoritarianism etc. which came about through the American nations historical development (the former 3 or 4 driven by Capitalism/Puritan work-ethic, the latter 1 or 2 from the anti-British rule feeling of the first colonies).

Doesn't this typology of characteristics run hand in hand with political democracy? See the funeral oration of Pericles here.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/PERICLES.HTM

Similarly, scholars have argued that the political culture of 1910s Ireland, for example, was characterised by nationalism, authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, personalism, and amoral familism (the 1st coming from the anti-British sentiments, the second and third from strict Catholicism, and the fourth and fifth from isolated, rural, parochialism).

I would guess that Ireland was a far poorer country back then that it is today. This would suggest to me that the Irish are now far more liberal, individualistic, and materialistic. Is this the case?

This political culture in turn determines which way people will vote (and which parties/candidates even run).

But what determines the political culture?

Thus in America you get the Republicans and the Democrats, while in Ireland we got the Home Rulers and Sinn Féin.

The Irish really aren't that different than Americans. Ireland, in essence, is a bourgeois liberal democracy like all other Western nations.

lol. Are you saying "it wouldn't be a problem because you[us/anyone] are the common man, and it wouldn't be your business to decide, so you can just leave it up to the Statesmen." ?

I am saying that it wouldn't be up to the common man to concern himself with such questions.

What I was asking though was "How are we(the present[Statesmen included]) to know what would be in posterities best interest anyway?".

The statesmen, of course, are educated and bred to successfully carry out their role. The education of statesmen would be of the upmost importance in society a society. There would be no greater priority.

Why/How would todays greatest minds be sure of posterities best interests?

I am not suggesting here that the statesmen or anyone could possess absolute knowledge of what is forever in the best interests of society. This is the whole point of tradition: it enables a practice to progress towards its telos across time through the accumulation of new knowledge. What is the methodology that is to be used here? Reason, of course.

This is true. Like I posted myself, it's the Libertarian, Professional class who set the agenda.

I agree.

That's my point. There is the potential that the majority can be educated and outnumber the least intelligent, thus democracy need not necessarily cater to the most ignorant above all others.

The majority are not necessarily the least intelligent. They fall somewhere in between the two extremes. As for educating the masses, I strongly disagree with this idea, as it is asking to much of the common man to immerse himself in the intricacies of statecraft. Democracy, however, by its nature does cater to the ignorant layman. It empowers, above everyone else, the moron by raising him to the same level as the mediocre. It disempowers, above all else, the most exceptional statesman who becomes just another voice in the crowd.

No, of course not. My point is that the majority need not be the least knowledgeable. There will always be a minority who know more, but there may be a minority who know less, thus the majority is not the least knowledgeable.

I will grant the point. The majority would still be less knowledgeable than the professional statesman, though.

They wouldn't. That's the problem, not just with democracy, but with humanity.

I would like to think that this isn't an intrinsic human failing. The oldest idea of government in the history of mankind is that the object of government is promotion of the general welfare.

This would probably have to be the case (like I said, democracy isn't ideal, just the best of a bad lot - all systems degenerate).

How could such an education be established in a democracy except through democratic methods?

Democracy may be based on individualism, but not the other way around.

I would say that democracy can advance individualism; that democracy and individualism typically go hand in hand. I wouldn't say that it causes individualism so much as it is an effect of it. Individualist sentiments are usually prevelant before they come to fruition in political democracy.

When you were posting about your ideal system a while ago, I asked you who would set the ball rolling, you replied "for now, I get to be king maker".

Such a society could come about in either one of two ways:

1.) Through a revolution in which philosophers establish the fundamentals of government in its immediate aftermath. This is hardly unprecedented. The American system actually got rolling in this way.

2.) Through a gradual transformation of the existing system in which the advisors of a tyrant are such philosophers. See Leo Strauss.

Well now I'm saying "Ideally, I'd set the political culture, and be king maker"

Sure. You can do that in an exercise in pure theory.

I recognise that in every democracy there will be agenda-setters (hence I agree with your designation - democracy/oligarchy). Still I'd rather this than Tyranny or Oligarchy (I'm certain that all Monarchy and Aristocracy would/will degenerate into Tyranny and Oligarchy) with an unsatisfied subject population. At least in the Democracy/Oligarchy the majority are blissfully ignorant and/or submissively tolerant. I suppose this comes down to my views on the bovine existance.

I would say that oligarchy and tyranny are preferable to democracy in that it is easier to transform the existing system. A philosopher, for example, might bring about significant reform by advising one mere tyrant who wields absolute power. In any case, democracy is never really that separate from oligarchy and is usually just a pacifier for the masses.

Oh, I suppose that if I were part of the ruling elite, then I wouldn't mind what system I was part of, but I tend to see myself as one of the common people in all scenarios (Because I always think in terms of the general good :p).

Isn't the general good best served by people who have been raised and instructed from birth to be absolutely concerned with it above else, as opposed to career politicians who are the representatives of powerful financial/media interests?

[Kodos]

I don't see how it my system would degenerate into oligarchy,

You don't... I think it starts out that way even.

as excessive wealth amongst the political class would be proscribed.

The ruling class except in a dictatorship or monarchy doesn't have to follow any rules...

[Fade the Butcher]

You don't... I think it starts out that way even.

We are discussing abstract theory in this case, not practice.

The ruling class except in a dictatorship or monarchy doesn't have to follow any rules...

Why do you obey the law, Weikel? Is it because you 1.) fear the use of force by the government or 2.) because you have become accustomed to doing so through habit?

[Fade the Butcher]

Libertarians operate under the delusion that there exists some discernable cleft between public and private authority.

Libertarianism is one of the more retarded variants of liberalism. Modern liberals realized long ago that concentrated economic power was far more of a menace to individual liberty than the state. This is why they are so concerned with distributive justice questions.

[Jonathan]

"Right-wing" and "left-wing" are not political parties.
When did I say that they were?

Both the economic and social sphere of American life are entwined with government intervention.
You make it sound as if the US is run by an authoritarian regime. The US is a very liberal country by international standards (the Muslims wont even let you publish cartoons!).

Government inserts itself into business with anti-discrimination law, minimum wage law, disabilities act, environmental regulations, and corporate welfare. None of these are libertarian.
Like I said to Ymir, it's as if you're equating Libertarianism with Anarchism.

The goverment inserts itself into private life with the war on drugs, various sexual laws which are relics of old religious values (sodomy laws, laws against polygamy, etc), and family law.
See above.

Relatively lower taxes than governments which tax at very high levels does not make a government libertarian.
But who are you to say that those governments "tax at very high levels". At least I use the word "relatively" alot.

Libertarians at most support taxes for things like defensive military.

The astronomical levels of bureaucracy and pork in the American government makes me wonder how anyone could think of it as even remotely libertarian.
"Astronomical levels of bureaucracy" ? Over hear, about 33% of people are employed by the State. You can keep your "astronomical calculator" to yourself thank you.

Ok, as an example - large corporations can afford to pay an increasinly high mininum wage. They aren't going to go out of business by needing to comply with regulations, where as smaller businesses who need all the edge they can are slowed down by increasing numbers of speed bumps. Large corporations also have the influence to gain pork at taxpayer expense.
Laissez-Faire Capitalism...concentration of wealth...few hands...Marx. See my reply to Ymir.

Those groups are also balanced by large portions of the populace who do not support such things.
Your point being (keeping in mind that I never said that all Americans were Libertarians)?

In the US, there are very large "Family Values" lobbies, for example.
The very fact that these exist at all is less of an indication as to the right-wing social mores of America as it is an indication of the liberal, freedom of speech, democratic, factionalist(Fed 10.) mentality - now I'm sure you'd like to reply with "but hate speachs! curtailment of civil liberites! ect" but in realty this doesn't hold up.

If one can point to a gay pride rally to claim that the US is liberal, why can't another point to the Christian Right to claim that it's not?
Because the fact that both exist is testiment to the liberal nature of the country (freedom of speach, democracy, factionalist etc).

The existance of a Christian Right does not prove that a state is conservative. The absence of a liberal left/right does.

The US is obviously a mix of competing values and interests, much like the rest of the world.
Certain traits are identifiable.

[Kodos]

Discussing abstract theory when it comes to politics is useless and even dangerous.

And If I don't like a law its definitely #1, I obey out of fear of punishment... Not that I would steal or kill people in some imaginary island of virtuous men if it lacked law.

[Kodos]

Libertarianism is one of the more retarded variants of liberalism. Modern liberals realized long ago that concentrated economic power was far more of a menace to individual liberty than the state. This is why they are so concerned with distributive justice questions.

Modern "liberals" are generally authoritarian progressives and socialists and their thinking tends to be emotionally or worse messianically driven. You give them way too much credit if you think most of them think like Teddy Roosevelt.

[Fade the Butcher]

Discussing abstract theory when it comes to politics is useless and even dangerous.

Why? I would say that political theory flourishes best when the disaffected lack a practical political outlet.

And If I don't like a law its definitely #1, I obey out of fear of punishment... Not that I would steal or kill people in some imaginary island of virtuous men if it lacked law.

I don't think most people really act this way. They obey the law because they become accustomed to it, in essence, trained. Things like stopping at stop signs and red lights become reflexive.

[Kodos]

They obey the law because they become accustomed to it, in essence, trained. Things like stopping at stop signs and red lights become reflexive.

Most of the time I stop at stop signs 1) because if there is a car coming the other way I don't want to get hit, not that dying in a car accident bothers me so much Im concerned that I might live( if Im paralyzed so much the worse) and I don't have collision. If its late at night and I can see no one is around I suppose Im afraid of a camera( they have those now) or a speed trap.

[Fade the Butcher]

Modern "liberals" are generally authoritarian progressives and socialists and their thinking tends to be emotionally or worse messianically driven. You give them way too much credit if you think most of them think like Teddy Roosevelt.

There are three major versions of liberalism:

1.) Classical Liberalism. Modern American conservatives. They tend to be socially collectivist, but economically individualist (i.e., abortion should be illegal, but the income tax is just, well, horrible).

2.) Reform Liberalism. Modern American liberals. They tend to be socially individualist, but economically collectivist (i.e., let gays marry, but use the state to redistribute wealth on a progressive basis)

3.) Libertarianism. A motely crew of libertine deviants, anarchist perverts, asocial nihilists, narcissists, beatnik expressivists, heartless capitalists of legend. They are both socially and economically liberal in their politics.

[Kodos]

2.) Reform Liberalism. Modern American liberals. They tend to be socially individualist, but economically collectivist (i.e., let gays marry, but use the state to redistribute wealth on a progressive basis)


My point is that they don't think like TR( ie concentrated economic power can be as bad as state power) they think more like Woodrow Wilson( messianic and emotional "uplifters" in the Mencken sense, wants to control everything and make it how they want).

I tend towards laissez faire economics and don't think the state should concern itself with morality too much but ain't a libertarian. I'd do very bad things to anti nuclear activists, most lawyers, and muslims for instance.

[Fade the Butcher]

My point is that they don't think like TR( ie concentrated economic power can be as bad as state power) they think more like Woodrow Wilson( messianic and emotional "uplifters" in the Mencken sense, wants to control everything and make it how they want).

They think like John Rawls. The freedom of the individual, not the common good of the collective, is still their primary interest. They are in favor of passing laws to curtail excessive economic power in order to promote individual freedom. This is not socialism.

I tend towards laissez faire economics and don't think the state should concern itself with morality too much but ain't a libertarian.

The state has no interest in the quality of its citizens? There is no fundamental difference between the bad ones and the good ones?

I'd do very bad things to anti nuclear activists, most lawyers, and muslims for instance.

I am often amused by people who claim the most litigiousness societies are the just ones.

[Eddy]

When did I say that they were?

"Left" and "Right" wing have become meaningless by attaching the label to GOP and DP policies.

You make it sound as if the US is run by an authoritarian regime. The US is a very liberal country by international standards (the Muslims wont even let you publish cartoons!).

It is not. As I've said before, the US is a representative demoracy which is a combination of both some liberal and conservative elements. A government full of people who organize into special interest groups and seek to regulate and impose increasing laws on other citizens is not libertarian, nor individualist.

Like I said to Ymir, it's as if you're equating Libertarianism with Anarchism.

A minarchist libertarian believes in minimal government. "Smaller government than Sweden and Saudia Arabia" is not minimal.

But who are you to say that those governments "tax at very high levels". At least I use the word "relatively" alot.

In contrast to what libertarians generally believe the taxation level should be, it's high. The spending is very high. Even Republicans are now competing on some fronts on how much tax money they spend.

"Astronomical levels of bureaucracy" ? Over hear, about 33% of people are employed by the State. You can keep your "astronomical calculator" to yourself thank you.

Again, smaller government than the USSR doesn't make a government minimal.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism...concentration of wealth...few hands...Marx. See my reply to Ymir.

I'm afraid you aren't making a case by tossing out catch phrases. We don't live in a laissez-faire capitalist society.

Your point being (keeping in mind that I never said that all Americans were Libertarians)?

My point is that the society as a whole isn't all liberal or conservative. America is a large, diverse country full of conflicting views and values.

The very fact that these exist at all is less of an indication as to the right-wing social mores of America as it is an indication of the liberal, freedom of speech, democratic, factionalist(Fed 10.) mentality - now I'm sure you'd like to reply with "but hate speachs! curtailment of civil liberites! ect" but in realty this doesn't hold up.

It doesn't hold up to claim that all it takes is for people with different perspectives to exist at all in a country for it to be totally "liberal." If there is a country in existence that doesn't have groups within divided by religion or political affiliation, I'd like you to let me know about it.

Democracy is not liberal or conservative, as we can see by elections in the middle east and local politics in many rural areas of the West.

Because the fact that both exist is testiment to the liberal nature of the country (freedom of speach, democracy, factionalist etc).

Different perspectives exist in every country, Shane. There are different factions in middle eastern countries. Does that make them liberal?

The existance of a Christian Right does not prove that a state is conservative. The absence of a liberal left/right does.

No, it doesn't prove that a state is conservative any more than gay lobbies prove that it's liberal. The American government is a mix of competing elements.

[Kodos]

The state has no interest in the quality of its citizens? There is no fundamental difference between the bad ones and the good ones?

Punish actual crime harshly but don't interfere with the order of things... the way Britain was before the labor party.

[Kodos]

"Astronomical levels of bureaucracy" ? Over hear, about 33% of people are employed by the State. You can keep your "astronomical calculator" to yourself thank you.

In the US its still around 20%, with another 20% indirectly making their living off government money. That isn't small.

[Eddy]

[i]
Punish actual crime harshly but don't interfere with the order of things... the way Britain was before the labor party.

What is a bored Philosopher King to do if he's restricted to signing execution papers for murderers and thieves? It would be more fun to turn society upside down periodically based on the theory of the month.

[Jonathan]

That would the system I am referring to.
OK, well as I said, I'm not convinced, we'll get to the bones of it later in the post . . .

I don't see how it my system would degenerate into oligarchy
Well the Statesmen will have to be replaced eventually (due to old age, or whatever). Who will appoint the next Statesmen? The masses :eek:? Surely not(:p)! The Statesmen themselves? And what is to stop those Statesmen from abusing their duty to appoint new Statesmen? I'm thinking primarily of nepotism. Ideally, the Statesmen would be above this, but personally I think that would be unntaural/inhuman of them. To prevent this, the Statesmen would have to be eunuchs of some sort, and I'm not so sure that an individual brainwashed into becomeing a eunch would be best suited to governance. How would you prevent the corruption of appointing new Statesmen?

as excessive wealth amongst the political class would be proscribed.
Ascetics? This is alot to ask of a Statesman (ideally your education system would be up to the task, but I have my doubts already!). It may also have the effect of divorcing them from the realities of living for the masses (once again, the education system would have to prevent this but...).

Plato himself argued in favor of outlawing private property altogether amongst the Guardians.
Who would foot the bill for their maintenace? A taxation on the other castes? (uh, down to the mundain of economics again :()

Democracy, on the contrary, quite often goes hand in hand with rule by the wealthy. Contemporary America is a good example of this.
Tru dat, tru dat.

We should first try to establish some common ground and then proceed to reason from these principles.
Fire away.

I think we agree on more than we disagree.
We do certainly.

Democracy, as far as I am concerned, is more of an effect of individualism than a cause of it. This isn't to say that democracy doesn't lend itself to advancing individualism. It does.
I agree with this also.

The mores of society are established by elites.
Most of the time by elites. Sometimes by collective experience as well though IMO.

Doesn't this typology of characteristics run hand in hand with political democracy?
Yes of course it does. That's why "democracy" (democracy/oligarchy ;)) is so entwinded in the American psychy.

I would guess that Ireland was a far poorer country back then that it is today. This would suggest to me that the Irish are now far more liberal, individualistic, and materialistic. Is this the case?
Certainly(not as much as Americans by the looks of it, but definitely drifting that way). I mentioned the "Dortlanders" in a reply to Eddy. They are the "Libertarian professional class" that run Ireland.

But what determines the political culture?
The elites and/or collective experience.

The Irish really aren't that different than Americans. Ireland, in essence, is a bourgeois liberal democracy like all other Western nations.
Yes, I never suggested otherwise (I stated that my Irish Political Culture example was set in the 1910s and always used the past tense as far as I could). In fact, if it wasn't, I probably wouldn't be on the Phora!:p

I am saying that it wouldn't be up to the common man to concern himself with such questions.
So I shouldn't worry about it. OK ;). But for arguements sake . . .

The statesmen, of course, are educated and bred to successfully carry out their role. The education of statesmen would be of the upmost importance in society a society. There would be no greater priority.
I'm still (and perhaps always will be) sceptical about the motivation/intentions of the elite (any authority for that matter). I suppose it's just in my nature (I'd be one of those guys who'd have to be distracted by "sports" or some such in such a society :p).

I am not suggesting here that the statesmen or anyone could possess absolute knowledge of what is forever in the best interests of society.
Aw shucks, for a minute, I thought you were going to try to tell the future (or ideal government of the future).

This is the whole point of tradition: it enables a practice to progress towards its telos across time through the accumulation of new knowledge. What is the methodology that is to be used here? Reason, of course.
OK agreed.

As for educating the masses, I strongly disagree with this idea, as it is asking to much of the common man to immerse himself in the intricacies of statecraft.
I don't think you'd have to educate as to the "intricacies", just to the point that they vote in their own [collective] best interests. Now I know that Aristotle says "men are not good judges where their own interests are concerned" and all, but I'm just talking about a general level, just enough so that they aren't dependant on an aristocracy/statesmen caste which would eventually act in its own interests.

