11–20 of 200 posts
I'll restate something that's often misunderstood about democracy. The use of elections is not to find the "best" leader (for any definition of "best" that you have) but to prevent civil unrest. It offers an alternative to pushing for opinions violently in order to be heard. For this it needs to offer a credible and legitimate path towards political changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Karl Popper ("The Open Society and its Enemies") puts it best: a democracy is not defined by how the governed elect our leaders, but how they get rid of them. Popper came to this idea when looking at Hitler's Germany. Hitler came to power through elections and then used the existing laws to become absolute dictator. But clearly his government was not a Democracy, so clearly the fact that elections had been he…
I note in this context that threatening to lock up either Hillary or Trump are not helpful. Say that in 2020, Trump loses the election, and feels that if he leaves office, his political enemies will find a way to imprison him. He therefore has very strong incentive to find a way to stay in power. That really might not be what you want...
This is balanced by the desire to keep leaders accountable and is a compromise against the rule of law.
Saying that this applies to the US is really saying you have dictators who abuse their powers and are willing to bend the law in the name of a democratic transition.
It can be an exceptional temporary measure, but certainly not a sustainable norm.
I'll restate something that's often misunderstood about democracy. The use of elections is not to find the "best" leader (for any definition of "best" that you have) but to prevent civil unrest. It offers an alternative to pushing for opinions violently in order to be heard. For this it needs to offer a credible and legitimate path towards political changes.
I thought CGPGrey laid this out very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
I'll restate something that's often misunderstood about democracy. The use of elections is not to find the "best" leader (for any definition of "best" that you have) but to prevent civil unrest. It offers an alternative to pushing for opinions violently in order to be heard. For this it needs to offer a credible and legitimate path towards political changes.
That's just one way to look at it. Another point of view is that elections are way to make people believe they are represented and therefore won't fight a state that maintains the monopoly of force, which can impose taxation, arbitrary laws, and a lot of other attacks to individual freedoms that people wouldn't be keen to accept naturally.
A society where democracy can not work because it would be "corrupted by bourgeoisie" has even lower chances of making anarchism work IMHO.
We HAVE to make democracy work.
Awesome sentence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just one way to look at it. Another point of view is that elections are way to make people believe they are represented and therefore won't fight a state that maintains the monopoly of force, which can impose taxation, arbitrary laws, and a lot of other attacks to individual freedoms that people wouldn't be keen to accept naturally.
Yes, that's a common view among several schools of anarchism. Reading Makhno's criticism of democracy, and his alternate proposals, which to my eyes seemed to be a railroad towards dictatorship, made me realize that I was not an anarchist but a social-democrat. Which is often a slur in anarchist circles. A society where democracy can not work because it would be "corrupted by bourgeoisie" has even lower chances of ma…
Democracies inevitably end up achieving state bankruptcy through excessive debt. Regardless, that debt has to be paid by the population, so in that perspective democracy is a poverty generation engine.
For more on that topic: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Perspect...
I'll restate something that's often misunderstood about democracy. The use of elections is not to find the "best" leader (for any definition of "best" that you have) but to prevent civil unrest. It offers an alternative to pushing for opinions violently in order to be heard. For this it needs to offer a credible and legitimate path towards political changes.
That's just one way to look at it. Another point of view is that elections are way to make people believe they are represented and therefore won't fight a state that maintains the monopoly of force, which can impose taxation, arbitrary laws, and a lot of other attacks to individual freedoms that people wouldn't be keen to accept naturally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I note in this context that threatening to lock up either Hillary or Trump are not helpful. Say that in 2020, Trump loses the election, and feels that if he leaves office, his political enemies will find a way to imprison him. He therefore has very strong incentive to find a way to stay in power. That really might not be what you want...
I think it was a retired diplomat who was defending the highly criticized policy of offering retired dictators a comfortable and protected life in France. He was explaining that this was a condition to many peaceful transitions. This is balanced by the desire to keep leaders accountable and is a compromise against the rule of law. Saying that this applies to the US is really saying you have dictators who abuse their…
2. Some on the left fear that Trump will not leave office when the rules say that he must, and are at least somewhat public about saying so.
You don't have to believe either of these things to see the problem. The more they shout about #1, the more likely they are to create the conditions for #2 to happen.
I am not claiming that #2 would actually happen, even given the right conditions. I am merely pointing out that, given their stated beliefs, they should stop publicly calling for Trump to go to prison.
A real cynic might suspect that such people don't actually believe what they say, and are just looking for anything possible to yell at Trump about. A cynic of a different flavor might suspect that they aren't bright enough to see the problem. A charitable person might suspect that different groups of people on the left are shouting #1, and darkly muttering about #2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's a common view among several schools of anarchism. Reading Makhno's criticism of democracy, and his alternate proposals, which to my eyes seemed to be a railroad towards dictatorship, made me realize that I was not an anarchist but a social-democrat. Which is often a slur in anarchist circles. A society where democracy can not work because it would be "corrupted by bourgeoisie" has even lower chances of ma…
Democracies can't work, as they're managed by politicians with low time preferences, which means that in order to get elected they'll promise and pass laws and regulations that make the government always spend more than what they make through taxes, disregarding long-term effects. That process generates debt. Democracies inevitably end up achieving state bankruptcy through excessive debt. Regardless, that debt has to…
Sure in the US or Russia this system is totally broken, but at least in countries with multiple political parties this seems to be the case.