Democracy can be a bad thing

No, because good people make up the majority. Therefore, good people should elect good people. Without government bad people can do whatever they want without consequence. Then if someone kills them, THEY are bad now too. Government IS inherently bad though. That is why the constitution is as well planned and balanced as it is.

 

I am an anarchist. That has been my point. The inherent nature of government requires that it initiate violence against peaceful people.

Therefore using violence against peaceful people to prevent violence from being used against them is nonsensical and insane.

If you actually believe that people are too evil for anarchy then you are extremely naive to think that these "evil" people can handle power responsibly or that these "evil" people can somehow elect people that aren't evil.

 

Well, you originally said that people were too evil. You're now changing your argument.

The constitution is an utter failure, if you'd like I can show you a previous post showing a bunch of ways the constitution has been violated since its inception.

If only a little piece of paper could protect us from tyrants.. that's a fantasy and nothing more.

 

No. A Constitutional American Government would not be violent. And if people would educate themselves and defend themselves we would still have a good government. Blame the people, for it IS their fault.

 

Why violence? Why not the initiation of violence?

I'm not against using violence in self defense or in the defense of others liberties.

I define the initiation of violence as:

The use of force or threat of force against a non-agressing individual.

 

It's still violent even with a constitution. It's very simple to see how a government is inherently violent in nature.

Answer these questions:

What happens to me if I refuse to fund the drug war or the war in Iraq? What about welfare and social security?

Is the government asking for taxes the same as someone asking for charity? If not, what's different?

 

God.. LOOK AT WHAT I AM TYPING. I am telling you that our system currently is flawed because our government ignores the constitution. But even with your idea... it is perfectly legal for you to leave America. Nobody necessarily forces you to live here. You could go somewhere where you don't pay taxes. See MY point?

 

Ah, you once again made the same mistake.

Taxes are not voluntary. I said you can use violence to defend against the initiation of violence. The government is initiating violence against peaceful people first. Anything that comes after that is a result of that aggression.

 

Meta he is just an anarchist troll. He has no argument he just thinks everything leads to violence no matter what.

 

Why should I have to move just because these people with guns say I have to pay taxes? Everyone can just make up arbitrary rules? I can come up to you in your house and say you have to pay me 400 dollars a week if you want to live here and if you don't like it leave. Does that make sense to you?

You aren't understanding me. It doesn't matter what the constitution says. The government has to be funded. If it was funded voluntarily, it would be called charity, not government.

The taxes require the initiation of violence. It's very simple.

And you finish it off with an ad hominem attack to put the icing on the cake of all your logical fallacies. How pathetic.. Why don't you try being intellectually honest with yourself and others before posting again?

 

I don't understand why you would have to move you've already advocate for defending yourself so why don't you? If that is unrealistic then move and if that doesn't work then it sounds like you have to accept the circumstances for the time being. Everyone can make up arbitrary rules however only the influence can enforce them that's why you can't just ask for 400 dollars from home owners. The gov has more influence than you so that needs to be realistically examined and dealt with.

It sounds like you've done allot of digging into Anarchist theory but you don't know how to effectively advocate for it or at least explain how to pursue it. Philosophy is great but ultimately we all have to come to terms with the current reality no matter how irrational it is. I suggest you look further into anarchist movements and their real world practice it has a good history of failure and dealing with conflict and then relate it to your current beliefs. It may give you a deeper understanding that your philosophy can't and should help you grow.

Also it's nice to see someone else recognize the failure of the constitution. People should really stop relying on a piece of paper and have more focus on their own ethics and current situation.

 

Well, I'm glad you can see that the arguments I'm making are rational. I wasn't trying to make a case for how to implement them in this specific set of messages, I was only showing him how the government is inherently aggressive.

As for their implementation, I think that changing hearts and minds non violently is the only way to achieve a free society. That coupled with agorism will lead us to free market anarchism.

 

It will never happen! We need a governing body of some sort. I'm sorry but that is just how an intellectual civilized place works. Nobody here agrees with your anarchism. I will agree that government is inherently evil even when it tries to do good, that's why we should have the absolute minimum government possible, as the constitution highlights. But we need something to regulate a military for national defense, as well as protect the minority. The thing about societies like anarchy and pure democracy and stuff like that is that it generally always causes harm to the minority. Not any specific minority, just the minority of whatever decision lay ahead. Anarchy is not the answer, it has never worked and can never work. Sooner or later you have to have someone step in and protect your liberty.

 

That is entirely correct.

This I disagree with, simply because democracy, no matter how flawed, allows for recourse and change - the institution of some subjective sense of 'liberty' does not unless tied to it.

It is to the extent laws are made by the majority - courts merely enforce this law.

I do.

I agree, however democracy is a system we have founded that allows for recourse and the trial of various social policies - individual liberty being one them. I think with an educated populace that exists within conditions conducive to individual initiative and determination, the expansion of individual liberty, as a logical social program is inevitable.

 

However, this dichotomy between "limited democracy" and "dictatorship" doesn't tell us very much about how a state is best constructed. For example, is it better to be more centralized or more decentralized? Is it better to have a stronger executive or a weaker one? Et cetera.

 

It's not a question of systems. It's a question of particular elements within government. In not all cases, will we want majority vote. We won't want majority vote over freedom of conscience, for example.

 

They don't, which is one of the problems. For one thing, the only people they can vote for are people that choose to run and most of them are necessarily power-hungry cretins.

 

Yes, it would be. It would still have the power to tax, etc. States are by definition territorial monopolies of the initiation of violence.

 

Where would an anarchist move to? Somalia? But states like the US and Ethiopia have spent the past 15 years trying to force a state on Somalia. States would act to prevent the founding of any stateless society anywhere; perhaps they don't want to risk the possibility that it could work

 

Anti-statists generally are in favor of institutions to arbitrate disputes on the basis of law. They simply believe such institutions do not have to be in the form of territorial monopolies.

 

By liberty, I mean that each individual has a guaranteed right to his person and property. I would argue that this is the end we should strive for, while democracy is a potential means. However, being a means, it should be set aside if and when it hinders the end.

Not necessarily. Common law is not created by a legislature, but by centuries of court precedent.

So the Bill of Rights should be subject to majority vote? If 50.01% voted to legalize child slavery this would be acceptable?

Who is the "we"? If you're a minority and living in a society in which the majority is not very friendly to liberty (which is practically every society since the beginning of time, I'm afraid), it's not going to be so tidy for you. It also doesn't answer many questions. Should we have separation of powers? Should we have a Constitution? Should we have decentralized government? None of those things are necessarily democratic. Democracy can be a tool to hold the rulers accountable, but it's not a sufficient tool and it can often work in the opposite direction, when it allow majorities to remove rights from minorities.