Democracy, however, by its nature does cater to the ignorant layman. It empowers, above everyone else, the moron by raising him to the same level as the mediocre. It disempowers, above all else, the most exceptional statesman who becomes just another voice in the crowd.
The problem with disenfranchising any element of society is that they are likely to be forgotten about (in terms of legislation) because they command no electoral clout (this also goes for non-voters in todays world).

I will grant the point. The majority would still be less knowledgeable than the professional statesman, though.
Ture.

I would like to think that this isn't an intrinsic human failing.
I'm as big a fan of the collective as you, and I'm all for group action, but I'm always sceptical of people's actions (I should get checked for neurosis by the way I'm describing myself in this thread). Nepotism may set in (love for one's family above others is natural) for example. This need not destroy the collective, but it does creat internal conflict. Such conflict leads to the (thus far) never ending cycle of leaders and followers.

How could such an education be established in a democracy except through democratic methods?
Like I said, for now, I get to be king-maker. If you're asking me for an actually system that works IRL that will solve mankinds problems, eh, give me a while.

1.) Through a revolution in which philosophers establish the fundamentals of government in its immediate aftermath. This is hardly unprecedented. The American system actually got rolling in this way.
It seems very distant...but possible I suppose.

2.) Through a gradual transformation of the existing system in which the advisors of a tyrant are such philosophers. See Leo Strauss.
see above.

Sure. You can do that in an exercise in pure theory.
Theory it will have to be. Like I said, I haven't got a system IRL yet :(

I would say that oligarchy and tyranny are preferable to democracy in that it is easier to transform the existing system. A philosopher, for example, might bring about significant reform by advising one mere tyrant who wields absolute power. In any case, democracy is never really that separate from oligarchy and is usually just a pacifier for the masses.
That's exactly why I prefer democracy to tyranny and oligarchy. Because fewer people are conciously hurt (back to my ideas on the bovine existance again).

Isn't the general good best served by people who have been raised and instructed from birth to be absolutely concerned with it above else, as opposed to career politicians who are the representatives of powerful financial/media interests?
Of course (but I'm sceptical of the former's ability too).

[Fade the Butcher]

Shane,

You are fundamentally right. The U.S. is an extremely liberal country and has been moving in a libertarian direction. Just listen to the rhetoric of both the left and the right in America. How is it that conservatives and liberals are both so distressed about the state of contemporary America? Answer: It is precisely because the issues that matter the most to the political bases of both parties, that is, social issues for conservatives and economic issues for liberals are the ones that are neglected in favor of the libertarian agenda of the cosmpolitan elite.

[Leif]

eh, I thought that would go under "Anarchist" rather than Libertarian.

Anarchists want a communal economy, economic/political equality, and no hierarchy. Libertarians want a free market, only political equality (not possible), and don't mind hierarchy so long as its voluntary.


Come on, it's not as if the US government "owns the means of production" in America now is it? I don';t think you're comparing like with like here.

A government does not need to own anything in order to influence the market. Tariffs, taxes, minimum wage, etc, are all examples of state influence in the economy without actually owning any property.

Leting them run free in Iraq, that's quite lassez-faire to me. It's not as if the US owns those companies.

Running free? If it wasn't for tremendous government contracts, none of the companies rebuilding Iraq would be there.

Would you not say that this has more to do with the free market(Capitalism leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of the few etc - Marx) than state intervention?

Lenin noted the increase in monopolies in the West, but a society with monopolies doesn't really have a "free market." The monopolization of capitalism and state-intervention go hand-in-hand. The original bourgeois class only had libertarian attitudes towards politics because it was useful in smashing down inefficient fuedal kingdoms that made trade unprofitable.

[Eddy]

The U.S. is an extremely liberal country and has been moving in a libertarian direction.

This could be said by someone who has no clue what a libertarian is and has no clue what direction the country is moving in.

Just listen to the rhetoric of both the left and the right in America. How is it that conservatives and liberals are both so distressed about the state of contemporary America?

They both seek to impose their complete worldview on others, yet due to the conflicting nature society and the representative democratic process, they end up with parts of the competition imposed on them and only fragments of their own agenda succeeding. It's also easier to rally people to a political party and cause by getting hysterical and shouting DOOM and GLOOM. The story of Chicken Little is an old one.

Answer: It is precisely because the issues that matter the most to the political bases of both parties, that is, social issues for conservatives and economic issues for liberals are the ones that are neglected in favor of the libertarian agenda of the cosmpolitan elite.

I guess one could say they have a libertarian agenda if one has no clue what a libertarian is.

[Kodos]

What is a bored Philosopher King to do if he's restricted to signing execution papers for murderers and thieves? It would be more fun to turn society upside down periodically based on the theory of the month.

I'd be executing more people then that, this Danish cartoon thing has removed all doubt on the necessity for a final solution to Muslim problem...

I don't think you'd be bored as autocrat... too many people would be trying to overthrow you.

[Eddy]

Running free? If it wasn't for tremendous government contracts, none of the companies rebuilding Iraq would be there.

Correct, but we can go back further and take note that an interventionist, militant foreign policy is incompatible with libertarianism.

Aggressive force and fraud are the two main Sins for libertarians.

[Jonathan]

"Left" and "Right" wing have become meaningless by attaching the label to GOP and DP policies.
That's not what I asked you though. Just forget it.

It is not. As I've said before...
Well if this is the Gospel according to Eddy then...:p

OK sorry.

the US is a representative demoracy which is a combination of both some liberal and conservative elements.
Nobody is disputing this. You originally pulled me over on my comments about the Libertarian elite setting the political agenda, now you've moved the goal posts to include the country at large :nono:

A minarchist libertarian believes in minimal government.
No, a Libertarian . believes in minimal government. Is this gone to semantics already?

"Smaller government than Sweden and Saudia Arabia" is not minimal.
That's why I use words like relative.

In contrast to what libertarians generally believe the taxation level should be, it's high. The spending is very high. Even Republicans are now competing on some fronts on how much tax money they spend.
The Libertarian control also needs to be seen in terms of a continuing trend, not just a de facto existance. Because Lenin wanted a Communist Russia when he was in power doesn't mean it came about over night.

P.S. Don't try turning that around and say "oh so now you don't think America is Libertarian" because that's clearly not my point.

Again, smaller government than the USSR doesn't make a government minimal.
Eh, that was my point, that you can't just makes comments like that, they have to be seen as being relative to others.

I'm afraid you aren't making a case by tossing out catch phrases. We don't live in a laissez-faire capitalist society.
OK, so what do you live in? A Marxist Paradise? I think an honest opinion would be that Amerrica has relatively little state intervention in the economic sphere (hence all of your multinational corporations and the promotion of globalization and multiculturalism).

My point is that the society as a whole isn't all liberal or conservative. America is a large, diverse country full of conflicting views and values.
Nice straw man, have at him! :p

It doesn't hold up to claim that all it takes is for people with different perspectives to exist at all in a country for it to be totally "liberal."
True, but that's not my point. The notion of the right to stand up for what you believe in (as ingrained in the American psychy) and the institutionalisation of factions/pressure groups in American politics (democracy) does though (as opposed to dictatorships, authoritarianism, Mao's Democracy...).

If there is a country in existence that doesn't have groups within divided by religion or political affiliation, I'd like you to let me know about it.
The Principality of Sealand (google it :p)

Democracy is not liberal
I'd say it's comes from Liberal Bourgeois Philosophy.

Different perspectives exist in every country, Shane. There are different factions in middle eastern countries. Does that make them liberal?
dealt with.

The American government is a mix of competing elements.
This is itself a liberal idea.

P.S. We seem to be drifting off the original topic.

[Jonathan]

Anarchists want a communal economy, economic/political equality, and no hierarchy.
Don't equate Anarchism with Anarch-Communism.

A government does not need to own anything in order to influence the market. Tariffs, taxes, minimum wage, etc, are all examples of state influence in the economy without actually owning any property.
True, but my point is that even those (tariffs, taxes, minimum wage) are relatively libertarian in America.

Running free? If it wasn't for tremendous government contracts, none of the companies rebuilding Iraq would be there.
But the whole mentality of Globalization (which is what is being pushed here) is driven by the Capitalist end of Libertarianism. Which brings us back to the original point - America is a relatively Libertarian entity. Would you not agree?

Lenin noted the increase in monopolies in the West, but a society with monopolies doesn't really have a "free market." The monopolization of capitalism and state-intervention go hand-in-hand. The original bourgeois class only had libertarian attitudes towards politics because it was useful in smashing down inefficient fuedal kingdoms that made trade unprofitable.
Are you not agreeing with me here?

[Jonathan]

Correct, but we can go back further and take note that an interventionist, militant foreign policy is incompatible with libertarianism.

Aggressive force and fraud are the two main Sins for libertarians.
But Globalisation certainly isn't.

[Kodos]

"Imperialism" I believe is a neccessity for civilization to survive, wogs and moon worshippers can't have nuclear weapons or they'll use them eventually.

[Eddy]

Well if this is the Gospel according to Eddy then...:p

I am just describing the reality, not creating a cult.


Nobody is disputing this. You originally pulled me over on my comments about the Libertarian elite setting the political agenda, now you've moved the goal posts to include the country at large :nono:

There isn't a libertarian elite. You haven't been able to make a case how an elite that supports government intervention in both the econonomic and social spheres of life is libertarian.

No, a Libertarian . believes in minimal government. Is this gone to semantics already?

The US isn't minimal government. It's not even close.

That's why I use words like relative.

In this case, using relativity just results in the total rape of clear definitions and concepts. By using relativity, you can claim that the elite of a world superpower that believe in not only imposing their will on US citizens by force, but throughout the world, is "libertarian" because the tax rate is lower than in Western Europe and gay pride lobbies are allowed. Yet, when we look at actual libertarian principles, we see that the elite are not libertarian at all!

The Libertarian control also needs to be seen in terms of a continuing trend, not just a de facto existance. Because Lenin wanted a Communist Russia when he was in power doesn't mean it came about over night.

First off, "libertarian control" is scooting pretty close to an oxymoron. Libertarians reject controlling others through force and fraud. That is a central principle to their ideology. The US elite have no such qualms.

As for continuing trends, the US government has been growing in size!

OK, so what do you live in? A Marxist Paradise? I think an honest opinion would be that Amerrica has relatively little state intervention in the economic sphere (hence all of your multinational corporations and the promotion of globalization and multiculturalism).

America and Canada are both mixed economies. We have private business bound by some government regulation and taxation to create a "safety net."

The US also practices protectionism while giving lip service to "free trade."

True, but that's not my point. The notion of the right to stand up for what you believe in (as ingrained in the American psychy) and the institutionalisation of factions/pressure groups in American politics (democracy) does though (as opposed to dictatorships, authoritarianism, Mao's Democracy...).

Free speech is part of the liberal influence on American society. Government action that stretches beyond it's own borders to crack down on a mild herb is one of those very non-liberal aspects of the American government and society. If this mythical "libertarian elite" existed, such a thing would not be happening.

[Fade the Butcher]

Well the Statesmen will have to be replaced eventually (due to old age, or whatever). Who will appoint the next Statesmen?

Yes. The statesmen would matriculate through the academies into government. The majority of statesmen would be bureaucrats of some form of another.

The masses :eek:? Surely not(:p)!

The bureaucracy is not democratically elected. My system would entail the complete professionalization of politics on the model of other practices. The mundane tasks of administration and policymaking even today are carried out for the most part by a non-elected elite.

The Statesmen themselves?

Absolutely. The statesman would be subdivided into various categories though, as I have explained before.

And what is to stop those Statesmen from abusing their duty to appoint new Statesmen? I'm thinking primarily of nepotism.

This is the most important question of all. My answer to this is relatively straightforward: no artful combination of institutions, constitutional ingenuity, and/or checks and balances will suffice to remedy poor character in a statesman. This is why, as Plato has explained, the education of the statesmen is of such critical importance. The statesmen must be trained, bred, and educated under the most rigorous and demanding cirriculum to have nothing but the upmost respect for justice and morality.

Ideally, the Statesmen would be above this, but personally I think that would be unntaural/inhuman of them.

I don't think so. I would say that the true statesman, as opposed to the liberal democratic politician, loves justice for its own sake. It stems naturally from his character to promote the general welfare as opposed to his own self interest.

To prevent this, the Statesmen would have to be eunuchs of some sort, and I'm not so sure that an individual brainwashed into becomeing a eunch would be best suited to governance.

Perhaps. The practice of clerical marriage was similarly done away with to discourage nepotism. It was largely effective.

How would you prevent the corruption of appointing new Statesmen?

A constitution, for one, would be necessary. I have grown fond of constitutions, as they are fundamentally anti-democratic instruments.

Ascetics?

I don't think so. IMO the type of people who are interested in the practice of statecraft are not all that interested in money.

This is alot to ask of a Statesman (ideally your education system would be up to the task, but I have my doubts already!).

It is entirely feasible. There have been several religious orders throughout European history that taken vows of poverty. The Franciscans and the Cistercians come to mind. Both developed an enormously popular following.

It may also have the effect of divorcing them from the realities of living for the masses (once again, the education system would have to prevent this but...).

Such a society would be premised upon the idea of mutual obligation.

Who would foot the bill for their maintenace? A taxation on the other castes? (uh, down to the mundain of economics again).

The productive classes, of course.

Fire away.

I would say that we both agree that collective is prior to the individual; that the individual has duties to the collective. If that is the case, then it is our task to establish the nature of such duties.

Most of the time by elites. Sometimes by collective experience as well though IMO.

Aye. There are few absolutes in social science.

I'm still (and perhaps always will be) sceptical about the motivation/intentions of the elite (any authority for that matter). I suppose it's just in my nature (I'd be one of those guys who'd have to be distracted by "sports" or some such in such a society :p).

This isn't unreasonable. We have always lived under bad government.

I don't think you'd have to educate as to the "intricacies", just to the point that they vote in their own [collective] best interests.

This would be superfluous if we had a professional class of statesman whose sole role was to properly order society. Suppose we did enfranchise the masses. Nothing would change. They would still take their queues from the mass media and other opinion makers.

Now I know that Aristotle says "men are not good judges where their own interests are concerned" and all, but I'm just talking about a general level, just enough so that they aren't dependant on an aristocracy/statesmen caste which would eventually act in its own interests.

Each segment of society would be dependent on the others in some way. The model is the human body. The statesmen, for example, would depend upon the productive classes for their sustenance. The productive classes depend upon the statesmen for leadership. It would make no sense for the statesmen to harm the productive classes, as they would be injuring themselves in the process.

The most dangerous situation arises primarily when the two classes reach a point where they no longer need each other. This is the case today in modern Western democracies where first world capital is deserting first world labor. A revolutionary situation is in the making here.

The problem with disenfranchising any element of society is that they are likely to be forgotten about (in terms of legislation) because they command no electoral clout (this also goes for non-voters in todays world).

You can't forget about the masses if you depend upon them for your survival. Similarly, you can't forget about your leaders if you are incapable to defending your own interests.

Nepotism may set in (love for one's family above others is natural) for example. This need not destroy the collective, but it does creat internal conflict. Such conflict leads to the (thus far) never ending cycle of leaders and followers.

Such a system, of course, would be no utopia. The possiblity of corruption would always be present. The real question is how can it most effectively be addressed.

Like I said, for now, I get to be king-maker. If you're asking me for an actually system that works IRL that will solve mankinds problems, eh, give me a while.

Heh. Okay. :p

[Kodos]

Yes. The statesmen would matriculate through the academies into government. The majority of statesmen would be bureaucrats of some form of another.

Okay if you want to adopt the modern Chinese system I'd be the last one to object. No fucking eunuchs, celibacy or anything like that... the catholic church's problem is that they're all faggots because of that.

[Fade the Butcher]

I'd be executing more people then that, this Danish cartoon thing has removed all doubt on the necessity for a final solution to Muslim problem

The multicultural countries of Western Europe are working just fine. There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. The source of such Muslim angst stems from their social condition as an economic underclass, not from any social distress over those who engage in blasphemy against their prophet.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/CaliThief/3islam.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/CaliThief/1islam.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/CaliThief/5islam.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/CaliThief/4islam.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/CaliThief/2islam.jpg

[Kodos]

The sick thing is that the police are protecting them... in a more minarchist type society they'd be massacred by an angry mob. In a healthy authoritarian state, as opposed to a liberal self destructive nanny state like modern Britain, they'd be surrounded by the army and massacred.

[Fade the Butcher]

Shane,

I think you are wasting your time responding to irrational straw man arguments, as no society is absolutely free or absolutely tyrannical, and you have not asserted this is the case. Is American society characterized by excessive social and economic freedom? Absolutely. Has American society become more socially and economically liberal in the last twenty years? Yes, it has. We can fairly say that America is a relatively libertarian country.

[Eddy]

The sick thing is that the police are protecting them... in a more minarchist type society they'd be massacred by an angry mob. In a healthy authoritarian state, as opposed to a liberal self destructive nanny state like modern Britain, they'd be surrounded by the army and massacred.

In a real libertarian (liberal) society, the populace would be free to discriminate against them, would not be funding their arrival via refugee programs and welfare, and would be able to publish displeasure without fear of government "race relations" bureaucrats punishing them.

[Atlas]

So they were 300 angry muslims protesting in the streets of London ? So what ? They are not even taken seriously by the majority of the muslim population.

[Eddy]

We can fairly say that America is a relatively libertarian country.

Relatively compared to what?

The US government has been growing in size for quite some time. Governmenet is inserted in both business and private life through a network of various laws and regulations. No one has explained how this is libertarian.

Ignore when you can't refute.

[Fade the Butcher]

The sick thing is that the police are protecting them... in a more minarchist type society they'd be massacred by an angry mob.

Yes. I personally think it is wonderful to see liberalism devour itself. The presence of such large unassimilable minorities is already systematically eroding civil liberties in the UK (i.e., Blair's recent blasphemy law). The situation will only grow worse for British liberals as the Islamic population expands demographically. A tipping point will be reached where they eventually will have to make a choice: accept the right of the Islamic population to democratically abolish liberalism or repudiate liberalism and resort to illiberal methods to deal with this nuisance.

In a healthy authoritarian state, as opposed to a liberal self destructive nanny state like modern Britain, they'd be surrounded by the army and massacred.

I agree.

[Kodos]

Yes. I personally think it is wonderful to see liberalism devour itself. The presence of such large unassimilable minorities is already systematically eroding civil liberties in the UK (i.e., Blair's recent blasphemy law). The situation will only grow worse for British liberals as the Islamic population expands demographically. A tipping point will be reached where they eventually will have to make a choice: accept the right of the Islamic population to democratically abolish liberalism or repudiate liberalism and resort to illiberal methods to deal with this nuisance.

