Socrates’ criticism of democracy (i.e why its BS)

[Orogun01]

Well, no country on Earth has experienced democracy as a ruling agency, so it's difficult to say that it has failed on a technical level. It fails miserably at the conceptual level once a person has accepted the truth of negative rights and refuted the fallacy of positive rights--so why bother even regarding democracy?

 

So, haven't we reached the natural conclusion that a Platonean Republic is the only feasable form of government? We will be the Philosopher Kings of course?

 

No? damn.

 

Anarchy is the only rational form of association. Note that anarchy is not mutually exclusive to law or cooperation. Absent a compulsory state, anarchy actually fosters cooperation, civilization, and society. Unfortunately, humans are by and large too lay and gullible to avoid falling for the tired, millennia old lies of narcissistic sociopaths that claim we need to coercively organize through murder, theft, and violence in order to prevent those very crimes.

Anarchy is just closer to a state of nature it just removes the consolidation of power from the few to a larger number.

 

Humans naturally come together to make up for their weaknesses, when groups reach large proportions then individuals begin specializing. Since some professions are more sought out or useful than others then they gain privileges within the group, that's the foundation of society and classes. When different groups of people that are this stage encounter each other the larger one will assimilate or destroy the smaller one, only when the number is similar is diplomacy necessary.

 

The society we have today is the result of clashes between different groups over the course of time. Going back to an earlier point because you don't like the present state is futile, it just invites chaos and can only benefit those that seek to restructure society and place themselves at the top.

 

Also; >seriously believing Anarchy to be a solution

How's high school treating you?

[Vaeliorin]

I was just talking about my wife

I always wondered why I've never seen a Home Depot sign vandalized to say Home Despot (not that I'm saying you're wife is a despot, mind you. I just thought it was funny when it occurred to me 15+ years ago, since in my experience the wife is always in charge in the real world.)

[Darkpriest]

While I find the comparison agreeable I don't think that its accurate, Socrates criticism was of direct democracy. His belief regarding representative democracy was that the elected officials would become corrupt or couldn't adequately understand perspectives other than their own (e.g: rich man trying to find a solution  to help the poor)

 

to be honest, he was right... democracy IS the rule of stupid. it would be different if there were census rules like there were in its origin, but remember that modern republic idea came after renaissance rediscovery of ancient Greeks and then a few hundred years later where common and mostly uneducated folk followed the big words of equality, etc by growing casts of rich merchants who could never reach levels of aristocracy in terms of privileges. In US it was also about money, and why they wanted to break of from the British empire...

 

In modern politics you also appeal to poor and stupid as they are easily swayed by propaganda and their votes matter same like those who are well educated and have better understanding of what is going on beyond their neighborhood or city.

 

The problem with monarchy or even elected monarchy is that sometimes you just get a total retard as a ruler who can mess up things badly, but at the same time greatest features of many countries were achieved during the rules of good monarchs, because they could see bigger picture and were not restrained by voting cycle.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Darkpriest

[213374U]

Anarchy is just closer to a state of nature it just removes the consolidation of power from the few to a larger number.

 

Humans naturally come together to make up for their weaknesses, when groups reach large proportions then individuals begin specializing. Since some professions are more sought out or useful than others then they gain privileges within the group, that's the foundation of society and classes. When different groups of people that are this stage encounter each other the larger one will assimilate or destroy the smaller one, only when the number is similar is diplomacy necessary.

 

The society we have today is the result of clashes between different groups over the course of time. Going back to an earlier point because you don't like the present state is futile, it just invites chaos and can only benefit those that seek to restructure society and place themselves at the top.

 

Classes, in the sense of privileged groups, arise as a result of two principles: accumulation of wealth (be it land or capital) and force. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's profession being more or less useful, as throughout history, the "profession" of landowner has consistently accumulated the most privileges and power, while at the same time being, arguably, the most useless to the community. Nowadays landowners have lost clout relative to "financiers" and other equally useless "professions", while those who do the heavy lifting in the world, i.e. teachers, doctors, engineers etc. just get by. The society we have today is the result of using those two principles as the cornerstone of human interactions.

