RE: Democracy Is . . .

[KingVego]

I dont get it. So how should it work then? I know absolute democracy which is what your describing by the way isent the way to go but any idea that is let as it is, an idea. And idea can be dynamic and changeable. Its when it becomes a unchangeable system and dosent allow the market of ideas to exist then by its very definition is no long democracy.

[ScalzaAmericana]

are you saying that democracy is a bad thing? if so, what is the alternative?

[GreyAutumn]

Right... See, we have something called "Minority laws" that protects those not in majority. You are reffering to "the tyranny of the majority"; which was a fallacy in democracy in the past(and in some present states; like malaysia) but we(the people, the rulers of the democratic state) are working on this. ;)

[JacobSpinney]

Just because the majority wishes to give equal rights to people does not mean that democracies give equal rights to people. This is all in theory anyway, because the majority of this nation does NOT want to give people equal rights, especially homosexuals and atheists. How is it a fallacy to say that a democracy is a political reflection of whatever the majority opinion is?

[bigactionbill]

Yeah I agree with capitalism but there needs to be an arbiter in the middle of people making trades to keep things fair...hence the law, which is made by government who are elected by the people. Im guessing you are an Anarcho-Capitalist like Penn Jillette?

[JacobSpinney]

Why can't consumers force trades to be fair? I know if walmart decided to up its prices 50% then I would no longer shop there. It's in a business' best interest to remain fair and competitive in the market.

[GreyAutumn]

Pen Jillette is'nt a Anarcho-Capitalist; he's a Minarchist Libertarian.

[bigactionbill]

Social Contract Theory(Thomas Hobbs) - Provides Rationale behidn the idea that the for any state to be considered legitimate it needs to get consent from the governed. People do this for the sake of security and for the hope of better living conditions.

[JacobSpinney]

I do not consent to be governed. So according to your own rationale, the state has absolutely no authority over me.

[bigactionbill]

then leave lol

[JacobSpinney]

I don't have to. I do not consent to be governed and, like you've just said, the state has no authority to take away my rights or property if I do not consent to it.

[bigactionbill]

Democracy simply means the people choose their government. But countries like the US make sure that democracy coincides with liberty in that the majority rules but they cannot take away the rights of the minority. Hence the Bill of Rights. Most Democracies today have a constitution that protects their citizens' basic rights, you are taking democracy way too literally and not taking into account the modern reference to it. Its a given that democracy goes with guarded liberties.

[JacobSpinney]

And is this constitution amendable? As I recall it, the bill of rights didn't originally encompass black people or women or even people who didn't own land.

[bigactionbill]

I said, "Modern", and yes in today's MODERN America blacks and women are protected under the bill of rights. You are looking at democracy from an 1800s perspective.Only people with land could vote and not everyone's rights were protected. The US has moved away from oligarchy and has moved slowly more populist as time has gone on. Modern democracy is what that contest is aiming for, not from when James Buchanan was President.

[JacobSpinney]

Then you have only reinforced my point; that democracy is the majority imposing their will over the minority. A couple hundred years ago, the majority were sexist racists and thus that translated into the law of the land. Now the majority thinks it has the right to steal money and rights from me, in the interests of security, of course.

[bigactionbill]

"A couple hundred years ago"..yeah when democracy was just starting out, are you going to honestly say things have not gotten better? then your just a fool. If you dont to give your consent to the government then go somewhere else like antartica, i like my warm house and mass ammounts of food.

[JacobSpinney]

democracy has only gotten better for civil rights because that is the will of the majority. If the will of the majority is to enslave blacks and women, then that is what will happen. And the only reason that the will of the majority changed to be more tolerant is due to capitalism and more free trade. If people weren't forced to make deals with people they didn't like, they'd continue not liking them forever.

[sirpibble]

the thing your missing is that you have the right to complain all you want and even try to convert people to your way of thinking. obviously the mass majority is pretty content because your ideas are in the minority infact without sounding too smug id even say your opinion is completely wrong.... of course you can still say what ever you want. yeah i can totally see where your coming from your rights are definitly being trampled

[JacobSpinney]

Do I have the right to smoke certain kinds of vegetation? Who am I wronging in that process? Do I have the right to not pay for government actions and services I don't condone?