This doesn't mean you have to abandon "liberalism" in the classic sense entirely, you just don't deal with organized troublemakers that way.

[Eddy]

I think people who want to abolish classical liberalism should just join up with the Islamists. What are their objections to Islam?

[Fade the Butcher]

This doesn't mean you have to abandon "liberalism" in the classic sense entirely, you just don't deal with organized troublemakers that way.

It means essentially this: that the common good of society, in this case, requires authoritarian measures to repress individual freedom. You are right in that this does not require the repudiation of some forms of classical liberalism. John Locke, for example, was entirely in favor of outlawing Puritanism and Catholicism. Such views, of course, are anathema to modern liberals, though.

[Kodos]

It means essentially this: that the common good of society, in this case, requires authoritarian measures to repress individual freedom.

I would agree, but this should be crisis situations and such measures should be as swift and brutal as possible and not constituent a standing and permanent curb on the freedom of the populace.

[Fade the Butcher]

I would agree, but this should be crisis situations and such measures should be as swift and brutal as possible and not constituent a standing and permanent curb on the freedom of the populace.

Carl Schmitt's legal decisionism would definitely interest you.

[Eddy]

I would agree, but this should be crisis situations and such measures should be as swift and brutal as possible and not constituent a standing and permanent curb on the freedom of the populace.

There is also no rule stating that to be liberal, one must support immigration of religous fanatics who are opposed to liberalism. Progressive Egalitarianism and liberalism are two different things.

[Kodos]

There is also no rule stating that to be liberal, one must support immigration of religous fanatics who are opposed to liberalism. Progressive Egalitarianism and liberalism are two different things.

I wasn't saying that at all, immigrants are not "the populace" they are foreigners and don't nessecarily have any rights even under a regime that would otherwise be called "liberal".

[Fade the Butcher]

I wasn't saying that at all, immigrants are not "the populace" they are foreigners and don't nessecarily have any rights even under a regime that would otherwise be called "liberal".

Check this out. I took it from the platform of the U.S. National Libertarian Party.

LP (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#immigrat)

Immigration

The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

[Eddy]

I wasn't saying that at all, immigrants are not "the populace" they are foreigners and don't nessecarily have any rights even under a regime that would otherwise be called "liberal".

I know, and exactly. :)

As it is now, the wise leaders and bureaucrats are trying to force acceptance via illiberal methods.

[Petr]

John Locke, for example, was entirely in favor of outlawing Puritanism and Catholicism. Such views, of course, are anathema to modern liberals, though.
Actually they are not, modern liberals are following in Locke's footsteps in the sense that both Catholics and Puritans were the most religiously committed portions of the British society and thus viewed as "troublemakers" by the lukewarm Anglican establishment.

Modern liberals most earnestly want to ostracize genuinely religious people from politics and public arena altogether - we cannot have such hateful elements running around! No tolerance for intolerance!


Petr

[Eddy]

Check this out. I took it from the platform of the U.S. National Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party does not represent all libertarians. This is one of those schism issues amongst libertarians, along with debate on abortion and intellectual property rights.

Then again, weikel already knows this.

[Fade the Butcher]

Petr,

There is much truth your post. I take it that I am not alone in having observed this curious double standard. It is not uncommon that I encounter liberals who positively hate the fucking shit out of Christianity, but who give lip service to all the wonderful 'contributions' made by Islam in the name of diversity.

[Felix the Cat]

In a healthy authoritarian state, as opposed to a liberal self destructive nanny state like modern Britain, they'd be surrounded by the army and massacred.
That was tried in Ireland in 1972, with generally unpleasant results

[Fade the Butcher]

Amending this statement.

Libertarianism. A motely crew of libertine deviants, anarchist perverts, asocial nihilists, beatnik expressivists, amoral narcissists, and ruthless capitalists united in a common struggle to promote license and lawlessness.

[Fade the Butcher]

I love this website.

Libertarianism in One Lesson (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html)

-- In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.

-- Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.

-- All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.

-- Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.

-- Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.

-- Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.

-- Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.

-- The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"

-- It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.

[Eddy]

I see you're reduced to cut/paste jokes and whining about lawlessness rather than being able to construct a case for the US being libertarian or ruled by a "libertarian elite." :rofl:

Increasing size of government and increasing number of laws and regulations = libertarian. :rofl:

[Pablo Escobar]

Humans are not born as individualists.

A human is a pack animal, not exactly an individualist, neither a part of a hive.



There are several species of insects that actually have a lot in common with humans. Ants transform their environment in significant ways and live in complex social hierarchies. Bees (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=36156#post36156) are also capable of abstract thought.

Insects are born that way, complex human society isn't a part of the human DNA, it's a part of historical processes.



I don't buy into the theory of individual genius. Genius is a social product. The people who have done the most to shape the world we live in did so by drawing upon the resources of others and working within the context of practices and traditions.

Unrelated to what I said.

No genius is content with being a part of a societal machinery,
a society which punishes dissent and free thinking cannot hope to have
productive geniuses.



It exists at a theoretical level, but I agree that it is largely a facade for oligarchic power.

Agreed.

[Leif]

I think an honest opinion would be that Amerrica has relatively little state intervention in the economic sphere (hence all of your multinational corporations and the promotion of globalization and multiculturalism).

Good god, man. I've given you tremendous evidence that the U.S. government is heavily interventionist supporting multinational corporations. You claimed the U.S. doesn't "own" these companies, yet, they are paying their entire salaries? The U.S. created the sole reason why multi-billion dollar operations are currently operating in Iraq, yet this isn't interventionism?

Don't equate Anarchism with Anarch-Communism.

I've never heard of an anarchist movement based solely around ending government and law. I've heard of plenty of anarcho-syndicalist movements (Spain & Italy) and anarcho-communist movements (ultraleftist Russian factions) but never any that merely supported "abolish all government and laws." But, in regards of libertarians:

From the Libertarian party website,

Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders.

1) We have faced continuing legal assaults against our civil liberties.
2) Our foreign policy is ANYTHING but non-interventionist.
3) We are in one war after another.
4) Free trade was never meant to include monopolies.

How exactly does the U.S. fit any of those categories?


True, but my point is that even those (tariffs, taxes, minimum wage) are relatively libertarian in America.

...How is a tax "relatively" libertarian? How is minimum wage "relatively" libertarian? Most libertarians would abolish nearly all taxes and smash minimum wage if given the option to do so.

But the whole mentality of Globalization (which is what is being pushed here) is driven by the Capitalist end of Libertarianism.

Globalization is being driven by multinational corporations and capitalism, yes.

Which brings us back to the original point - America is a relatively Libertarian entity. Would you not agree?

No, I wouldn't agree, and neither would any libertarians!

Are you not agreeing with me here?

I don't know. What are your thoughts? You asked:

Would you not say that this has more to do with the free market(Capitalism leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of the few etc - Marx) than state intervention?

I do believe that monopolization is a result of capitalism, growing means of production, efficiency, and such, but this did not require the state's help. It is rather irrelevant to the idea that the state now engages in an active partnership with "monopolies."

[Leif]

Check this out. I took it from the platform of the U.S. National Libertarian Party.

LP


Quote:
Immigration

The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

Wow, you managed to find one issue libertarians share with the current United States government, while ignoring all the issues they disagree on.

[Fade the Butcher]

Wow, you managed to find one issue libertarians share with the current United States government, while ignoring all the issues they disagree on.

I addressed the libertarian position on the one issue that was relevant to Weikel's post.

[Eddy]

That is actually not the libertarian position. It is only the position of the Libertarian Party, which doesn't respresent all libertarians. As with abortion, libertarians are split on the issue. The more socially conservative libertarians in the vein of Hoppe are not open borders.

Even those who are for open immigration agree that government distorts the natural order by offering social programs and other incentives paid for by tax dollars.

Weikel already knows all of this.

[Fade the Butcher]

A human is a pack animal, not exactly an individualist, neither a part of a hive.

Humans are social beings. They live everywhere in complex, hierarchial, cooperative societies -- not as isolated individuals in any mythical state of nature. They communicate with each other and think in social terms, language. They progress through teamwork, tradition, and social division of labor. Humans evolved higher cognitive functions and speech to facilitate such group interaction.

The individualist theory can be easily tested, that is, if the individual or the social is primary. Simply take a few individuals and isolate them from the collective around birth. Observe them closely to see if any Randroid self-creating John Galts emerge amongst their numbers. In most cases, such individuals simply die and fail to reproduce themselves. In some cases, they manage to survive at a brute level of existence as subhumans. Sometimes they find their way back into human societies. This man in Fiji, for instance, is learning how to become a human being after being raised by chickens.

"Clayton said doctors examined Sunjit and found no mental defects. Professionals agreed that his condition was the result of years of neglect and abuse.

"He had imitated or imprinted with the chicken," Clayton said. "He was perching, he was picking at his food, he was hopping around like a chicken. He'd keep his hands in a chickenlike fashion, and he'd make a noise, which was like the calling of a chicken, which he still has."

http://www.nbc10.com/news/3510527/detail.html

Insects are born that way, complex human society isn't a part of the human DNA, it's a part of historical processes.

If you are saying that collectives are socially and historically situated, then I absolutely agree. The liberal individualist theory that we are fundamentally self-creating is preposterous, as even this line of reasoning is in itself historically and socially specific. Insects are hardly like human beings in every respect, as humans are a significantly more advanced species, but they do share several similar characteristics with humans, namely, that they transform their environment and live in complex social hierarchies.

Unrelated to what I said.

What was that? Sorry. The thread doesn't scroll far back enough to allow me to browse your original post.

No genius is content with being a part of a societal machinery,
a society which punishes dissent and free thinking cannot hope to have
productive geniuses.

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
-- Issac Newton

[Kodos]

That was tried in Ireland in 1972, with generally unpleasant results

1972 in Ireland??? Well anyway this is a case of foreigners who have not conquered the country acting as if they have and it would be both appropriate and effective.

[Kodos]

Actually they are not, modern liberals are following in Locke's footsteps in the sense that both Catholics and Puritans were the most religiously committed portions of the British society and thus viewed as "troublemakers" by the lukewarm Anglican establishment.

Not without merit, the roundhead rebellion which deposed and killed Charles I was mainly composed of British Calvinist. The history of catholic plots went back to Elizabeth.

[Jonathan]

I am just describing the reality, not creating a cult.
I disagree. You are voicing your opinion/interpretation which is in turn motivated by your agenda.

There isn't a libertarian elite.
I think you'll find that such an elite does indeed exist, and it is this elite which promotes multiculturalism, globalization, liberalism, consumerism etc. Or are you incapable of observing these trends within American society?

You haven't been able to make a case how an elite that supports government intervention in both the econonomic and social spheres of life is libertarian.
I don't intend repeating myself on this again - Libertarian =/= Anarchism.

The US isn't minimal government. It's not even close.
This is your dishonest opinion. Most Americans tend to pride themselves on their anti-authoritarian mores (from the anti-ZOG malitias in the woods, to the the Urban free-for-all human-right crew).

In this case, using relativity just results in the total rape of clear definitions and concepts.
You are in no position to comment on clear definitions and concepts seeing as you've been equating Libertarianism with Anarchism unjustly.

Relativism is indeed relavent.

By using relativity, you can claim that the elite of a world superpower that believe in not only imposing their will on US citizens by force, but throughout the world, is "libertarian" because the tax rate is lower than in Western Europe and gay pride lobbies are allowed.
If I were so dishonest, I might. As it stands, I have no need to.

Yet, when we look at actual libertarian principles, we see that the elite are not libertarian at all!
Who is this we?

Nobody on the face of the earth pushes the agendas of Capitalism and Individual-Rights more so than America.

First off, "libertarian control" is scooting pretty close to an oxymoron.
Not really.

Libertarians reject controlling others through force and fraud.
Yet Capitalism is based on exploitation and the control of surplus Capital. Furthermore, Individual rights(left-wing social policy) is about enforcing the will of the individual over that of the collective.

Libertarians pay lip service to "freedom" et al, but in reality, we see that Libertarianism isn't quite like that.

The US elite have no such qualms.
I think you'll find that the US elite are quite good at furthering their agenda.

As for continuing trends, the US government has been growing in size!
Bush banned stem-cell research, impounded the Assets of suspected Al-Qaeda supporters in the US, denied requests for information on policy from congressional committees and the general accounting office on industrial and environmental policy, and by-passed the Senate by making 10 judicial and executive appointees when the 107th congress wasn’t in session etc etc.

But this is all in the interests of the Libertarian elite in the first place.

America and Canada are both mixed economies. We have private business bound by some government regulation and taxation to create a "safety net."
And if they didn't, they'd be closer to Anarchies than Libertarian Democracies, and I'm not talking about Anarchies.

The US also practices protectionism while giving lip service to "free trade."
It furthers globalization and multiculturalism (which feed the Capitalist system) too. The Tarriffs are a means to an end.

Free speech is part of the liberal influence on American society.
Bingo.

Government action that stretches beyond it's own borders to crack down on a mild herb is one of those very non-liberal aspects of the American government and society. If this mythical "libertarian elite" existed, such a thing would not be happening.
Because it suits them.

[Kodos]

I think you'll find that such an elite does indeed exist, and it is this elite which promotes multiculturalism, globalization, liberalism, consumerism etc. Or are you incapable of observing these trends within American society?

They are authoritarian progressives ala Mencken's uplifters.

[Fade the Butcher]

Shane,

Reflect upon the sort of nonsense you are arguing with here. The Libertarian Party is not representative of libertarians because all libertarians do not agree with the platform. I don't recall anyone ever suggesting otherwise. This is a straw man. Furthermore, no political platform whatsoever would be acceptable under this definition, as the objection of a single libertarian could invalidate it. This implicitly acknowledges that libertarianism is based upon subjectivism. If libertarianism were an objective political ideology in its own right, then the opinions of libertarians about the substance of libertarianism would be irrelevant.

This illustrates that there is no essentialist definition of libertarianism in the first place. On the contrary, Libertarianism is a political ideology and its adherents share a certain typology of characteristics. They fall along a continuum and cannot all be neatly placed in the same box. If that is in the case, then one cannot object that the Libertarian Party is not representative of libertarianism because all libertarians do not endorse its platform. Such an essentialist definition would be irrelevant even if it did exist, as epistemology is not politics. An essentialist definition could not suffice as a political platform since it would not touch upon dozens of issues that would have to be addressed.

The idea that the U.S. has not been moving in a libertarian direction because "government has been growing in size" is especially specious. Of course there is more government today than there was forty years ago. Guess what? In absolute terms, there are far more private businesses too. This is because there are millions of more Americans alive today than was the case in the past thanks to population growth and mass third world immigration. Thus, the real question is what rate government has expanded relative to population growth and its increased international responsibilities.

[Jonathan]

Yes. The statesmen would matriculate through the academies into government. The majority of statesmen would be bureaucrats of some form of another.
OK, I'll take it that these statesmen graduate from the academies based on their ability to out perform each other on certain criteria(which were set by the philosopher-kings in the begining).

Now let's imagine that an individual with the common good at heart decided that it was in the best interests of society that he became a statesman. He heads off to one of these academies for training, but does not measure up to the standards of his fellow students, yet he still believes he has it in him. Thus begins academic rivalry, which all to often degenerates into the game of power and patronage. So eventually, graduates of the statesmen's college are those best fit to beat the system.

The mundane tasks of administration and policymaking even today are carried out for the most part by a non-elected elite.
It differs from country to country, but I suppose you're right. But these non-elected elite are motivated by the Oligarchy it should be noted.

Perhaps. The practice of clerical marriage was similarly done away with to discourage nepotism. It was largely effective.
As Otto has pointed out, this often brought troubles of its own.

A constitution, for one, would be necessary. I have grown fond of constitutions, as they are fundamentally anti-democratic instruments.
And what article of the constitution would prevent the unfair appointment of statesmen?

It is entirely feasible. There have been several religious orders throughout European history that taken vows of poverty. The Franciscans and the Cistercians come to mind. Both developed an enormously popular following.
And what lead to the degeneration of the Franciscans and the Cistercians? People eventually lost use for them?

The productive classes, of course.
And the productive classes would operate on what bases? A watered down socialism?

Aye. There are few absolutes in social science.
I didn't know Aye was common in Alabama! :p

This isn't unreasonable. We have always lived under bad government.
Which is why "the masses" will always want some say in politics (or at least the potential to have a say) which makes democracy the best of a bad lot (it pacifies the masses to an extent) inspite of the obvious pit-falls.

This would be superfluous if we had a professional class of statesman whose sole role was to properly order society. Suppose we did enfranchise the masses. Nothing would change. They would still take their queues from the mass media and other opinion makers.
What would change would be their perception of the order they lived by. This important in itself. The masses don't like the notion of being disenfranchised (even if they don't bother voting) which is seen as akin to subjugation (which is always seen as a bad thing because of its negative potential). The only cure for this would be for the statesmen to run a system where by the masses are [almost]constantly distracted (by consumerism, or sport, or whatever). But if everyone but the statesmen are distracted, then why would they[the masses] live for the collective? and what would break the cycle for new blood to try out to become statesmen?

The most dangerous situation arises primarily when the two classes reach a point where they no longer need each other. This is the case today in modern Western democracies where first world capital is deserting first world labor.
And what would your societies fail safe against this be?

Such a system, of course, would be no utopia. The possiblity of corruption would always be present. The real question is how can it most effectively be addressed.
We're getting their...hopefully :p

[Jonathan]

Shane,

I think you are wasting your time responding to irrational straw man arguments.
Stupid as it may sound...waisting my time with Eddy is my intention. The Phora is my little escapism from typing up these essays and presentations for College which I'm doing at the same time.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over my posts with Eddy.

Thanks all the same.:)

[Jonathan]

What are their objections to Islam?
It's not mine.

[Jonathan]

Good god, man.
Socialists believe in God now? J/K

I've given you tremendous evidence that the U.S. government is heavily interventionist supporting multinational corporations. You claimed the U.S. doesn't "own" these companies, yet, they are paying their entire salaries? The U.S. created the sole reason why multi-billion dollar operations are currently operating in Iraq, yet this isn't interventionism?
Would you not agree that this is all done in the interest of globalization which is driven by Capitalism which is the Libertarians economic system of choice?

I've never heard of an anarchist movement based solely around ending government and law.
That's the aim of Anarchism - ending government and law.
Anything beyond that, is beyond pure Anarchism - hence Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Communism etc etc.

I've heard of plenty of anarcho-syndicalist movements (Spain & Italy) and anarcho-communist movements (ultraleftist Russian factions) but never any that merely supported "abolish all government and laws."
Because they are beyond pure Anarchism (hence -syndicalists and -communists).

