Thinker 2,

Cheers for the reply. Yeah, it's an interesting one. My idea of democracy is probably in line with the vibe of what the founders of the U.S of A had in mind. And really, they are THE case study of what can go wrong. Unfortunately, I don't believe there's such a thing as a perfect democratic society because of humans being who they are. Hippy communes are another example of good intentions but invariably end up with dominant personalities screwing it up royally.

'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' (Who watches the watchmen?)

We are who we are, and we are tribal predators run by alpha personalities.

Under One God,

Sorry mate, you lost me at 'thimbles and no pea'. NO idea what you're on about.

The question should not be “What do people want?” because if they want something that’s unethical or anti-social, there’s still no reason why they should have it.

Majority rule, backed up by force, does not prove that something is right or good; yet that is all that democracy has to offer.

People want to make their lives better. They will do so by mutually advantageous work and production if they have to – the economic way - or by stealing and exploitation if they can – the political way. Government is a machine to make stealing and exploitation safe by making it legal, that’s all.

The problem with democracy is that in its very principle, it’s immoral. There is no reason why everyone should be entitled to an equal say in what values everyone else should be forced to obey, nor an equal share in everyone else’s work and production. Democracy and freedom are inconsistent with each other. Democracy leads to demagoguery and bigger, more intrusive, more socialist and chaotic government which is what we are seeing now all over the western world.

The very principle of democracy – one person, one vote – leads to a free-for-all in which everyone tries to live at everyone else’s expense.

If all the crimes and abuses committed by the Mubarak government were committed with the backing of a majority vote, would that make them okay?

“The theory is great…”

Therefore the theory is not great. The fact that big business are able to get political favours under any political system is not caused by capitalism – the *private* ownership of the means of production – it’s caused by government. It is made worse by socialist and democratic governments, because socialism means the *political* direction of the means of production (exactly what you're blaming on capitalism), and democracy means the idea that anything elected governments do “represents” the greater good. when it obviously doesn't. So stop blaming capitalism.

Advice for freedom: social relations must be *voluntary*. Force and fraud are illegal for everyone else – they should be illegal for governments too.

Loudmouth,

Cheers.

Peter,

You might have to elaborate a bit on this:

"There is no reason why everyone should be entitled to an equal say in what values everyone else should be forced to obey, nor an equal share in everyone else’s work and production. Democracy and freedom are inconsistent with each other."

and

" ....one person, one vote – leads to a free-for-all in which everyone tries to live at everyone else’s expense."

In political theory, what would be superior to "an equal say in what values everyone else should be forced to obey" ?

If you inserted something like " .... with elections to be held at regular intervals, voting to be compulsory for all adult citizens', I would be happier: even minimal involvement may be part of the process of cultivating democracy.

But about your hypothetical about Mubarak: did he ever really gain a majority vote ? I don't think so. Why do you think it would have made it easier for him to commit crimes and abuses if it were so ? Surely the reverse is more likely ?

Joe

A Democratic Alternative to "Democracy (ie the system of government WE use)"
How about "Direct Democracy"?
Switzerland, Ted Mack, CIR, you know the rest.

As soon as people who are, in actuality, complaining about "Capitalism" learn to get their terminology right, the sooner they will realize that "Democracy" isn't so much a faulty system- as a system we don't actually quite have- at least in anything but the flimsiest dose.

Countries merely call themselves democratic for popularity points (even North Korea does it).
The only country that does have a legitimate claim is Switzerland.

On the note of former-dictatorships being thrilled with any system with more liberty than they have- it's why so many citizens of former autocratic feudal monarchies were so thrilled to become communist- even that is an upgrade on their original life.

If we are trying to find ways to improve on democracy, in an imperfect world, limited terms of office must surely be essential ? Even the Yanks have got that right.

Compare this to presidents-for-life: How often do dictators (Duvalier, Mobutu, Idi Amin) and would-be dictators (Chavez) try that on ? Not to mention the de facto dictators-for-life (the Castros, Mugabe, Ghaddafi, Mubarak, Putin, Saddam).

Hazza, can you please spell out your version of direct democracy ?

Joe