[Orogun01]

 

Anarchy is just closer to a state of nature it just removes the consolidation of power from the few to a larger number.

 

Humans naturally come together to make up for their weaknesses, when groups reach large proportions then individuals begin specializing. Since some professions are more sought out or useful than others then they gain privileges within the group, that's the foundation of society and classes. When different groups of people that are this stage encounter each other the larger one will assimilate or destroy the smaller one, only when the number is similar is diplomacy necessary.

 

The society we have today is the result of clashes between different groups over the course of time. Going back to an earlier point because you don't like the present state is futile, it just invites chaos and can only benefit those that seek to restructure society and place themselves at the top.

 

Classes, in the sense of privileged groups, arise as a result of two principles: accumulation of wealth (be it land or capital) and force. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's profession being more or less useful, as throughout history, the "profession" of landowner has consistently accumulated the most privileges and power, while at the same time being, arguably, the most useless to the community. Nowadays landowners have lost clout relative to "financiers" and other equally useless "professions", while those who do the heavy lifting in the world, i.e. teachers, doctors, engineers etc. just get by. The society we have today is the result of using those two principles as the cornerstone of human interactions.

 

Marx was starting from the point of a civilized society after they have gained a concept of currency and capital ownership. In a tribal setting there is no way to accumulate wealth but there are desired status within the group for which all members vie.

It is not the people who choose what is necessary and in demand but rather the nebulous thing called society, a necessary profession will raise in value (both socially and economically) when there is a scarcity of practitioners. Redundant and obsolete professions are the only ones that are culled.

There are however, artificially inflated professions that only exist and are in demand because either their relation to other more useful ones or because of popularity.

 

I do agree with your last point about losing human interaction, in a society where all your needs can be met in an impersonal matter there is no need for it. Rather it becomes a commodity to be sold for those that want it.

[teknoman2]

to put it in the words of a certain comic author

Democracy is 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Also; >seriously believing Anarchy to be a solution

How's high school treating you?

 

How are millennia of murder and theft treating you? Stop paying your protection money and see how quickly you wind up robbed, in a cage, or dead. How much is your ransom? Does the land beyond rainbows have an extortion rate of 15%, or is it in the part of the world where your extortion cost closer to 60%? Don't forget all of of the other ransoms, like tithing for the privileged to trade or exist on soil among the litany of other bribes to be paid. Are those price tags about what you would expect to pay in a free market to not be robbed, caged, or murdered?

 

Monopolies in commercial ventures bad. Coercive monopolies in matters of arbitration, safety, infrastructure...good? Petty crime is but a drop in the oceans of blood that the machinery of States spill every year. The same applies to theft. The amount of robbery possible through The State both directly and indirectly are almost unquantifiably greater than in its absence. I think it is you who needs to grow up.

[Barothmuk]

Sooo, regular anarchist or stupid silly-pants "anarcho-capitalist" ?

[Namutree]

Sooo, regular anarchist or stupid silly-pants "anarcho-capitalist" ?

What's the real difference anyways?

[Barothmuk]

One seeks the abolition of authority, coercion and hierarchy, the other does not.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Barothmuk

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Sooo, regular anarchist or stupid silly-pants "anarcho-capitalist" ?

What's the real difference anyways?

 

Anarcho-Capitalist is pretty much Neo-feudalism.

[Valsuelm]

 

Sooo, regular anarchist or stupid silly-pants "anarcho-capitalist" ?

What's the real difference anyways?

 

 

In a nutshell, there's a bunch of prissy nit folks who think they're anarchists who are essentially Marxist ideologues that hate capitalism who think that you can only be an anarchist if you adhere to their commie ways. They flip prissy nit nerd rage when anyone suggests one can be an anarchist and engage in types of economic activity that could be considered capitalism.

 

No joke, some of the hardest retarded nerd raging I've seen on the internet is the Marxist leaning anarchists flipping out on non-Marxist leaning anarchists saying essentially 'You're not an anarchist!! ' as if it's some exclusive club. There are entire websites dedicated to this insane nerd raging.