But, in regards of libertarians:

From the Libertarian party website
As Eddy has said, the Libertarian party doesn't represent all Libertarians (why would it, the Republicans and Democracts do it too after all).


1) We have faced continuing legal assaults against our civil liberties.
Which are still far more liberal than else where.

2) Our foreign policy is ANYTHING but non-interventionist.
3) We are in one war after another.
4) Free trade was never meant to include monopolies.
Your foreign policy is driven by globalization and capitalism - both part of Libertarianism.

...How is a tax "relatively" libertarian? How is minimum wage "relatively" libertarian?
By not being relatively high.

Most libertarians would abolish nearly all taxes and smash minimum wage if given the option to do so.
No, I don't think they would. Libertarians still need taxes to fund the armed forces to defend their private property for example. Lets not slip back into the Anarchism model.

Globalization is being driven by multinational corporations and capitalism, yes.
Capitalism being the economic side of Libertarianism.

No, I wouldn't agree, and neither would any libertarians!
Of course the Libertarians wouldn't agree, they never will...such is the nature of Libertarianism.

I do believe that monopolization is a result of capitalism, growing means of production, efficiency, and such, but this did not require the state's help. It is rather irrelevant to the idea that the state now engages in an active partnership with "monopolies."
Capitalism being the economic side of Libertarianism.

[Eddy]

I disagree. You are voicing your opinion/interpretation which is in turn motivated by your agenda.

Which agenda is this?

My claim is that the US government is a representative democracy that combines liberal and conservative elements, not libertarian. Which agenda is served by this claim and how is this claim false?

I think you'll find that such an elite does indeed exist, and it is this elite which promotes multiculturalism, globalization, liberalism, consumerism etc. Or are you incapable of observing these trends within American society?

Multiculturalism - compulsory public education, which is used to indoctrinate children into state-supported ideologies, is opposed by libertarians. Libertarians also oppose anti-discrimination law, anti-hate laws, and social programs (such as refugee programs) which are used to draw foreign peoples into the country and support them.

Globalization - I don't see how international trade is a libertarian plot. It's always existed. However, I do notice that the US is protectionist towards it's own industries while giving lip service to others. The US uses tariffs and subsidies to favor it's own corporations. Libertarians oppose tariffs and corporate welfare.

Liberalism - It is true that the US has a Bill of Rights. However, the US government has had no problem working around the constitution to control it's populace. Why a libertarian elite would not only criminalize a mild herb but demand that other countries criminalize it is beyond my comprehension. Such an action is, in fact, incompatible with libertarianism, as is an interventionist foreign policy.

Consumerism - People always buy and sell things. This is one of those bogeyman "isms" that people toss around without much thought. No libertarian plot needed for a people who have a lot of disposable income to by buying a lot of things.

I don't intend repeating myself on this again - Libertarian =/= Anarchism.

I have to repeat myself numerous times to explain what libertarianism and anarchism is. It doesn't seem to get through.

Minarchist libertarians (non-anarchists) believe that the only morally legitimate role of government is to prevent and punish aggressive force and fraud against it's citizens. The details vary, but in general they support very light taxation for things like courts and defensive military. Social programs, foreign aid, etc are all no goes.

Anarchist libertarians believe that only voluntary networks are morally legitimate, and therefore an institution which is involuntary and has a monopoly on the use of force is immoral.

The US government has little to do with either of those beliefs.

This is your dishonest opinion. Most Americans tend to pride themselves on their anti-authoritarian mores (from the anti-ZOG malitias in the woods, to the the Urban free-for-all human-right crew).

How does this refute the fact that the US government is far from minimal?

It doesn't.

You are in no position to comment on clear definitions and concepts seeing as you've been equating Libertarianism with Anarchism unjustly.

I've just spelled out the differences between minarchist libertarianism and anarchist libertarianism numerous times.

Relativism is indeed relavent.

Big government capitalists are not libertarian just because they're not socialists.

If I were so dishonest, I might. As it stands, I have no need to.

You have been doing that.

Who is this we?

Nobody on the face of the earth pushes the agendas of Capitalism and Individual-Rights more so than America.

Children, this is what happens when people only pay attention to rhetoric instead of action.

Libertarians support unfettered free trade. The US government supports protective tariffs and subsidies for it's own industries.

Libertarians support individual freedom as long as one does not use force or fraud. The US government uses it's weight to wage a war on drugs around the world.

Yet Capitalism is based on exploitation and the control of surplus Capital.

Libertarians support a free market, which is simply a system of voluntary exchange. A farmer selling his apples is engaging in evil, free market activities. A corporation lobbying for subsidies and protection from competition is not engaging in a free-market activity, but appealing to government force, which is immoral to libertarians.

Furthermore, Individual rights(left-wing social policy) is about enforcing the will of the individual over that of the collective.

Libertarians pay lip service to "freedom" et al, but in reality, we see that Libertarianism isn't quite like that.

How do individual rights enforce the will of the individual on the collective? A libertarian believes that individuals have every right to form voluntary collectives based on their own values.

In reality, we don't live under a libertarian elite. What lack of freedom you're perceiving is due to the government's non-libertarian nature.

I think you'll find that the US elite are quite good at furthering their agenda.

Sure they are, yet libertarians they are not.

Bush banned stem-cell research, impounded the Assets of suspected Al-Qaeda supporters in the US, denied requests for information on policy from congressional committees and the general accounting office on industrial and environmental policy, and by-passed the Senate by making 10 judicial and executive appointees when the 107th congress wasn’t in session etc etc.

But this is all in the interests of the Libertarian elite in the first place.

Ok, so when things happen which are opposed by libertarians and not compatible with libertarian ideology, you just make some claim that it's all part of the libertarian plot anyway. Does logic and reality have a place here?

And if they didn't, they'd be closer to Anarchies than Libertarian Democracies, and I'm not talking about Anarchies.

Democracy is not libertarian. Libertarians tend to loathe democracy. Non-anarchist libertarians are minarchists, and the US government is not minarchist.

It furthers globalization and multiculturalism (which feed the Capitalist system) too. The Tarriffs are a means to an end.

The only end that libertarians have is minimal (for minarchists) or no (for anarchists) government. You have not made a case how an expanding government fits that goal.

Bingo.

Yes, wow! We found a liberal influence!

Because it suits them.

Nevermind that libertarians are strongly opposed to this and view it as disgustingly immoral. The elite are still "libertarians" because it's fun to just fancy that the elite is a conspiracy by a group one doesn't like. :rolleyes:

[Eddy]

This implicitly acknowledges that libertarianism is based upon subjectivism. If libertarianism were an objective political ideology in its own right, then the opinions of libertarians about the substance of libertarianism would be irrelevant.

Libertarians have some core beliefs. The main core belief is the non-aggression principle - that force and fraud are immoral whether used by citizens against citizens or by authority figures and governments against citizens.

This doesn't mean one can't disagree about tactics or some of the grey areas. For example, anti-abortion libertarians are concerned with the rights of the fetus, since they view abortion as murder, whereas pro-abortion libertarians are concerned with the rights of the woman, and do not view abortion as murder. The same confusion spreads throughout society as a whole on the rights of fetuses.

Immigration restrictionist libertarians argue that because we are forced to give money to social services and pay for public property, forcing the popularce to accomodate foreigners without their consent is aggression. Anti-discrimination laws are another layer of aggression where immigration is concerned.

Open borders libertarians tend to agree with the above statements, but also believe that "two wrongs don't make a right", and that it would be immoral to support government border restrictions.

This illustrates that there is no essentialist definition of libertarianism in the first place. On the contrary, Libertarianism is a political ideology and its adherents share a certain typology of characteristics. They fall along a continuum and cannot all be neatly placed in the same box.

False, see above.

The idea that the U.S. has not been moving in a libertarian direction because "government has been growing in size" is especially specious. Of course there is more government today than there was forty years ago. Guess what? In absolute terms, there are far more private businesses too.

One cannot claim that the US government is both growing and becoming more libertarian. For the US government to become more libertarian, it must shrink - drastically.

This is because there are millions of more Americans alive today than was the case in the past thanks to population growth and mass third world immigration. Thus, the real question is what rate government has expanded relative to population growth and its increased international responsibilities.

Libertarians do not believe in using social programs to accomodate those "millions more Americans", nor do they believe in international responsibilities (interventionism). Libertarians believe in a foreign policy involving self-defense and peaceful trade, not aggressive mercantilism and imperialism.

[Fade the Butcher]

Stupid as it may sound...waisting my time with Eddy is my intention. The Phora is my little escapism from typing up these essays and presentations for College which I'm doing at the same time.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over my posts with Eddy.

Thanks all the same.:)

You are wasting your time. She mentioned on SE a few months ago that she cares about herself and her friends and doesn't give a damn about society at large. il ragno might remember that. Such an individual has nothing relevant to say about social policy, as there are no grounds for exchange beyond her own momentary whims and arbitrary emotional preferences. You can't reason with irrationality.

Don't feed the troll. We are still hoping it will go away.

[Jonathan]

Which agenda is this?
Liberalism.

My claim is that the US government is a representative democracy that combines liberal and conservative elements, not libertarian.
And I have never disputed this, yet you have replied to me over and over again based on a different arguement.

My arguement is that the Libertarian elite in America drive policy.

Which agenda is served by this claim and how is this claim false?
The agenda - Liberalism.
How is it served - By suggesting that America isn't Liberal.

Multiculturalism... - compulsory public education, which is used to indoctrinate children into state-supported ideologies, is opposed by libertarians. Libertarians also oppose anti-discrimination law, anti-hate laws, and social programs (such as refugee programs) which are used to draw foreign peoples into the country and support them.
This is inconsistnat with the Libertarian party of America and demonstrates the self defeating nature of Libertarianism. Anyway . . .
Multiculturalism is used inorder to undercut wage labour and increase consumerism. These are driven by Capitalism - the economic side of Libertarianism. It's all a means to an end.

Globalization - I don't see how international trade is a libertarian plot.
Because it furthers Capitalism which is inextricablly linked with Libertarianism.

Liberalism - It is true that the US has a Bill of Rights. However, the US government has had no problem working around the constitution to control it's populace.
The US controls it's populace? The existance of a Police force is hardly a rebutal.

Consumerism - People always buy and sell things. This is one of those bogeyman "isms" that people toss around without much thought. No libertarian plot needed for a people who have a lot of disposable income to by buying a lot of things.
It's called Capitalism.

I have to repeat myself numerous times to explain what libertarianism and anarchism is. It doesn't seem to get through.
Don't flatter yourself.

Minarchist libertarians (non-anarchists) believe that the only morally legitimate role of government is to prevent and punish aggressive force and fraud against it's citizens.
That's a fairly loose definition. I'd have thought the defense of private property was paramount.

The details vary
Indeed.

but in general they support very light taxation for things like courts and defensive military. Social programs, foreign aid, etc are all no goes.
And what is "light taxation"? and why is it so?

Anarchist libertarians...
Are Anarchists, not Libertarians. Simple.

How does this refute the fact that the US government is far from minimal?
It is a demonstration of the mores of America and clearly points to a Libertarian stance.

I've just spelled out the differences between minarchist libertarianism and anarchist libertarianism numerous times.
No, this was you first time/attempt.

Big government capitalists are not libertarian just because they're not socialists.
Indeed. They are Libertarians because they combine their capitalism with their left-wing social policy.

You have been doing that.
Alow me to reply in like manner - No I haven't.:)

Libertarians support unfettered free trade. The US government supports protective tariffs and subsidies for it's own industries.
No, they support Capitalism.

Libertarians support a free market, which is simply a system of voluntary exchange. A farmer selling his apples is engaging in evil, free market activities. A corporation lobbying for subsidies and protection from competition is not engaging in a free-market activity, but appealing to government force, which is immoral to libertarians.
Refuted (excluding various subdivisions of Libertarianism).

How do individual rights enforce the will of the individual on the collective? A libertarian believes that individuals have every right to form voluntary collectives based on their own values.
Degenerate Art for example.

In reality, we don't live under a libertarian elite.
That's what they want you to think:p or is it?:p

Ok, so when things happen which are opposed by libertarians and not compatible with libertarian ideology, you just make some claim that it's all part of the libertarian plot anyway. Does logic and reality have a place here?
But the point that you are missing(ignoring) is that they are not incompatible with Libertarian thought.

Libertarians tend to loathe democracy.
Prove that.

Non-anarchist libertarians are minarchists, and the US government is not minarchist.
By what standards.

You have not made a case how an expanding government fits that goal.
You are not the sole judge of this.

[Jonathan]

Don't feed the troll. We are still hoping it will go away.
Sorry, I'd begun typing up the last reply before you'd posted this. If it's Phora policy to let it go away, so bit it. last reply.

[Fade the Butcher]

Sorry, I'd begun typing up the last reply before you'd posted this. If it's Phora policy to let it go away, so bit it. last reply.

No. It is not any staff policy.

[Eddy]

You are wasting your time. She mentioned on SE a few months ago that she cares about herself and her friends and doesn't give a damn about society at large. il ragno might remember that. Such an individual has nothing relevant to say about social policy, as there are no grounds for exchange beyond her own momentary whims and arbitrary emotional preferences. You can't reason with irrationality.

Don't feed the troll. We are still hoping it will go away.

I am not arguing about my personal feelings. I'm simply using facts and logic to refute the entirely delusional claim that the US is libertarian. You guys are failing to make your case. And, you know it. :)

EDIT: Is it worse to want to leave people alone or to be obsessed with the idea of controlling them because you loathe the way they are?

[Eddy]

Liberalism.

Explain how liberalism is served by describing the current government as a non-libertarian representative democracy with liberal and conservative elements. :rolleyes:

My arguement is that the Libertarian elite in America drive policy.

And you have failed to make a case for this beyond pretending that big government capitalists are libertarians. One can do this if one has no idea what libertarianism is.

The agenda - Liberalism.
How is it served - By suggesting that America isn't Liberal.

I suggest that America is a mix of competing liberal and conservative worldviews. The government reflects this.

This is inconsistnat with the Libertarian party of America and demonstrates the self defeating nature of Libertarianism. Anyway . . .

Actually, it's not inconsistant with even the Libertarian Party. One of the reasons anti-racists often have a beef with libertarians is due to lack of support for anti-discrimination law.

Multiculturalism is used inorder to undercut wage labour and increase consumerism. These are driven by Capitalism - the economic side of Libertarianism. It's all a means to an end.

The end for libertarians is minimal government, not the accumulation of wealth for elites.

Because it furthers Capitalism which is inextricablly linked with Libertarianism.

Libertarians support a free market because a system of voluntary exchange is the only one they can morally support. Not all capitalists are libertarians. Probably very few are. Capitalists who use government force to gain an edge in the market are condemned by libertarians.

The US controls it's populace? The existance of a Police force is hardly a rebutal.

Not the police force itself, but the laws and regulations they enforce.

It's called Capitalism.

A free market and capitalism are not the same. A capitalist can support a mixed economy (private business with government regulations). That's what most capitalists do. They have no objections to corporate welfare. Libertarians do not support regulations or corporate welfare.

Don't flatter yourself.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

That's a fairly loose definition. I'd have thought the defense of private property was paramount.

It is simple, yet quite strict. Defense against aggressive force against both person and a person's property is paramount. If you steal what I acquire through my own labor, you are using force against me.

And what is "light taxation"? and why is it so?

Light taxation is the mininum necessary to support a defensive army and courts. I imagine it would be extremely small, since all the pork and social programs would be out.

Are Anarchists, not Libertarians. Simple.

Libertarians are split between minarchists and anarchists.

It is a demonstration of the mores of America and clearly points to a Libertarian stance.

You have not done anything to show that America has a libertarian stance beyond inaccurately claiming that all capitalists are libertarians and that all of the very non-libertarian actions by the government and corporations are part of some libertarian plot.

No, this was you first time/attempt.

Do you want me to go back and count?

Indeed. They are Libertarians because they combine their capitalism with their left-wing social policy.

Neither big government capitalists nor feel good progressives are libertarians. A merging of the two certainly doesn't make them libertarian either. To be libertarian, one must renounce aggressive force and fraud against citizens as immoral, whether done by government or other citizens.

No, they support Capitalism.

Laissez Faire markets and big government capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Refuted (excluding various subdivisions of Libertarianism).

You can't be a libertarian and oppose free markets in favor of big government favoratism. Sorry.

Degenerate Art for example.

"Degenerate Art" isn't imposed on you. You're free to chose to look at and listen to whatever you want. What I am watching and listening to in my home isn't imposing anything on you.

That's what they want you to think:p or is it?:p

This is reaching ZOG levels of ridiculousness.

But the point that you are missing(ignoring) is that they are not incompatible with Libertarian thought.

Umm, yes they are. Using the government to engage in force to punish peaceful actions or gain market edge is very much incompatible with libertarian thought.

Prove that.

Libertarians believe that voting in a politician or law to commit aggressive force against it's citizens is just as immoral as private citizens using aggressive force against each other.

By what standards.

You think the US government is minarchist?? Growing social programs, war on drugs, growing regulation, aggressive foreign policy...

You are not the sole judge of this.

Then who is? People who know nothing about libertarian beliefs, such as yourself?

[Kodos]

You are wasting your time. She mentioned on SE a few months ago that she cares about herself and her friends and doesn't give a damn about society at large. il ragno might remember that. Such an individual has nothing relevant to say about social policy, as there are no grounds for exchange beyond her own momentary whims and arbitrary emotional preferences.

Thats true of all women at least she's honest about it.

[OVERWATCH]

What's the topic again? Oh yeah I remember it.... democracy.

[Pablo Escobar]

Thats true of all women at least she's honest about it.

I'd comment that it's also true for all men, but they aren't aware of it.

All that "caring about society" is a sum of emotions, conditions and circumstance.

How many of the people here have started "caring about the whole society",
only after they've failed to be leaders of their own circle of friends.

[Eddy]

It's true for almost everyone. Often, people who loathe others as people and have no deep connections to others only care about "society" as an abstraction invoked to justify imposing one's personal... ahem... whims and arbitrary preferences on others. ;)

[Jonathan]

Explain how liberalism is served by describing the current government as a non-libertarian representative democracy with liberal and conservative elements. :rolleyes:
Because your argument is based around "America is not liberal" so there is room for more liberalisation.

And you have failed to make a case for this beyond pretending that big government capitalists are libertarians. One can do this if one has no idea what libertarianism is.
Once and for all - Libertarianism = Economic Right(Capitalism) + Social Left(Liberalism).

Do you dispute this?

Big Capitalists will promote multiculturalism and Globalization and Liberalism because that generates further consumerism, which feeds back into the Capitalists.

Do you dispute this?

I suggest that America is a mix of competing liberal and conservative worldviews. The government reflects this.
Suggestions and Facts are two different things.