[GreyAutumn]

Riight... See, alot of billionaires pay for you kids education in public schools while they send their kids to boarding schools. Do you see where I am going with this? Some times we have to pay for other people; and other times, they will pay for us. It's simple.

[JacobSpinney]

Nice theory. Not so pretty in application though. Sure there are times when people need money. That's what loans and charities are for. If I want to go to college for my career path, then I can get a student loan that I pay back after I get my career. The problem with adding government into the equation is that you automatically add inefficiency which ups the price of everything.

[sirpibble]

i dont exactly see your point. you just agreed with his previous comment and disagreed with your own video basicly saying "the bill of rights has been changed to protect peoples basic rights" there for giving people control of their minds and bodies as you put it.

[JacobSpinney]

The bill of rights is simply a piece of paper that is amendable to whatever the majority opinion is. Thus, like I've been saying all along, democracy/republics/constituti­onal republics are all an example of the majority imposing their will over the minority.

[sirpibble]

.....and it has only ever been amended to give more rights to people and never taken any away

[JacobSpinney]

Due to capitalism and more free trade. Trade is what creates tolerance because it forces people out of isolationism. If people remain self-sufficient and isolate themselves, then they'll remain just as bigoted as they were a couple hundred years ago.

[BentRoses]

Wow. Could be.

But some kind of guidance 4 govt needs 2 B chosen simply bec people are so individual (each mind, each body) that not ALL can be represented ALways. If we let each individual lead individually - well, anarchy.

Yet it does not follow to me that the majority vote will take over/impose their will on "your mind, your body" bec democracy inspires an ideal - that all will want good, wholesome compassionate, forward govt.

Autocracy imposes will; democracy AIMS to free it.

[JacobSpinney]

Democracy can only work if the majority is always in the right. Do you really think that that is the case in all situations? Do you really believe that the majority of people are educated in the economy enough to know the horrible economic blowbacks that result from attempting to regulate markets or create social programs? You talk of anarchy as if it's a bad thing. Why? Anarchy is the ultimate freedom.

[BentRoses]

Hey Jacob, Thanks.

It's impossible everyone always b "right" bec how do you define "right"? But democracy's the ideal of better choices that serve all, not just serve one regardless of the other (which is anarchy - yes I regard anarchy "a bad thing").

Anarchy may be the ultimate freedom - but at the cost of SO many. Democracy aims to cost no-one. Anarcy is self-serving. Democracy considers all, gives voice - even minorities (mentally etc) who can't "do anarchy or anything" bec they're disabled

[JacobSpinney]

The ONLY reason that a democracy gives equal rights is because the majority wishes that to be so. If the majority did not wish for there to be equal rights, then there wouldn't be. Democracies do not serve all. Democracies serve the majority. If the majority wishes to serve all, then that will be the case.

[BentRoses]

Jacob, I appreciate yr response. I do see yr mind in this. But it's BECAUSE "the ONLY reason democracy gives equal rights is bec the majority wishes that to be so", that democracy is best (a choice that serves humankind not selfish individuals) - bec the majority wishes betterment.

Yes "democracies do not serve all" - but it's better than anarchy which serves one. Democracy gives all ä chance, ä voice. "If the majority wishes to serve them all (minorities, under-expressed)" -well, it does.

[JacobSpinney]

It is capitalism that brings equality. Not democracies. Unfortunately people don't realize that regulating markets, putting tariffs on countries, restricting immigrating, etc. will not bring tolerance, but isolationism which breeds bigotry. Anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy is simply a DIRECT democracy in which people vote with their money. People get to choose exactly how their money is spent, rather than have half of it taken away and then let a majority decide such things.

[gentlestormtoo]

finally someone who is willing to call it like it is. So many pin heads believing democracy means freedom it's frighting.

[MottomoShiroi]

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. - H. L. Mencken

[Starmexus84]

So negative...I may do a video resposne to this.

[remilonoy]

Actually he has a point.

What gives others the right to decide for your personal freedom?