Democracy, is it that perfect?

[Simbyotic]

Hey guys how you guys doing?

I have been kicking this question in my head for a while and maybe you can help me see through it.

"Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[1] Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law."

In a democratic society the majority decides what goes on on the country, simplistically speaking. The next president is chosen if a majority votes on him. It always seemed like the perfect system to me, I never questioned it before. But why does the majority have any saying in what a minority should and should not do? The way I'm seeing it, and please correct if I'm wrong, Democracy allows the majority to force its morals on the minority.

What do you think?

Another thing, if the government minded itself only on the use of force and no other thing, why would we need to have elections? Each government would do exactly the same thing, right?

Be well,
Joao Eira

[Dream]

Hey Joao

Democracy, and it's variations (simple majority, super majority, unanimous, etc) are a useful and effective tool in government -- with one caveat. It is only useful for things that are optional. The moment anyone "votes" on anything that is not optional, for someone else, and involves a matter of life and death, it becomes a horrific, and evil use of government, and should be resisted by any means necessary and proper.

For example, income tax is not inherently evil. It only becomes evil when refusal to pay it, be it 1% or 99% of your income, involves a punishment of violence, such as it does today. This is the real issue people do not want you to understand -- that when you are "voting", or a representative is voting for you, on what % of your income you should pay for government, the core of the issue is not the numerical %, but the violence that follows for not paying it.

Unlike say, losing services for not paying it. You don't lose social security for not paying it -- you go to jail, by violent force if necessary, and will be shot if you resist with equal or greater force when they attempt to haul you off to jail.

This is the "lynch mob" application of democracy, as compared to voting on things that are arbitrary. Which individual will be the chief executive officer of a country -- the president in my country -- should not matter as much as it does today, because the limits of government should be extreme and ultra defined.

The president for example should be the individual who carries out a war, once a war is declared by the congress. He should not be determining who lives and who dies in our country, as he does today, with open assassinations, torture, violent enforcement of income tax, etc.

~~~

Democracy is for deciding what % the income tax should be -- not whether or not it includes killing those who refuse to pay it. Democracy is for electing individuals to operate government, not what government should be doing in the first place.

[Halffull]

Of course it's not perfect. I think it's the best form of government in the history of the world though. Before this, the minority ruled over the majority.

[Simbyotic]

Of course it's not perfect. I think it's the best form of government in the history of the world though. Before this, the minority ruled over the majority.

Well, I guess what I am getting at is whether people need to be ruled at all. I read recently an article about a chinese city that's been doing better than most mostly by ignoring stupid government rules and by doing what needs to be done all by themselves. http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/15/chinas-black-market-city/singlepage

I had thought about an income tax system where it wouldn't be mandatory but you wouldn't get the same benefits as someone who payed would. Is there any country out there who thinks like this? I don't recall ever hearing about it so I am going to guess it doesn't exist.

[Dream]

Of course it's not perfect. I think it's the best form of government in the history of the world though. Before this, the minority ruled over the majority.

Minority rules (enslaves) the majority
Majority rules (enslaves) the minority
Tiny minority rules (enslaves) the majority

...

There is no fundamental difference between these concepts. Its one group ruling and enslaving another, varying in degree of sophistication as technology advances.

The solution is that no one rules anyone. Man is not a slave. Not to a monarch, not to a minority, not to a majority, and not to everyone.

Reminds me of a quote,

"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

-- Dream

[Halffull]

Of course there's a difference... in degree. On a fundamental level, no. But the difference is what has allowed America to flourish as it has... because even if it's not perfect, or even ideal, it is better than what came before.

I agree that part of the solution is to make the government have less ability to force people to do things, perhaps by adding a version of Kant's Moral Imperatives to the constitution that applies to laws.

Once this has been enacted, I would love to see a country that creates a complete democracy, where the people draft, vote on, and interpret laws. I'd also like to see voting based on a more meritocratic system, where people's votes get more influence when they have expertise in the area they are voting on.

[Dream]

Of course there's a difference... in degree. On a fundamental level, no. But the difference is what has allowed America to flourish as it has... because even if it's not perfect, or even ideal, it is better than what came before.

I agree that part of the solution is to make the government have less ability to force people to do things, perhaps by adding a version of Kant's Moral Imperatives to the constitution that applies to laws.

Once this has been enacted, I would love to see a country that creates a complete democracy, where the people draft, vote on, and interpret laws. I'd also like to see voting based on a more meritocratic system, where people's votes get more influence when they have expertise in the area they are voting on.

These are all band aids to a systemic problem that runs as deep as a problem can run.

You have no right to dictate, forcefully or otherwise, what happens in my life, and I have no right to dictate, forcefully or otherwise, what happens in yours. It is in fact the role of government to prevent such things from happening in the first place. What your talking about are by implication sophisticated derivatives of violating the rights of others by force.

The solution is not 'less', it's NO ability to force people to do anything, unless and until they force or defraud another individual or group first. "Less" inevitably leads to more. You're turning a binary problem of life and death into a gradient and muddling up the solution.

A nation-wide lynch mob is not the solution to a proper government. Force has to be entirely removed from the equation, point blank period.

-- Dream

[Halffull]

Of course there's a difference... in degree. On a fundamental level, no. But the difference is what has allowed America to flourish as it has... because even if it's not perfect, or even ideal, it is better than what came before.

I agree that part of the solution is to make the government have less ability to force people to do things, perhaps by adding a version of Kant's Moral Imperatives to the constitution that applies to laws.

Once this has been enacted, I would love to see a country that creates a complete democracy, where the people draft, vote on, and interpret laws. I'd also like to see voting based on a more meritocratic system, where people's votes get more influence when they have expertise in the area they are voting on.

These are all band aids to a systemic problem that runs as deep as a problem can run.

You have no right to dictate, forcefully or otherwise, what happens in my life, and I have no right to dictate, forcefully or otherwise, what happens in yours. It is in fact the role of government to prevent such things from happening in the first place. What your talking about are by implication sophisticated derivatives of violating the rights of others by force.

The solution is not 'less', it's NO ability to force people to do anything, unless and until they force or defraud another individual or group first. "Less" inevitably leads to more. You're turning a binary problem of life and death into a gradient and muddling up the solution.

A nation-wide lynch mob is not the solution to a proper government. Force has to be entirely removed from the equation, point blank period.

-- Dream

Yup, that's essentially the basis and result of Kant's moral imperatives