The end for libertarians is minimal government, not the accumulation of wealth for elites.
That's false. As capitalists, the Libertarians' goal is to accumulate capital. Minimal government isn't much good if you're destitute.

Libertarians support a free market
The support Capitalism which is supported by the free market more often than not.

Capitalists who use government force to gain an edge in the market are condemned by libertarians.
Like Ron Paul :p ?

A free market and capitalism are not the same. A capitalist can support a mixed economy (private business with government regulations). That's what most capitalists do. They have no objections to corporate welfare. Libertarians do not support regulations or corporate welfare.
So now you are saying that Libertarians do not adhere to Capitalist economics? I've heard it all. :rolleyes:

It's like talking to a brick wall.
Insults are just as easily sent via PM and/or Reps.

Light taxation is the mininum necessary to support a defensive army and courts. I imagine it would be extremely small, since all the pork and social programs would be out.
You have failed to answer this question.

Libertarians are split between minarchists and anarchists.
False. Anarchists are distinct from Libertarians.

You have not done anything to show that America has a libertarian stance beyond inaccurately claiming that all capitalists are libertarians and that all of the very non-libertarian actions by the government and corporations are part of some libertarian plot.
You mentioned brick walls.

Do you want me to go back and count?
Knock yourself out.

Neither big government capitalists nor feel good progressives are libertarians. A merging of the two certainly doesn't make them libertarian either. To be libertarian, one must renounce aggressive force and fraud against citizens as immoral, whether done by government or other citizens.
This is false. It is up to you to prove it.

Laissez Faire markets and big government capitalism are mutually exclusive.
They are both part of the Capitalist system.

You can't be a libertarian and oppose free markets in favor of big government favoratism. Sorry.
Oh but you can. It's amazing that you tell me (later in this very post) that I know nothing of Libertarianism.

"Degenerate Art" isn't imposed on you.
Of course it is. It's all around me. I'd have to be a hermitt to avoid it.

Umm, yes they are. Using the government to engage in force to punish peaceful actions or gain market edge is very much incompatible with libertarian thought.
No, it's not actually. If we can't agree on this much, then the whole discusion is up the creek.

You think the US government is minarchist??
Relatively.

Then who is? People who know nothing about libertarian beliefs, such as yourself?
Anyone. Certainly not you alone.

[Eddy]

This conversation is going nowhere as long as Shane insists on rejecting the acknowledgement of basic principles of libertarianism in order to distinguish between libertarians and non-libertarians. Instead, he has constructed his own definition of libertarian to include big government capitalists and politicians, two groups which libertarians oppose. In Shane's world, anyone who isn't a socialist is libertarian. Using these muddled, invented definitions, he's then able to construct a conspiracy theory in which even non-libertarian government actions are blamed on libertarians.

[Kodos]

How is a tax "relatively" libertarian? How is minimum wage "relatively" libertarian?

By not being relatively high.


Shane your arguement here seems to be that anyone not a socialist is a libertarian.

You think the US government is minarchist??

Relatively

LOL, yeah 7 trillion in debt and a 3 trillion budget( 30 grand for every man woman and child in the US) is something a minarchist government would have.

[Fade the Butcher]

How does collective decision making undermine the collective?

It violates the division of labor principle. The harmony of the collective is most efficiently promoted when each individual remains in his place and performs his function. Just imagine the sort of disorder that would result if we switched the mechanics with the historians, the lawyers with the doctors, the generals with the artists and so on. Similarly, I don't think the practice of statesmanship is best served by making every layman a statesman.

Everyone votes based upon their individual situation, and when all votes are combined one gets an idea of whether an action will benefit most people.

That right there is the problem with democracy. The statesman is unique in that his practice is concerned with the good as society as such. The practice of statesmanship is the highest of all practices; the highest office any citizen can aspire to.

If every individual votes merely in his or her own interest, then the common good of the whole can hardly be served (that being the object of government), as such votes would merely tabulate the mean of individual desires. They would not be concerned with the good of society as a whole which, of course, is neither subjective or quantifiable, but a definite qualitative thing that exists independently of individual whims and wishes.

Compare this to oligarchy or monarchy where a few select individuals are able to exploit the weakness of others for their own gain, and in doing so undermine society as a whole.

Democracy is similar to oligarchy and monarchy in that it substitutes the satisfaction of individual appetites for the practice of statesmanship and its principle of collective harmony at the level of government. The essential difference is that in democracy the appetites of the masses run wild as opposed to those of the wealthy or a hereditary nobility. It is the substitution of one form of bad government for another. Democracy is the worst of the three, as it is the most difficult to reform.

Were the American people given a chance to vote on the war in Iraq?

No. The democratic politicians who are the servants of various commercial/media oligarchial interests launched the war in Iraq.

Were the American people given a chance to vote whether Central American immigrants should be transported by corporations into food processing plants in Carolina?

No. The democratic politicians who are the servants of various commercial/media oligarchial interests brought this situation about too.

Were we given the chance to vote on whether our wages should be sabotaged by millions of desperate immigrants that breed like rabbits and abuse our health care system?

We don't live in a direct democracy. The U.S. is an oligarchy with a facade of representative democracy as a sop to the masses. The American system is probably the most ingenious form of oligarchy ever devised, as it successfully harnesses the legitimacy of democracy with an illusion of representation (the propaganda produced by commercial/media empires) while using the power of the state to advance private financial interests at the expense of the exploited masses.

Fact: When polled, the MAJORITY, approximately 70% of citizens, believe the government should do more about immigrants.

This is true. This forces us to ask troubling questions: do we really live in a true democracy when our immigration policy does not reflect the interests of the majority of our citizens? The answer, of course, is no. The U.S. is controlled by an oligarchy that dominates the democratic process and structures it suits its needs. Our immigration and trade policies are representative of the wealthy cosmopolitan elite that holds the real power in America.

Hell, the Minutemen, many of which are retired individuals, have taken it upon themselves to patrol the border because our corrupt government-oligarchy refuses to do so.

I agree. I am not saying here that the masses are the enemy. I am just pointing out how easily they are led by the nose. This is precisely why it is so dangerous to invest them with the right to make political decisions. The oligarchy wouldn't tolerate democratic institutions if they were a real threat to oligarchic power.

The same "present living" could apply to any other type of political organization.

It would not apply to the sort of system that I have endorsed and defended.

How is this inherent in democracy?

Because only voting rights are accorded only to presently living adults.

The oligarchs are the ones selling out the nation for cheap-wages and government subsidies. You can't seriously think that working people profit most from environmental destruction.

They don't. It is still true, however, that they are complicit in the crime by supporting the democratic/oligarchic process. It is important to remember here that the strength of this type of democracy/oligarchy rests in its ability to harness democratic energies behind oligarchic agendas.

No it doesn't.

Sure it does. Democracy rests on the notion that there is a formula, that is, majoritarianism, which allows us to decipher the common good. The common good is merely the average of individual preferences.

"Political quality" depends on the calibre of the people and not the arrangement of their political organization.

How can the masses possibly be considered the statesmen of the highest calibre when the oligarchy is able to so effectively exploit them? And if we want statesmen of the highest calibre, then why not create a caste of professionals charged specifically with the task of advancing the interests of the collective as a whole?

Democratic republics actually have basic principles from which they act, unlike hereditary monarchies or oligarchies.

Not really. Democracy ultimately rests upon the same idea as oligarchy and monarchy: individual appetite, not wisdom, should prevail in matters of government.

There have been many foolish and inept leaders in all systems.

True. It is only in democracy though the the fool is formally recognized as being the equal of the wise.

The majority of people are ignorant because the powerful few desire it.

The majority are ignorant because they are unfit to rule by nature. This is illustrated by how easily the oligarchs are able to mislead them about their own true interests with their propaganda machines.

Blue is Yellow

War is Peace

Diversity is Strength

This is the problem with "bourgeois democracy."

We are discussing democracy/oligarchy here; that is, a specific form of oligarchy that harnesses democratic methods to advance an oligarchic agenda.

It will never work as planned because political equality is impossible with economic inequality. The latter translates into power over the former.

I agree.

The purpose of democracy is not catering to special interest groups.

Sure it is. It is the rule of powerful special interest groups, that is, a faction, on the grounds that the formula of majoritarianism can arrive at the common the good. The problem with this is that the majority can be completely wrong. The minority can just as easily be right.

Such groups are inherently anti-democratic and their power exists in their ability to sway elected officials with bribes and personal profit. Again, this would not exist in an actual democracy.

How would it not exist in an actual democracy? Even in a real democracy the majority would rule. Different interest groups would jockey with each other to form electoral majorities. A ruling coalition would come into power that would exploit the collective as a whole to further its own interests.

This is the problem with our current oligarchy.

It is a problem inherent to democracy. Are you suggesting that a true democracy would not make use of majoritarianism?

The majority of people are kept ignorant.

Which proves they can be easily fooled.

People aren't supposed to "know what's best for society as a whole" in a democracy . . .

Which is why they are unqualified to make decisions on the behalf of the whole.

. . . .rather they are supposed to put forward what they believe is best for themselves, and when this individual "will" is combined with the "will of the people," a consensus of action is formed. The political body as a whole becomes something more than a merely a collection of atomized parts.

The common good is not the average sum of individual preferences.

The idea that group of people would completely transcend their own desires for the good of the collective is a fantasy.

I disagree. It is entirely possible to discipline, train, and breed human beings to work (and to die) for the collective good of society as a whole. If that were not the case, then heroism would be impossible.

That is the flaw with the "benevolent dictator" and "philosopher king" types of government.

I would argue, on the contrary, that human beings are endowed with fundamentally unequal faculties by nature. There will always be some human beings who can perform other human beings at certain tasks. Some will have better eyesight. Some will have stronger reasoning power. Some will have more muscular strength and so on. It is a fantasy to assume that all human beings can be made equal or that they are born equal. It will never happen. Differences in status and power will never go away.

What we can do, however, is train those who do possess such natural gifts to use them for the betterment of society as a whole. The just, noble, and moral man will not act to injure his fellow citizens.

A summary of my thoughts:"Democracy" as it exists fails for one reason: in a society where individual profit gives social power- collective action will always be sabotaged.

Democracy would fail for many of the same reasons even in a society in which property is owned in common.

Individual interests can never be removed because all life fights for its own interests.

I disagree. We can't eliminate individual interests, at best, we can contain them, but we can most certainly destroy individualism (the doctrine that they take prior above all else).

However, collective interest is often tied with the individual. What's good for society as a whole is usually good for everyone in the long-term.

Of course.

[Kodos]

Democracy is similar to oligarchy and monarchy in that it substitutes the satisfaction of individual appetites for the practice of statesmanship and its principle of collective harmony at the level of government. The essential difference is that in democracy the appetites of the masses run wild as opposed to those of the wealthy or a hereditary nobility. It is the substitution of one form of bad government for another. Democracy is the worst of the three, as it is the most difficult to reform.

Its easy in your free time to dream up imaginary forms of government with no selfish interests involved whatsoever... I still like Gibbon's case for hereditary monarchy.

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap7.htm

The apparent ridicule

Of the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate, without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colours, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master.

and solid advantages of hereditary succession.

In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us that, in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous, part of the people. The army is the only order of men sufficiently united to concur in the same sentiments, and powerful enough to impose them on the rest of their fellow-citizens: but the temper of soldiers, habituated at once to violence and to slavery, renders them very unfit guardians of a legal or even a civil, constitution. Justice, humanity, or political wisdom, are qualities they are too little acquainted with in themselves, to appreciate them in others. Valour will acquire their esteem, and liberality will purchase their suffrage; but the first of these merits is often lodged in the most savage breasts; the latter can only exert itself at the expense of the public; and both may be turned against the possessor of the throne, by the ambition of a daring rival.

Want of it in the Roman empire productive of the geatrest calamities

The superior prerogative of birth, when it has obtained the sanction of time and popular opinion, is the plainest and least invidious of all distinctions among mankind. The acknowledged right extinguishes the hopes of faction, and the conscious security disarms the cruelty of the monarch. To the firm establishment of this idea, we owe the peaceful succession, and mild administration, of European monarchies. To the defect of it, we must attribute the frequent civil wars, through which an Asiatic despot is obliged to cut his way to the throne of his fathers. Yet, even in the East, the sphere of contention is usually limited to the princes of the reigning house, and as soon as the more fortunate competitor has removed his brethren, by the sword and the bowstring, he no longer entertains any jealousy of his meaner subjects. But the Roman empire, after the authority of the senate had sunk into contempt, was a vast scene of confusion. The royal, and even noble, families of the provinces, had long since been led in triumph before the car of the haughty republicans. The ancient families of Rome had successively fallen beneath the tyranny of the Caesars, and whilst those princes were shackled by the forms of a commonwealth, and disappointed by the repeated failure of their posterity,(1) it was impossible that any idea of hereditary succession should have taken root in the minds of their subjects. The right to the throne, which none could claim from birth, every one assumed from merit. The daring hopes of ambition were set loose from the salutary restraints of law and prejudice; and the meanest of mankind might, without folly, entertain a hope of being raised by valour and fortune to a rank in the army, in which a single crime would enable him to wrest the sceptre of the world from his feeble and unpopular master. After the murder of Alexander Severus, and the elevation of Maximin, no emperor could think himself safe upon the throne and every barbarian peasant of the frontier might aspire to that august, but dangerous station.

[Fade the Butcher]

Its easy in your free time to dream up imaginary forms of government with no selfish interests involved whatsoever... I still like Gibbon's case for hereditary monarchy.

I am not dreaming up an imaginary form of government composed of imaginary characters. The statesman can exist just as easily as the monarch or the democratic politician. He is often the servant of such governments, not the ruler himself.

[Fade the Butcher]

Of the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule.

You can't be serious?

[Kodos]

You can't be serious?

He goes on to refute this later in the passage.

[Fade the Butcher]

He goes on to refute this later in the passage.

Did he have the Merovingians in mind? Consanguineous marriages often produce inbred retards.

[Kodos]

Did he have the Merovingians in mind? Consanguineous marriages often produce inbred retards.

I don't think Gibbon was in favor of rampant inbreeding. Read the passage anyway.

[Fade the Butcher]

The acknowledged right extinguishes the hopes of faction, and the conscious security disarms the cruelty of the monarch.

1.) I will grant that monarchs are less cruel than democratic regimes.
2.) I will grant that faction is less of a problem because of hereditary succession.

I am still not convinced monarchy is the best form of government, although I would agree it is preferable to oligarchy, tyranny, and democracy.

[Kodos]

I am still not convinced monarchy is the best form of government, although I would agree it is preferable to oligarchy, tyranny, and democracy.

There isn't really anything else except freakish variants ideological/religious variants of oligarchy and tyranny( ie theocratic oligarchy or tyranny or communist tyranny or oligarchy).

Of course having a genuine monarchy means you have to go through at least one tyrannical dynastic founder. But whatever America is overpopulated anyway.

[Fade the Butcher]

There isn't really anything else except freakish variants ideological/religious variants of oligarchy and tyranny( ie theocratic oligarchy or tyranny or communist tyranny or oligarchy).

There are other forms of government.

Of course having a genuine monarchy means you have to go through at least one tyrannical dynastic founder. But whatever America is overpopulated anyway.

The statesman could always whisper in the ear of the monarch.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/89/250px-Cardinal_Richelieu_(Champaigne).jpg

[Kodos]

There are other forms of government.

Name one that has ACTUALLY ever existed. Keep in mind anarchy/feudalism is the lack of government.

There are diffrent types of oligarchy, tyranny, monarchy, and democracy(listed in the order from most to least variation possible) but essentially all governments fall into those categories.


The statesman could always whisper in the ear of the monarch.

Of course, Richelieu was good but William Cecil( of Lizzie Tudor's privy council) was better.

[Fade the Butcher]

Name one that has ACTUALLY ever existed. Keep in mind anarchy/feudalism is the lack of government.

Democracy - rule by the people.
Republicanism - rule by representatives.
Tyranny - arbitrary personal rule.
Oligarchy - rule by the wealthy.
Aristocracy - rule by the noble.
Monarchy - rule by kings and queens.
Timocracy - rule by a military caste.

What do you call rule by the statesman? These systems all make extensive use of the statesman (and are effective to the extent that they do so), but the statesman as such doesn't rule. Why not simply let the statesman rule instead of the democratic politician or monarch? He is, after all, a professional administrator and is the most qualified to rule, right?

There are diffrent types of oligarchy, tyranny, monarchy, and democracy(listed in the order from most to least variation possible) but essentially all governments fall into those categories.

No. I have a definite alternative in mind that isn't described by any of these forms.

Of course, Richelieu was good but William Cecil( of Lizzie Tudor's privy council) was better.

Why not let the Richelieus of the world rule?

[Kodos]

Aristocracy is a form of oligarchy as is timocracy( and aristocracies generally are at least theoretically a military caste), the specific form of oligarchy that is rule by the wealthy is known as a plutocracy. These are all forms of oligarchy. As is a republic( though it generally has limited democratic elements). Our present system in America combines the worst aspects of oligarchy and mob rule.

What do you call rule by the statesman? These systems all make extensive use of the statesman (and are effective to the extent that they do so), but the statesman as such doesn't rule.

If you can find a magical method of making sure statesmen always rule I would like to hear it.

[Petr]

Why not let the Richelieus of the world rule?
Ah, theocracy... :p


Petr

[Eddy]

Ah, theocracy... :p


Petr

Hmm, would an atheist be satisfied with that, I wonder?

[Kodos]

Ah, theocracy... :p

Richeliu was in all senses a non-believer( not in the church or in god)... hence he "trimmed"( but unlike the idiotic Louis XIV did not revoke) the edict of Nantes but supported the Protestant side in the 30 years war.

[Kodos]

Hmm, would an atheist be satisfied with that, I wonder?

Richileu in all likelihood was an athiest.

[Fade the Butcher]

If you can find a magical method of making sure statesmen always rule I would like to hear it.

Are you saying this is impossible? It should be noted that statesmen already work for the government. The democratic/oligarchic apparatus simply anoints the gang of overseers in the system. The mundane tasks of policymaking and administration is carried out by the bureaucracy. A violent mass uprising would not be necessary to change the system, as the administrators already have their hands on the levers of power. It would simply require revolutionary action on the part of the bureaucracy and the reorganization of itself as a master practice.

[Petr]

Richeliu was in all senses a non-believer( not in the church or in god)... hence he "trimmed"( but unlike the idiotic Louis XIV did not revoke) the edict of Nantes but supported the Protestant side in the 30 years war.
Nonetheless, his rule was "by the grace of God," and therefore officially theocratic.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Who was Cardinal Richelieu? The gallery might be wondering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu

Cardinal Richelieu (9 September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_9) 1585 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1585)–4 December (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_4) 1642 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1642)) was a French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) clergyman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy), noble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility), and statesman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesman).