 

If you want to see some pure insanity, go find one of these websites, or just any website that preaches a Marxist idea of anarchy, sign into their forums and make a post saying essentially that 'Capitalism is good'. I'm not sure I know of a more stigmatized trigger word for a group of people than the word 'capitalism' for the group of anarchists out there that spend their life hating on it. It actually would probably be a troll's wet dream come true to post about capitalism in a positive light on on one of their forums, that is if you aren't just instabanned.

 

Because of all of this some label folks who would prefer to live in a capitalist world sans government or any other ruling class as 'Anarcho-capitalists', and many commie leaning folks use the term in disdain. Most of these folks just call themselves Anarchists from what I've seen though.

 

Note however that not all Anarchists that would prefer a commune type lifestyle are bat guano crazy and think being an anarchist requires adherence to their economic ideals and an ingrained hatred for capitalism. Most folks who self identify as an Anarchist are actually fairly intelligent and rational human beings in my experience, no matter what economy they'd prefer to partake in.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Sooo, regular anarchist or stupid silly-pants "anarcho-capitalist" ?

What's the real difference anyways?

 

Anarcho-Capitalist is pretty much Neo-feudalism.

 

 

No, it isn't. Neo-feudalism is pretty much what we've got going on in much of the western world right now.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Barothmuk]

Obligatory:

 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Namutree]

Obligatory:

 

Why is the no gun sign there on the libertarian paradise side? Most (all?) libertarians oppose gun restrictions.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Namutree

[Barothmuk]

I dunno, "No guns on muh propertaiii!". Something like that.

[Valsuelm]

Why is the no gun sign there on the libertarian paradise side? Most (all?) libertarians oppose gun restrictions.

 

 

Because who ever made that meme is an idiot.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Barothmuk]

Because who ever made that meme is an idiot.

 

Better?

Edited April 9, 2015 by Barothmuk

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Sooo, regular anarchist or stupid silly-pants "anarcho-capitalist" ?

What's the real difference anyways?

 

Anarcho-Capitalist is pretty much Neo-feudalism.

 

 

No, it isn't. Neo-feudalism is pretty much what we've got going on in much of the western world right now.

 

 

Semantics Vals ....semantics

 

Why do you folk who live in first world countries always try to discombobulate issues? You do realize that you don't have to address the fallout from these types of debates?

 

Now I will have to deal with people who will say things like " the reason I haven't achieved economic emancipation is because we are living in a Neo-Feudalistic society" 

 

 

Not that anyone, including myself, knows what that even means and how applicable it is to a lack of social transformation 

[Meshugger]

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

[BruceVC]

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of  these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress 

 

That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in  both the  private and public sector

[Namutree]

 

Because who ever made that meme is an idiot.

 

Better?

 

Better.

[Darkpriest]

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

over me alone? noone. over a community... well there needs to be someone who will be able to enforce and execute laws that will protect my rights to property. otherwise you will have the rule of the strongest, since nature itself created conditions for the rule of the fittest and strongest, and if no law or government type will exist, the primal laws will rule...*shrug*.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Because who ever made that meme is an idiot.

 

Better?

 

Better.

 

 

Doubling down on retardisms is never better.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Sooo, regular anarchist or stupid silly-pants "anarcho-capitalist" ?

 

I guess I should use the word Voluntaryist, which is to say, Anarcho-capitalist. I believe in freedom of trade, freedom of association, and the sanctity of self-ownership (which naturally extends to property). Like Valsuelum points out, people seem to think you can't be an anarchist in the Rothbardian sense, because somehow being an anarchist implies willfully adhering to an implausible hive-mind of whatever commune you're growing apples and heaving hemp shirts on.

 

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

Then there are people like this that are joyful slaves. The worst part being that they believe others to be joyful slaves. People who cry for the paternal state use some very perplexing logic. They lament in fear of how "strangers" or "other people" may plunder, oppress, or murder us; therefore, in order to prevent potential robberies, oppression, and murders--we must purpose a class of people to guarantee oppression on all people everywhere. Naturally, they'll also be compelled to pay for their own oppression....and if they don't--we'll murder them! This is for their own good of course, and yours too. So pay up, Slave!

 

Sweet sweet harmony and social justice.