Consecrated as a bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop) in 1607, he later entered politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics), becoming a Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State) in 1616. Richelieu soon rose in both the Church and the state, becoming a cardinal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_%28Catholicism%29) in 1622, and King Louis XIII's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIII_of_France) chief minister in 1624. He remained in office until his death in 1642; he was succeeded by Jules Cardinal Mazarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Cardinal_Mazarin).

The Cardinal de Richelieu was often known by the title of the King's "Chief Minister." As a result, he is sometimes considered to be the world's first Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister). He sought to consolidate royal power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy) and crush domestic factions. By restraining the power of the nobility, he transformed France into a strongly centralised state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralised_state). His chief foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy) objective was to check the power of the Austro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria)-Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) Habsburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg) dynasty; although a Roman Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church) cardinal, he did not hesitate to make alliances with Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) rulers in attempting to achieve this goal. His tenure was marked by the Thirty Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) that engulfed Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe).

As an advocate for Samuel de Champlain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_de_Champlain) and of the retention of Québec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9bec), he founded the Compagnie des Cent-Associés (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_des_Cent-Associ%C3%A9s) and saw the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Saint-Germain-en-Laye&action=edit) return Québec to French rule under de Champlain, after the settlement had been captured by the Kirkes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kirke) in 1629. This in part allowed the colony to eventually develop into the heartland of francophone culture in North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America).

Richelieu was also famous for his patronage of the arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art); most notably, he founded the Académie française (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise), the learned society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_society) responsible for matters pertaining to the French language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language). Richelieu is also known by the sobriquet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriquet) l'Éminence rouge ("the Red Eminence"), from the red shade of a cardinal's vestments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestment) and the style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_%28manner_of_address%29) "eminence" as a cardinal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_%28Catholicism%29).

Legacy

Richelieu's tenure was a crucial period of reform for France. Earlier, the nation's political structure was largely feudalistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism), with powerful nobles and a wide variety of laws in different regions. Parts of the nobility periodically conspired against the King, raised private armies, and allied themselves with foreign powers. This haphazard system gave way to centralized power under Cardinal Richelieu. Local and even religious interests were subordinated to those of the whole nation, and of the embodiment of the nation—the King. Equally critical for France was Richelieu's foreign policy, which helped restrain Habsburg influence in Europe. Richelieu did not survive until the end of the Thirty Years' War; however, the conflict ended in 1648, with France emerging in a far better position than any other power, and the Holy Roman Empire entering a period of decline.

Cardinal Richelieu's successes were extremely important to Louis XIII's successor, King Louis XIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France). Louis XIV continued Richelieu's work of creating an absolute monarchy; in the same vein as the Cardinal, he enacted policies that further suppressed the once-mighty aristocracy, and utterly destroyed all remnants of Huguenot political power with the Edict of Fontainebleau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau). Moreover, Louis took advantage of his nation's success during the Thirty Years' War to establish French hegemony in continental Europe. Thus, Richelieu's policies were the requisite prelude to Louis XIV becoming the most powerful monarch, and France the most powerful nation, in all of Europe during the late seventeenth century.

Richelieu is also notable for the authoritarian measures he employed to maintain power. He censored the press, established a large network of internal spies, forbade the discussion of political matters in public assemblies such as the Parlement de Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlement) (a court of justice), and had those who dared to conspire against him prosecuted and executed. The Canadian historian and philosopher John Ralston Saul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul) has referred to Richelieu as the "father of the modern nation-state, modern centralised power [and] the modern secret service." The Cardinal's motives are the focus of much debate among historians; some see him as a patriotic supporter of the monarchy, whilst others view him as a power-hungry cynic. (Voltaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire) even argued that Richelieu started wars to make himself indispensable to the King.) The latter image gained further currency due to Alexandre Dumas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Dumas%2C_p%C3%A8re)'s work of historical fiction, Les Trois Mousquetaires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Musketeers) (The Three Musketeers). The novel depicts Richelieu as a power-hungry and avaricious minister. Many adaptations of Dumas' story portray Richelieu even more negatively.

Despite such arguments, Richelieu remains an honoured personality in France, particularly for his stubborn refusal to let courtly intrigues and foreign interests dominate the government. He has given his name to a battleship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Richelieu) and a battleship class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richelieu_class_battleship).The French governement planned to use his name for an aircraft carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Charles_de_Gaulle) but the ship was finally named after Charles de Gaulle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle).

His legacy is also important for the world at large—his ideas of a strong nation-state and aggressive foreign policy helped create the modern system of international politics. The notions of national sovereignty and international law can be traced, at least in part, to the policies and theories of Richelieu, especially as enunciated in the Treaty of Westphalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Westphalia) that ended the Thirty Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War).

One aspect of his legacy which has remained less renowned is his involvement with Samuel de Champlain, and his fledgling colony, along the St. Lawrence River. The retention and promotion of Québec under Richelieu allowed it — and through the settlement's strategic location, the St' Lawrence-Great Lakes gateway into the North American interior — to develop into a French empire in North America—parts of which would eventually become modern Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) and Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana).

[Petr]

"Cardinal Richelieu was no skeptic about religion, but as his political ambitions trumped all other considerations, it is fair to say there was very little depth in his religion."

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0909almanac.htm


"Richelieu adhered to the maxim that "the ends justify the means." Although he devoutly believed in the mission of the Roman Church, he sought to assign the church a more practical role. Richelieu argued that the state is above everything, and that religion is a mere instrument to promote the policies of the state."

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/richelieu.html


Petr

[Petr]

Richileu in all likelihood was an athiest.
You are mistaken if you think that you can categorize pre-modern people simply as "atheists" or "believers". Ancient people usually had a whole lot more complicated approach to religion.


Petr

[Jonathan]

This conversation is going nowhere
I don't think it was ever going anywhere. We fundamentally disagree. simple as that. It passed the time and uped the post count though.

as long as Shane insists on rejecting the acknowledgement of basic principles of libertarianism in order to distinguish between libertarians and non-libertarians.
I take it that Libertarianism is right-wing economics with left-wing social policy (and I don't think that I'm alone on this definition).

Instead, he has constructed his own definition of libertarian to include big government capitalists and politicians, two groups which libertarians oppose.
No, I believe that you are specifically adhereing to a particular strand of Libertarianism in order to avoid my points.

In Shane's world, anyone who isn't a socialist is libertarian.
That's simply false, anyone willing to look through the posts(:rofl: ) will see this immediately.

Using these muddled, invented definitions, he's then able to construct a conspiracy theory in which even non-libertarian government actions are blamed on libertarians.
Addressed.

[Jonathan]

Shane your arguement here seems to be that anyone not a socialist is a libertarian.
I would have thought that the word "relative" cleared up this problem.

[Kodos]

Nonetheless, his rule was "by the grace of God," and therefore officially theocratic.


Petr

Im not sure the preamble to the title of "your eminence" for a cardinal was, King Louis XVIII of who Richeliu was the chief advisor to ruled as "by the grace of god, his most serene etc. majesty, the most christian king of France"

[Jonathan]

Why not let the Richelieus of the world rule?
For fear he'd be corrupted.:)

P.S. Supposedly he had a notoriously bad temper too.

[Kodos]

You are mistaken if you think that you can categorize pre-modern people simply as "atheists" or "believers". Ancient people usually had a whole lot more complicated approach to religion.

Im like that too... but Richeliu cleary was not a devout Protestant( being technically a cardinal who worked to break the political power of the Hugenots but recognizing their industriousness did not seek to expel or eliminate them) but clearly also not really a devout catholic despite his choice of career path( backing the Protestant side in the 30 years war out of French national interest to contain the Hapsburgs and prevent Germany from uniting).

[Jonathan]

Im like that too... but Richeliu cleary was not a devout Protestant( being technically a cardinal who worked to break the political power of the Hugenots but recognizing their industriousness did not seek to expel or eliminate them) but clearly also not really a devout catholic despite his choice of career path( backing the Protestant side in the 30 years war out of French national interest to contain the Hapsburgs and prevent Germany from uniting).

I remember a lecturer of mine trying to reconsile Richelieu's Catholicism with his foreign policy. He spoke of how "the King of France was God's chosen one" thus, to further France's national interests(Realpolitik or whatever you like to call it) was in a roundabout way serving God.

Fairly wishy-washy IMO.

[Fade the Butcher]

For fear he'd be corrupted.:)

P.S. Supposedly he had a notoriously bad temper too.

A counterargument: the statesman is the hardest to corrupt.

[Petr]

Im like that too... but Richeliu cleary was not a devout Protestant( being technically a cardinal who worked to break the political power of the Hugenots but recognizing their industriousness did not seek to expel or eliminate them) but clearly also not really a devout catholic despite his choice of career path( backing the Protestant side in the 30 years war out of French national interest to contain the Hapsburgs and prevent Germany from uniting).
I think our fellow pre-modern Balkanoid savages ;) could best relate to Richelieu's "French state über alles"-worldview:


"In his memoirs, Macek writes that there was a Catholic chapel in the death camp where priests heard confession. On seeing one Ustasha torturer emerge from confessing his sins, Macek asked him if he was not afraid of the judgment of God. "Don't talk to me about that," he was told. "I am perfectly aware of what is in store for me. For my past, present and future sins I will burn in hell. But at least I will burn for Croatia.""

http://www.diacritica.com/degenerate/4/pavelic11.html


Petr

[WAM]

In reality there is no "Democracy" "Socialism" "Communism" or political parties.
All governments amount to rule by a few,an elite,an oligarchy;modern media serves to obfuscate this fact with paid shills yapping about "Democrats" or "Republicans" or "Tories" or "Labour",etc.
The truth is that all governments are run by a very few,all the rest is a dog and pony show for the dupes.All societies have a small elite and a mass of sheep and the mass will always live under the rule of a few.The only question that matters is WHAT elite and WHAT yoke will they have their sheep herd live under.
All the talk about "Democracy" or "Sociallism" or this or that "party" is so much
mouth flatulence.

[SteamshipTime]

In a sense, all governments are democratic, in that they are what the majority of people are willing to put up with at any particular point in time.

[Kodos]

"In his memoirs, Macek writes that there was a Catholic chapel in the death camp where priests heard confession. On seeing one Ustasha torturer emerge from confessing his sins, Macek asked him if he was not afraid of the judgment of God. "Don't talk to me about that," he was told. "I am perfectly aware of what is in store for me. For my past, present and future sins I will burn in hell. But at least I will burn for Croatia."

LOL, this is not the worldview of old style catholics though. Ussually they believe the church can pardon any sin no matter how dark.

[SteamshipTime]

LOL, this is not the worldview of old style catholics though. Ussually they believe the church can pardon any sin no matter how dark.

Apparently, you've never heard of the Catholic doctrine of mortal sin.

[Kodos]

Apparently, you've never heard of the Catholic doctrine of mortal sin.

All sins except the nebulously defined "blasphemies against the holy spirit" are pardonable by the church including mortal ones.

Thats the heart of the raquet.

[SteamshipTime]

All sins except the nebulously defined "blasphemies against the holy spirit" are pardonable by the church including mortal ones.

Thats the heart of the raquet.

Really?

http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

Run "blasphemy against the holy spirit" in Google and tell me how many Protestant sites are hit.

[Kodos]

Scroll down to the

"all sins can be forgiven" part.

[Jonathan]

A counterargument: the statesman is the hardest to corrupt.

Maybe so, but not impossible.

Not to mention the kind of people who are often attracted to powerful position (they may not be statesmen in the true sense, but the aspire to the position).

[Fade the Butcher]

Maybe so, but not impossible.

It seems reasonable to me that the trained and bred statesman would be the hardest to corrupt, the most qualified to rule, and the most difficult to deceive about the true interests of the state. OTOH, the masses are easily deceived and corrupted in addition to being unfit to rule because they lack specialized knowledge.

Not to mention the kind of people who are often attracted to powerful position (they may not be statesmen in the true sense, but the aspire to the position).

These people would have to matriculate through the academies.

[SteamshipTime]

Scroll down to the

"all sins can be forgiven" part.

This part?

"It is vitally important that Catholics confess sins on a regular basis, especially if we are in the state of mortal sin. A person who dies in mortal sin cannot enter the kingdom of heaven and is doomed to eternal suffering in hell."

Also, do you think this doctrine is uniquely Catholic?

[Kodos]

"It is vitally important that Catholics confess sins on a regular basis, especially if we are in the state of mortal sin. A person who dies in mortal sin cannot enter the kingdom of heaven and is doomed to eternal suffering in hell."

But by confessing it etc you do not die in a state of mortal sin and as of Vatican the 2nd I don't even think that matters.

[Fade the Butcher]

You're too smart, I admit it. I'm just curious though as to which people on this board you are superior to?

You confessed your ignorance in your previous post. I guess I will start with you.

Better yet, which ones want to admit that they are too dumb to make decisions for themselves..A show of hands please.
I will raise my hand. There are all sorts of things I am not qualified to do. For instance, I am not a surgeon. I do not possess specialized medical training in human anatomy. So it probably wouldn't be a good idea to let me operate on people. I can't fly airplanes either. Again, it would probably be a good idea to let the pilots handle that task.

Imagine what would happen to the practice of medicine if it were democratized. We would have to start with a few assumptions. 1.) Those unelected professionals who have specialized medical training called physicians would have to be dispensed with. 2.) We would have to assume that medicine is ultimately unknowable as a definite qualitative thing through the methods of such professionals.

Our solution? We would democratically elect representatives to replace the physicians that have been deposed. Let's call them witch doctors. This is absolutely necessary because the physicians of old have abused their power on occasion in the past to engage in malpractice. So our aim should no longer be good medicine. The aim should be to limit the power the witch doctors hold over us. The cures for various diseases could be arrived at through a quantitative formula that tallies the mean of individual self interest.

[Leif]

Would you not agree that this is all done in the interest of globalization which is driven by Capitalism which is the Libertarians economic system of choice?

Your foreign policy is driven by globalization and capitalism - both part of Libertarianism.

I agree libertarians like capitalism, but they only like free market capitalism, not "monopoly-capitalism" or "state-capitalism."

That is the entire base of my argument against your claim that the U.S. is run by a "libertarian" elite. Libertarians are against huge government spending, government subsidies of business (atleast to the degree being done today) and the concentration of business ownership in a small number of corporations.

Facts:

- The government subsidizes businesses with billions of dollars (Iraq war)
- The market is significantly controlled by a small number of corporations (monopolies, for all practical purposes) (1/3 GDP owned by under 200 companies)

Libertarianism wants to minimize government influence and maximize individual freedoms. That is, the want to eliminate any unnecessary government spending and subsidies. How is funding a 200billion war minimalist government? Even if one thought that was necessary, why would it be minimalist to subsidize billions of dollars of corporate business in Iraq? How does this fit within the realm of libertarian minimalism?

Libertarians still need taxes to fund the armed forces to defend their private property for example. Lets not slip back into the Anarchism model.

They need to finance hundreds of billions of dollars into dubious wars? They need to rebuild foreign countries with government subsidies? They need the legal authority to detain civilians without any kind of trial and for unspecified amounts of time due to "terrorism?" How does this fit the libertarian model? How is any of this minimalist government, or even necessary for that matter?

Capitalism being the economic side of Libertarianism.

See above. "Monopoly" and "state" capitalism are not libertarian.


*I'll respond to your anarchism comments if you want me to, but it seemed like that argument was going off-topic.*

[Leif]

It violates the division of labor principle. The harmony of the collective is most efficiently promoted when each individual remains in his place and performs his function. Just imagine the sort of disorder that would result if we switched the mechanics with the historians, the lawyers with the doctors, the generals with the artists and so on.

How does a "statesman" know what's best for everyone? How does one acquire the infinite "wisdom" to order a state in the best interests of its citizens? How would this be applicable to nations with hundreds of millions of citizens?

Similarly, I don't think the practice of statesmanship is best served by making every layman a statesman.

I don't think anyone is qualified to be a "statesman" in the sense you describe.

If every individual votes merely in his or her own interest, then the common good of the whole can hardly be served (that being the object of government), as such votes would merely tabulate the mean of individual desires. They would not be concerned with the good of society as a whole which, of course, is neither subjective or quantifiable, but a definite qualitative thing that exists independently of individual whims and wishes.

How does the "statesman" know the "common good" and act in its interest? He can't possibly please every single individual; no system can. Therefore the argument that democracy only serves the majority is also applicable to your ideal of bureaucratic oligarchy.

Democracy is similar to oligarchy and monarchy in that it substitutes the satisfaction of individual appetites for the practice of statesmanship and its principle of collective harmony at the level of government.

What is a government, but a collective organization designed to satisfy needs/appetites? At least in a democracy one is satisfying the needs of a majority.

The democratic politicians who are the servants of various commercial/media oligarchial interests launched the war in Iraq...

...The democratic politicians who are the servants of various commercial/media oligarchial interests brought this situation about too.

...We don't live in a direct democracy. The U.S. is an oligarchy with a facade of representative democracy as a sop to the masses. The American system is probably the most ingenious form of oligarchy ever devised, as it successfully harnesses the legitimacy of democracy with an illusion of representation (the propaganda produced by commercial/media empires) while using the power of the state to advance private financial interests at the expense of the exploited masses.

So we are in consensus that today's failures are not the direct result of democracy, but oligarchy. This leads us to:

This is true. This forces us to ask troubling questions: do we really live in a true democracy when our immigration policy does not reflect the interests of the majority of our citizens? The answer, of course, is no. The U.S. is controlled by an oligarchy that dominates the democratic process and structures it suits its needs. Our immigration and trade policies are representative of the wealthy cosmopolitan elite that holds the real power in America...

I am not saying here that the masses are the enemy. I am just pointing out how easily they are led by the nose. This is precisely why it is so dangerous to invest them with the right to make political decisions. The oligarchy wouldn't tolerate democratic institutions if they were a real threat to oligarchic power...


Why would it be dangerous to allow the people a chance to enforce their will, if they appear correct on most issues and know what's in their best interests? I agree they can be led astray, but this is due to lack of information. Anyone- including a statesman or philosopher king, would make bad decisions based upon false information. That is the greatest problem today, many people are aware of problems going unsolved, yet they believe these can be fixed because they are falsely taught the system is "democratic" and change can occur through official channels.

Because only voting rights are accorded only to presently living adults.

...Foetuses have neither the ability nor the inclination to vote, Fade. :p

Besides, many issues in "democratic" societies are centered around the future. Environmental conservativism the most obvious. How would removing people's votes and placing their power into the hands of a statesman automtically create more concern for the future? Because that's what a statesman does? That's circular logic.

It is still true, however, that they are complicit in the crime by supporting the democratic/oligarchic process. It is important to remember here that the strength of this type of democracy/oligarchy rests in its ability to harness democratic energies behind oligarchic agendas.

I agree everyone is to one degree or another complicit in the current system. Would they prefer another system if given the oppertunity to implement one? Probably.

Democracy rests on the notion that there is a formula, that is, majoritarianism, which allows us to decipher the common good. The common good is merely the average of individual preferences.

Is there a better way? Explain it, please.

How can the masses possibly be considered the statesmen of the highest calibre when the oligarchy is able to so effectively exploit them? And if we want statesmen of the highest calibre, then why not create a caste of professionals charged specifically with the task of advancing the interests of the collective as a whole?

Why create a caste of powerful individuals when they appear to have repeatedly betrayed their fellow citizens again and again in the past? Why put faith in them?

I want a nation of citizens, not statesmen.

Democracy ultimately rests upon the same idea as oligarchy and monarchy: individual appetite, not wisdom, should prevail in matters of government.

How does one actively put "the wise" into positions of power? What is wisdom? How do we discover who is "wise?"

The majority are ignorant because they are unfit to rule by nature. This is illustrated by how easily the oligarchs are able to mislead them about their own true interests with their propaganda machines.

I simply can't accept the idea that the majority of people are destined to remain ignorant and exploited. Why? Because every group of "rulers" or "statesmen" has always been corrupted simply because it has been allowed the privilege of ruling.

It is the rule of powerful special interest groups, that is, a faction, on the grounds that the formula of majoritarianism can arrive at the common the good. The problem with this is that the majority can be completely wrong. The minority can just as easily be right.

I agree a democracy's power lay in the hands of the majority. I don't believe a "majority" and a "special interest group" should be considered synonymous, as no society can please every individual all the time.

Are you suggesting that a true democracy would not make use of majoritarianism?

No, but I distinguish between "special interest groups" and majorities.

The common good is not the average sum of individual preferences.

What is the common good?

It is entirely possible to discipline, train, and breed human beings to work (and to die) for the collective good of society as a whole. If that were not the case, then heroism would be impossible.

If that's true, then shouldn't one be able to breed intelligent and "wise" citizens? Heroism is usually fear without option or stupidity.

I would argue, on the contrary, that human beings are endowed with fundamentally unequal faculties by nature. There will always be some human beings who can perform other human beings at certain tasks. Some will have better eyesight. Some will have stronger reasoning power. Some will have more muscular strength and so on. It is a fantasy to assume that all human beings can be made equal or that they are born equal. It will never happen.

That is a canard. No one has advocated that.

By political equality...[we] mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.
-Vladimir Lenin, 1914


Differences in status and power will never go away.

Yet we can create selfless super-human beings?

Democracy would fail for many of the same reasons even in a society in which property is owned in common.

Why? What reasons?

We can't eliminate individual interests, at best, we can contain them, but we can most certainly destroy individualism (the doctrine that they take prior above all else).

We can't remove individual interests but we could train humans to ignore them against all instincts and judgment?

[Jonathan]

I agree libertarians like capitalism, but they only like free market capitalism, not "monopoly-capitalism" or "state-capitalism."
I would disagree with this straight off.

Libertarians like "capitalism", full stop. Whether this be "monopoly-capitalism" or "state-capitalism" or "what-ever-you're-having-yourself-capitalism" depends on the Libertarian themselves. As has been noted, Libertarianism isn't the most rigid ideology. In the same way that a person claiming to be a "capitalist" may be either a "monopoly-capitalist" or a "state-capitalist" so too can a "Libertarian" aspire to various degrees of Libertarianism. The particular strand of Libertarianism which you (and Eddy) seem to be identifying is only a sudstratum of the general ideology which I am referring to.

This is the bases of our (and Eddy's) whole disagreement - a particular definition of Libertarianism.

I identify Libertarians are economically-right and socially-left. Simple as that. Until we change our opinions on what Libertarianism is (and I don't expect to change mine), I don't think we can reconcile this issue. That's not the end of the world though. :)

That is the entire base of my argument against your claim that the U.S. is run by a "libertarian" elite.
Yes, and I can see where you're coming from. Surely you can see that through my definition of Libertarianism, the claim is true. No?

Libertarians are against huge government spending, government subsidies of business (atleast to the degree being done today) and the concentration of business ownership in a small number of corporations.
Libertarians will always say that there is either too much government spending "today" to too little Liberalism "today" because that is the nature of a liberal - to keep "pushing the boundaries".

Libertarianism wants to minimize government influence and maximize individual freedoms.
Like I've said, I don't think that this encompasses all Libertarians.

How is funding a 200billion war minimalist government?
It's not necessarily minimalist government. But for those of the economic-right, it suits to set up a Global economy. I'm sure you agree.

They need the legal authority to detain civilians without any kind of trial and for unspecified amounts of time due to "terrorism?" How does this fit the libertarian model?
All states take meassures to defend themselves - this is nothing to do with Libertarians per se.

How is any of this minimalist government, or even necessary for that matter?
My point being that not all Libertarians are minimalists.

See above. "Monopoly" and "state" capitalism are not libertarian.
I'd disagree. Monopolies and state-capitalism are compatible with capitalism which is itself compatible with libertarianism.

*I'll respond to your anarchism comments if you want me to, but it seemed like that argument was going off-topic.*
Off topic? Wasn't this thread about democracy!:p

Respond if you like, personally I'm not pushed. Suit yourself :)

[Leif]

Libertarians like "capitalism", full stop. Whether this be "monopoly-capitalism" or "state-capitalism" or "what-ever-you're-having-yourself-capitalism" depends on the Libertarian themselves. As has been noted, Libertarianism isn't the most rigid ideology. In the same way that a person claiming to be a "capitalist" may be either a "monopoly-capitalist" or a "state-capitalist" so too can a "Libertarian" aspire to various degrees of Libertarianism. The particular strand of Libertarianism which you (and Eddy) seem to be identifying is only a sudstratum of the general ideology which I am referring to.

How is corporatism (aka state-capitalism) compatible with libertarianism? Coporatism/fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism...

I identify Libertarians are economically-right and socially-left. Simple as that. Until we change our opinions on what Libertarianism is (and I don't expect to change mine), I don't think we can reconcile this issue. That's not the end of the world though.

Okay, but your definition of libertarian is something you created- not something that people have ever identified with nor accepted.

lib·er·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-târ-n)
n.
1-One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2-One who believes in free will.

Yes, and I can see where you're coming from. Surely you can see that through my definition of Libertarianism, the claim is true. No?

I agree that if libertarians were identified as you describe them, your logic would work. But this is an argument over definitions in the first place.

Like I've said, I don't think that this encompasses all Libertarians.

That is the definition of a libertarian.

It's not necessarily minimalist government.

Again, read the actual definition.


All states take meassures to defend themselves - this is nothing to do with Libertarians per se.

How are unprovoked foreign invasions acts of "defense?"

My point being that not all Libertarians are minimalists.

See above.

[Fade the Butcher]

How does a "statesman" know what's best for everyone? How does one acquire the infinite "wisdom" to order a state in the best interests of its citizens?

The statesman, like the doctor, would be trained and educated in his profession. He is a specialist in the art of public administration. The knowledge he possesses (that the common man does not) is the justification of his rule. The potential statesman is imparted this wisdom in the course of his education. The difference between the statesman and other professionals is that his practice touches all others. As a practical matter, he has to know what is best for everyone as he acts on behalf of everyone.

How would this be applicable to nations with hundreds of millions of citizens?

The statesman has longed existed. He just plays a subordinate role in government to dictators, monarchs, and democratically elected leaders. He is the professional administrator. I don't see what the size of the nation has to do with the relevance of the statesman, as large and small nations alike invariably draw upon their talents.

I don't think anyone is qualified to be a "statesman" in the sense you describe.

You would have the masses or their elected representatives, not professional statesmen, exercise sovereign authority. I have yet to see you explain why the masses of all people are qualified to perform this function. It would seem to me that they are the most unqualified, as they possess the least knowledge.

How does the "statesman" know the "common good" and act in its interest?

1.) The statesman would be able to act because he alone would possess such authority.
2.) The statesman is educated to perform such a function.
3.) The art of statesmanship is practical, that is, the exercise of such authority is unavoidable which is precisely why the statesman cannot be held to a standard of absolute knowledge.

He can't possibly please every single individual; no system can.

The aim of the statesman is not to please individuals. His goal is effective and efficient public administration.

Therefore the argument that democracy only serves the majority is also applicable to your ideal of bureaucratic oligarchy.

It does not apply to my system because it rests upon totally different presuppositions. One system rests upon a subjective theory of knowledge. The common good is nothing but the mean opinion of voters arrived at through the formula of majoritarianism. The other system rests upon an objective account. The common good is a definite qualitative condition composed of facts independent of individual preferences.

What is a government, but a collective organization designed to satisfy needs/appetites?

The telos of the state is collective happiness. The various practices each contribute a distinct good (i.e., health, victory, knowledge, justice and so on) that are all subsumed by this ultimate good. Thus government is not designed to satisfy individual needs/appetites. It has a similar function that aims at a similar good. The purpose of government is to provide efficient and effective public administration. This requires, above all, the exercise of reason and the suppression of individual appetites and desires.

At least in a democracy one is satisfying the needs of a majority.

A democracy doesn't satisfy the needs of the majority. The voters are systematically lied to in democracy about the nature of their true interests by huge propaganda machines.

So we are in consensus that today's failures are not the direct result of democracy, but oligarchy.

Not exactly. The American system combines the worst elements of oligarchy and democracy. We agree that the current system is not a pure democracy.

Why would it be dangerous to allow the people a chance to enforce their will, if they appear correct on most issues and know what's in their best interests?

It would certainly be preferable to the system we have in place today. It is not, however, preferable in the abstract to the system that I have proposed. This is because the masses are easily confused about their true interests and ultimately defer to whom they perceive as their leaders.

I agree they can be led astray, but this is due to lack of information.

The masses don't suffer from a lack of information in our system. They are overwhelmed by information, but are too ignorant and lazy to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Anyone- including a statesman or philosopher king, would make bad decisions based upon false information.

The role of statesman, like that of the physician, is not justified on the grounds that he is perfect. His role is justified by the fact that he possesses professional knowledge and is therefore the hardest to deceive. It is far easier to mislead the layman about the nature of, say, rocks than a geologist.

That is the greatest problem today, many people are aware of problems going unsolved, yet they believe these can be fixed because they are falsely taught the system is "democratic" and change can occur through official channels.

The nature of democracy lends itself to such problems. If the same system were applied to any other practice, then the same problems would resurface.

Foetuses have neither the ability nor the inclination to vote, Fade.

I am not saying that the dead, the unborn, or fetuses can or should vote. I am saying he community is more than the presently living.

Besides, many issues in "democratic" societies are centered around the future. Environmental conservativism the most obvious.

True. This doesn't falsify my point though. There is a systemic bias in democracy in fvor of the short term over the long term.

How would removing people's votes and placing their power into the hands of a statesman automtically create more concern for the future? Because that's what a statesman does? That's circular logic.

The statesmen would not be prisoners to the whims and desires of the masses and could thus far more effectively look out for the interests of future generations. This is seen in how easily democratic politicians become tools of commercial/media empires in the American system.

I agree everyone is to one degree or another complicit in the current system. Would they prefer another system if given the oppertunity to implement one? Probably.

There is no considerable support for doing away with representative democracy in America. That only goes to show you how effectively the masses are lied to about the nature of their true interests and/or pacified by materialism.

Is there a better way? Explain it, please.

Yes. We can assume that the common good, like health in medicine, is an objective condition that can be known independently of individual desires and preferences.

Why create a caste of powerful individuals when they appear to have repeatedly betrayed their fellow citizens again and again in the past? Why put faith in them?

Restated: Why create a caste of powerful doctors when they have engaged in malpractice in the past? Why put faith in them?

Answer: Because the benefits of such a professionalized system would so outweigh the costs if it were put in place that no one would care to argue about it.

I want a nation of citizens, not statesmen.

My citizenship is not diminished because I cannot practice medicine or law. It wouldn't be diminised either if I didn't possess voting rights.

How does one actively put "the wise" into positions of power?

We already produce statesmen and employ them in positions of power today. The difference is that in my system they would not be the pawns of democratic politicians, dictators, or monarchs.

What is wisdom?

The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting.

How do we discover who is "wise?"

That would be a part of the education program the statesman would matriculate through.

I simply can't accept the idea that the majority of people are destined to remain ignorant and exploited.

This stems from the deficiences in the account of human nature you are drawing from. Humans are group based bipedal mammals that share these characteristics in common with many different species.

Why? Because every group of "rulers" or "statesmen" has always been corrupted simply because it has been allowed the privilege of ruling.

Humans everywhere live in hierarchial social systems that ultimately stem from human nature itself. This great truth is most blatant in social systems that are hierarchial in spite of the egalitarianism they profess.

I agree a democracy's power lay in the hands of the majority.

Which is precisely why democracy is factionalism in politics.

I don't believe a "majority" and a "special interest group" should be considered synonymous, as no society can please every individual all the time.

The role of government is not to please every individual based on his/her subjective preferences. It is concern for the common good of the whole.

What is the common good?

Collective happiness.

If that's true, then shouldn't one be able to breed intelligent and "wise" citizens?

Absolutely.

Heroism is usually fear without option or stupidity.

There are people who sacrifice their lives on behalf of some higher good, say, Germany.

That is a canard. No one has advocated that.

That is not my point. Hierarchy emerges out of such natural inequalities. Political equality is a sweet sounding phrase, nothing more.

Yet we can create selfless super-human beings?

We can create professional statesmen. We have long been doing so.

Why? What reasons?

Several of the reasons I listed above had nothing to do with property.

We can't remove individual interests but we could train humans to ignore them against all instincts and judgment?

We can train statesman who exercise their power to advance the common good of the collective. We can train doctors to be concerned with the health of their patients, not private profit.

[Jonathan]

How is corporatism (aka state-capitalism) compatible with libertarianism? Coporatism/fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism...
There is more to fascism than coporatism.

Okay, but your definition of libertarian is something you created- not something that people have ever identified with nor accepted.

lib·er·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-târ-n)
n.
1-One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2-One who believes in free will.
There have been whole articles written about Libertarianism. Dictionary.com isn't the be-all and end-all. Communitarians would be economic-left and social-right, yet all that Dictionary.com can say for them is "A member or supporter of a small cooperative or a collectivist community."

If you want to put all your eggs in the dictionary.com basket, fire away, but I'd consider that a tad blinkered.

That is the definition of a libertarian.
According to dictionary.com's miniscule sentence, yes. In reality, no, not necessarily.

Again, read the actual definition.
You cannot pass that off as the definition any more than you could pass of the communitarian definition.

How are unprovoked foreign invasions acts of "defense?"
You've either misenterprited what I said, or intentionally taken it out of context. My reply about "defence" was in relation to your comment about "war on drugs" et al. On the issue of Iraq, I would say that it has to do with globalization and the furthering of America's international dominance (which is also motivated by globalization and "pre-emptive stike" IMO).

See above.
ditto.

[Leif]

The statesman, like the doctor, would be trained and educated in his profession. He is a specialist in the art of public administration. The knowledge he possesses (that the common man does not) is the justification of his rule.

Why not educate the entire citizenry, thus removing the threat of corrupt statesmen while maintaining the benefit of knowledge?

The potential statesman is imparted this wisdom in the course of his education. The difference between the statesman and other professionals is that his practice touches all others. As a practical matter, he has to know what is best for everyone as he acts on behalf of everyone.

Answer my question. How is it possible for one man to know what is good for everyone?

The statesman has longed existed. He just plays a subordinate role in government to dictators, monarchs, and democratically elected leaders. He is the professional administrator. I don't see what the size of the nation has to do with the relevance of the statesman, as large and small nations alike invariably draw upon their talents.

Again, how would a statesman know what is best for everyone, especially when there are millions of individuals in the equation?

You would have the masses or their elected representatives, not professional statesmen, exercise sovereign authority. I have yet to see you explain why the masses of all people are qualified to perform this function. It would seem to me that they are the most unqualified, as they possess the least knowledge.

Solution: education.

1.) The statesman would be able to act because he alone would possess such authority.
2.) The statesman is educated to perform such a function.
3.) The art of statesmanship is practical, that is, the exercise of such authority is unavoidable which is precisely why the statesman cannot be held to a standard of absolute knowledge.

Why can't the citizenry be educated?

The aim of the statesman is not to please individuals. His goal is effective and efficient public administration.

That's besides the point. You criticized democracy for being majoritarian, which it is. I then responded that no system can please everyone all the time. Thus, it is best to pursue the desires of a majority.

It does not apply to my system because it rests upon totally different presuppositions. One system rests upon a subjective theory of knowledge. The common good is nothing but the mean opinion of voters arrived at through the formula of majoritarianism.

The pursuit of government, in your own opinion, is collective happiness. Who better than the people themselves to decide what makes them happy?

The other system rests upon an objective account. The common good is a definite qualitative condition composed of facts independent of individual preferences.

How can a statesman know the conditions and facts surrounding citizens better than they themselves?

The telos of the state is collective happiness….Thus government is not designed to satisfy individual needs/appetites. It has a similar function that aims at a similar good. The purpose of government is to provide efficient and effective public administration. This requires, above all, the exercise of reason and the suppression of individual appetites and desires.

It does not follow. Our desires/needs/appetites dictate what makes us happy. To achieve happiness we must follow those desires, needs, and appetites.

A democracy doesn't satisfy the needs of the majority. The voters are systematically lied to in democracy about the nature of their true interests by huge propaganda machines.

Where would you get that idea? The United States? We do not live in a democracy, Fade. You and I both acknowledge that.

The American system combines the worst elements of oligarchy and democracy. We agree that the current system is not a pure democracy.

A democracy gives equal political power to all citizens.
Political power and economic power are commensurable.
It follows that a democracy must have economic equality.

The United States is not, even partially, a democracy.

It is not, however, preferable in the abstract to the system that I have proposed. This is because the masses are easily confused about their true interests and ultimately defer to whom they perceive as their leaders.

So why not educate them? If the statesman can be educated in order to avoid becoming confused, why not the rest of the citizenry?

The masses don't suffer from a lack of information in our system. They are overwhelmed by information, but are too ignorant and lazy to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It's not a matter of laziness, it’s a matter of being deliberately led astray. Many, especially the working people you so despise, do not have time to think let alone think critically, due to the fact that they are kept working non-stop. Barbara Ehrenreich demonstrated this in her book Nickle and Dimed.

You are blaming the shopkeeper for being burglarized, the deceased for being murdered, the victim for being assaulted.

The role of statesman, like that of the physician, is not justified on the grounds that he is perfect. His role is justified by the fact that he possesses professional knowledge and is therefore the hardest to deceive. It is far easier to mislead the layman about the nature of, say, rocks than a geologist.

Geological pursuits do not involve the entire population directly. Politics does.

I am not saying that the dead, the unborn, or fetuses can or should vote. I am saying he community is more than the presently living.

Which is entirely irrelevant to a specified criticism of democracy.

True. This doesn't falsify my point though. There is a systemic bias in democracy in fvor of the short term over the long term.

How? How is it biased in democracy anymore than monarchy, oligarchy, or any system?

The statesmen would not be prisoners to the whims and desires of the masses and could thus far more effectively look out for the interests of future generations.

The masses care about the future as much as anyone else. In fact it is in their interest to care, as they will feel the effects of any political or economic action quicker and harsher than the upper classes.

This is seen in how easily democratic politicians become tools of commercial/media empires in the American system

A democracy gives equal political power to all citizens.
Political power and economic power are commensurable.
It follows that a democracy must have economic equality.
The United States is not economically equal-
it is not a democracy.

We have agreed on this previously.

There is no considerable support for doing away with representative democracy in America.

I agree, the people want democracy.

=FadeTheButcher]That only goes to show you how effectively the masses are lied to about the nature of their true interests and/or pacified by materialism.

They are not totally ignorant, they realize a few things must be done, especially in regards to immigrancy.

Yes. We can assume that the common good, like health in medicine, is an objective condition that can be known independently of individual desires and preferences.

See above.

Restated: Why create a caste of powerful doctors when they have engaged in malpractice in the past? Why put faith in them?

Answer: Because the benefits of such a professionalized system would so outweigh the costs if it were put in place that no one would care to argue about it.

Doctors are not given power over other individuals, unlike your statesmen.

My citizenship is not diminished because I cannot practice medicine or law. It wouldn't be diminised either if I didn't possess voting rights.

A citizen without political power is a slave.

We already produce statesmen and employ them in positions of power today. The difference is that in my system they would not be the pawns of democratic politicians, dictators, or monarchs.

So, in essence, they would have no accountability to anyone whatsoever- be it voters or oligarchs. That is a recipe for corruption on a grand scale.

Humans everywhere live in hierarchial social systems that ultimately stem from human nature itself. This great truth is most blatant in social systems that are hierarchial in spite of the egalitarianism they profess.

I acknowledge that hierarchy and specialization is necessary for society. Investing sole political power into the hands of a few has nothing to do with this.

The role of government is not to please every individual based on his/her subjective preferences. It is concern for the common good of the whole.

See above.

Absolutely.

If we could create intelligent and wise citizens, why would we need to remove political power from them?

Hierarchy emerges out of such natural inequalities.

If oligarchy is a natural, then we should stop all abstractions about creating a society that works for the good of all.

Political equality is a sweet sounding phrase, nothing more.

Political inequality, on the other hand, doesn't even sound sweet. :P

We can create professional statesmen. We have long been doing so.

And they will continue to betray their citizens due to their disproportionate power.

Several of the reasons I listed above had nothing to do with property.

Answer my original question. Specify the reasons so I don't have to go looking through a multi-page response for something that [I]may[/] apply to this specific statement.

We can train statesman who exercise their power to advance the common good of the collective. We can train doctors to be concerned with the health of their patients, not private profit.

Doctors are only able to heal when they are told, by patients, when there is an ill. Your statesmen would be required to know every ill of every citizen without their input, that is, votes.

[Leif]

There is more to fascism than coporatism.

That's ignoring the point. There are no libertarians who support corporatism. There are no libertarians who support monopoly- or state-capitalism.

There have been whole articles written about Libertarianism. Dictionary.com isn't the be-all and end-all. Communitarians would be economic-left and social-right, yet all that Dictionary.com can say for them is "A member or supporter of a small cooperative or a collectivist community."

If you want to put all your eggs in the dictionary.com basket, fire away, but I'd consider that a tad blinkered.

If you disagree with the definition, please find another one supported by Libertarians themselves or factual evidence. Here's the widely conceived version of libertarians:

http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt

According to dictionary.com's miniscule sentence, yes. In reality, no, not necessarily.

Prove it.

You cannot pass that off as the definition any more than you could pass of the communitarian definition.

What is the definition, then? And no- I don't accept made-up definitions from yourself, they have to be from libertarians or recognized authorities.

You've either misenterprited what I said, or intentionally taken it out of context.

And you've completely ignored the facts. Debate over.

[Fade the Butcher]

Why not educate the entire citizenry, thus removing the threat of corrupt statesmen while maintaining the benefit of knowledge?

Against

1.) It would be grossly impractical and inefficient to require every citizen to receive the education of a professional statesman (or, for that matter, a professional physician).
2.) It would be impossible to properly educate the masses in such a manner. They would lack the requisite intelligence. They would defer to their leaders even if they were educated.
3.) The threat of corruption would not be eliminated. It would be magnified, as the masses are the easiest to corrupt and deceive. The masses would still be pursuing private gain and according them voting rights would open the door to massive corruption in the form of interests.

For

1.) It is entirely possible to train, breed, and select such an elite caste of statesmen.
2.) The administration of the state only requires the service of a minority.
3.) The statesmen would be the hardest to corrupt and the hardest to deceive.

Answer my question. How is it possible for one man to know what is good for everyone?

I answered your question. The statesman, as a professional, is concerned with one good: efficient public administration. His job description does not require him to be a jack of all trades; a professional of all professions. There is also an ultimate good which touches all citizens: happiness. Is the statesman capable of knowing what happiness consists of? Absolutely. It is part of his education.

Again, how would a statesman know what is best for everyone, especially when there are millions of individuals in the equation?

You are being incredibly vague here. Clarify your argument. Are you trying to say that there is a different good for each individual, that each individual is the best judge of what this good is, that the good is ultimately subjective or relative?

Solution: education.

This makes about as much sense as demanding that ever citizen become a physicist or a general because physicists and generals have abused their power and knowledge to advance their own interests. It is both impractical and impossible.

Why can't the citizenry be educated?

1.) Because human nature renders it impossible. Divisions would still emerge between leaders and followers; between submissive and dominant types. The masses are deferential by nature and would be mastered in any case. Hierarchy would naturally reemerge, as it has in every system that has ever professed egalitarianism and every single one that ever will in the future.

2.) Because some citizens would invariably be more gifted than others and such differences would naturally reemerge even if all citizens were given the same education.

That's besides the point.

I'm not following you here.

You criticized democracy for being majoritarian, which it is.

Yes.

I then responded that no system can please everyone all the time. Thus, it is best to pursue the desires of a majority.

You seem to be suggesting here that happiness is a subjective state that can only be defined by each individual. Is that what you are saying?

The pursuit of government, in your own opinion, is collective happiness.

No. It is a fact that the object of government is efficient public administration, as the associated virtues/vices of the statesman can only be deduced from this assumption. It is also true that efficient public administration is a good because it contributes to the ultimate good, collective happiness.

Who better than the people themselves to decide what makes them happy?

Happiness is not a subjective state. Health doesn't cease to be a good simply because I say that it isn't.

How can a statesman know the conditions and facts surrounding citizens better than they themselves?

Because happiness is not what each individual decides for himself happiness is. It is a definite thing that can be objectively known.

It does not follow. Our desires/needs/appetites dictate what makes us happy. To achieve happiness we must follow those desires, needs, and appetites.

This is utterly false. Reason is what leads us to happiness. The pursuit of appetites, unnecessary pleasures, whims, and desires is precisely what leads us to misery and slavery; to unhappiness.

Where would you get that idea? The United States? We do not live in a democracy, Fade. You and I both acknowledge that.

We live in a democracy/oligarchy. The American system combines features of both. The condition I described above is a systemic flaw of any democracy, as even in a pure democracy (such as ancient Athens) power would rest upon persuasion. Sophistry would become a virtue and propaganda would be used by various special interests to advance their agendas.

A democracy gives equal political power to all citizens.

In theory.

Political power and economic power are commensurable. It follows that a democracy must have economic equality.

There would be no equality even in a pure direct democracy in which all property is collectively owned. Power would still rest on the ability to sway others. Natural differences would still assert themselves and inequality would be the result. Those who possess significantly higher verbal intelligence, for starters, would be empowered over those who are deficient over those who lack intelligence (namely, the relatively dumber majority).

The United States is not, even partially, a democracy.

This is false.

So why not educate them? If the statesman can be educated in order to avoid becoming confused, why not the rest of the citizenry?

I addressed this above.

It's not a matter of laziness, it’s a matter of being deliberately led astray.

1.) The masses are lazy and indifferent. They do have access to the truth. They just aren't inspired to look for it, as they naturally defer to their leaders anyway.

2.) They are led astray, but this is an inherent aspect of democracy, as it is necessary to lead people astray to gain power because power is based upon winning their votes.

Many, especially the working people you so despise, do not have time to think let alone think critically, due to the fact that they are kept working non-stop.

As a collectivist, I don't despise working people. I want what is best for them just as you do. There is nothing more of an anathema to me than elevating the interest of the lone individual above the sake of the whole. But here again you acknowledge my point. Working people don't have the time to immerse themselves in the intricacies of philosophy, political theory, public administration, foreign policy and so on. Only a small leisure caste of above average intelligent professionals is capable of such a thing. This alone illustrates that educating the masses as statesmen is unfeasible.

Barbara Ehrenreich demonstrated this in her book Nickle and Dimed.

The masses, I am assuming, would still be workers in the still you advocate. If that is the case, then how would they find the time to be educated as professional statesmen?

You are blaming the shopkeeper for being burglarized, the deceased for being murdered, the victim for being assaulted.

I am not saying it is their fault or that exploitation of the masses is justifiable. On the contrary, I don't expect anything better from them, unlike yourself. They are suited by nature to play a subordinate role. The fault in this case lies in a deficiency of moral education in the leaders of the masses, not the masses themselves.

Geological pursuits do not involve the entire population directly. Politics does.

I understand that, but the statesman is interested in a definite good just like the geologist, hence the comparison.

Which is entirely irrelevant to a specified criticism of democracy.

It is a devastating criticism of democracy, as the interests of the unborn are sacrificed to satisfy the interests of the living.

How? How is it biased in democracy anymore than monarchy, oligarchy, or any system?

Because the state is the private property of the monarch. The government is his estate. The debts he incurs are his own and stick with him. The democratic politician is totally different. He is elected for a short term, say, four or six years. His office is a public one. Thus, the democratic politician is not responsible for all the damage he does to further his own private career once he leaves office. George W. Bush won't have to pay for the Iraq War once he leaves office. He won't be responsible for extricating himself from the shit mess he has created in the Middle East.

The masses care about the future as much as anyone else.

Remember this statement next time you see the garbage they throw out along the side of the road. Think about this during the next election cycle when concern about taxation and terrorism dominate all other issues.

In fact it is in their interest to care, as they will feel the effects of any political or economic action quicker and harsher than the upper classes.

You would think it would be in their interest to care about the future of their own children, but you would be surprised at how often they murder them, and how insistent they are that that the state stand idly by.

A democracy gives equal political power to all citizens.

Democracy does nothing of the sort in practice.

Political power and economic power are commensurable.

Power in a democracy rests in the ability to persuade. Even if private property was abolished and all property was collective owned, there would still be inequality as some individuals will always be more persuasive and articulate than others.

It follows that a democracy must have economic equality. The United States is not economically equal-it is not a democracy.

The U.S. is a democracy. Democracy does not require economic equality either. Political power would still not be equally distributed even if such a disastrous program were ever to be implemented.

We have agreed on this previously.

We agreed that the U.S. is not a pure democracy, not that the U.S. system has no democratic element.

I agree, the people want democracy.

The people are convinced they already have democracy.

They are not totally ignorant, they realize a few things must be done, especially in regards to immigrancy.

They are ignorant, passive, and easily misled enough to disqualify them from being trusted with the reigns of government.

Doctors are not given power over other individuals, unlike your statesmen.

Doctors are given power over other individuals. The knowledge they possess can be used just as easily to harm as to cure which is why there are malpractice lawsuits. The statesman is simply a doctor of the state.

A citizen without political power is a slave.

This is absurd. I am not a slave because the military is delegated the role of fighting wars; because I can't own a tank or a nuclear warhead.

So, in essence, they would have no accountability to anyone whatsoever- be it voters or oligarchs.

Everyone is accountable to their conscience.

That is a recipe for corruption on a grand scale.

If you want to see corruption on a grand scale, then just take a look at any state that takes the unworkable theory of democracy seriously.

I acknowledge that hierarchy and specialization is necessary for society.

And hierarchy and specialization arises out of biology.

Investing sole political power into the hands of a few has nothing to do with this.

Sure it does. It is just another example of specialization and hierarchy.

If we could create intelligent and wise citizens, why would we need to remove political power from them?

Because we will never have a society where all citizens are equally intelligent, wise, rhetorically gifted, submissive, or knowledgeable. You can give citizens the same exact education but the only thing that will emerge from this is difference because there are inherent differences between them that render them fundamentally unequal. The best you can possibly hope for is instilling the ruling class with a sense of responsibility, justice, and morality.

If oligarchy is a natural, then we should stop all abstractions about creating a society that works for the good of all.

Oligarchy IS NOT natural. In fact, hunter gatherers tend to be rather egalitarian. Hierarchy is an intrinsic feature of all human societies whatsoever in all periods of history. It is impossible to eradicate amongst humans and all sorts of other species of mammals.

Political inequality, on the other hand, doesn't even sound sweet.

Equality is nothing more than a fancy.

And they will continue to betray their citizens due to their disproportionate power.

This is a deficiency that stems from their education. No one betrays their fellow citizens in the name of private interest more than the masses.

Answer my original question. Specify the reasons so I don't have to go looking through a multi-page response for something that [i]may[/] apply to this specific statement.

I have addresed all your questions. I have also pointed out why political power would not be equally distributed in a society in which property is collectively owned too.

Doctors are only able to heal when they are told, by patients, when there is an ill.

This is false. Doctors are capable of discerning ills in their patients even when they are ignorant of them.

Your statesmen would be required to know every ill of every citizen without their input, that is, votes.

This is false.

[Faustian Dreams]

A democracy gives equal political power to all citizens.
Political power and economic power are commensurable.
It follows that a democracy must have economic equality.

The United States is not, even partially, a democracy.


A democracy gives equal opportunity for political and economic power; a true democracy does not lead its citizens to any choices but merely provides an environment where they can pursue whatever they desire without encroaching upon anyone else's desires.

If I am not mistaken, the entire premise of modern democracy was to allow for social mobility, and if this is the case, then it has been satisfied.

Theoretically, there is no excuse why anyone should be poor. Government and philanthropic grants for education are basically being handed out to anyone who satisfies the requirements. Those who come just above this arbitrary cutoff assumably come from a family where there are college-educated parents, and if they are diligent enough in their studies, they can be awarded a nice scholarship at a public university (I denied a full-scholarship from one public college to attend another, higher-ranked public college). This is directed particularly at middle-class families. For upper-middle and upper-class families, paying for tuition is no problem.

Education and an entrepreneurial mind are all that are required for success here in the States.

Hmm...let's add all of this together...equal opportunity...power in the hands of the individual...but not everyone reaches the ideal!? But wouldn't this mean...that not everyone is equipped with the brains or will necessary to accomplish this!?!? :confused:

It beats me. :rolleyes:

Democracy has been a test of the failure of human beings. Now that the test has proven what it intended to, it's time to cultivate humanity to higher standards.

[BaronBloodSpawn]

what good is democracy if nobody gets what they vote for?:D

seriously rule by mobs and two party politics has corrupted the western world in unimaginable ways and turned it upside:nono:

[Jonathan]

That's ignoring the point. There are no libertarians who support corporatism. There are no libertarians who support monopoly- or state-capitalism.
I've spoken to members of the "Freedom Institute" and "Progressive Democrats" (I don't expect you to know what they are - both Irish organisation) who identify themselves as Libertarians and still don't necessarily disagree with what you've listed. That's not to say that they are "not Libertarians" just "different Libertarians".

If you disagree with the definition, please find another one supported by Libertarians themselves
See above.

If you disagree with the definition, please find another one supported by Libertarians themselves or factual evidence.
I'll get something out of the Library when I get back. :)


Here's the widely conceived version of libertarians:

http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt
Ironically, that piece begins with describing "various types of Libertarianims" :p.

Thanks all the same.

Debate over.
Simple as that eh?

I'll get back with the definitions soon.:)

[Jonathan]

I'll get back with the definitions soon.:)

I'm not sure if you have access to these books but here goes:

Anarchism : a history of libertarian ideas and movements / George Woodcock

A Dictionary of conservative and libertarian thought / edited by Nigel Ashford and Stephen Davies

Freedom of the press from Zenger to Jefferson : early American libertarian theories / Edited by Leonard W. Levy

Libertarian conflicts in social choice / John L. Wriglesworth

The libertarians and education / Michael P. Smith

Wrongness, wisdom, and wilderness : toward a libertarian theory of ethics and the environment / Tal Scriven

edited: No I didn't actually read any of those, I just looked them up on the net :p I didn't get a chance to go to the Library today, but I will . . . tomorrow perhaps?

[Leif]

A democracy gives equal opportunity for political and economic power; a true democracy does not lead its citizens to any choices but merely provides an environment where they can pursue whatever they desire without encroaching upon anyone else's desires.

If I am not mistaken, the entire premise of modern democracy was to allow for social mobility, and if this is the case, then it has been satisfied.

Theoretically, there is no excuse why anyone should be poor. Government and philanthropic grants for education are basically being handed out to anyone who satisfies the requirements. Those who come just above this arbitrary cutoff assumably come from a family where there are college-educated parents, and if they are diligent enough in their studies, they can be awarded a nice scholarship at a public university (I denied a full-scholarship from one public college to attend another, higher-ranked public college). This is directed particularly at middle-class families. For upper-middle and upper-class families, paying for tuition is no problem.

Education and an entrepreneurial mind are all that are required for success here in the States.

Hmm...let's add all of this together...equal opportunity...power in the hands of the individual...but not everyone reaches the ideal!? But wouldn't this mean...that not everyone is equipped with the brains or will necessary to accomplish this!?!?

It beats me.

Democracy has been a test of the failure of human beings. Now that the test has proven what it intended to, it's time to cultivate humanity to higher standards.

I believe you've confused democracy with "classical liberalism."