|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2833084 - 06/27/04 10:38 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
i don't know how many here believe that an unlimited democracy is a good form of government, but i know that there are some who do and i was thinking about the whole thing and i realized something that i want to point out.
the very idea of an "unlimited" democracy is a paradox. the "unlimited" part is, in itself, a limit. in an "unlimited" democracy, all people (adults?) are eligible to vote on any issue, and their decision becomes law. what if they vote against this system? what if the majority votes that a minority group (say... blacks, or jews, or non-english speakers) are ineligible to vote?
if this is allowed to become policy, then it isn't an unlimited democracy; people may legally be forbidden from voting. if it is not allowed to become policy, then this is a limit to the power of the majority.
can god create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?
|
Vvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2833099 - 06/27/04 10:43 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
who said anything about "unlimited democracy" other than yourself? I am not familiar with that term.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2834107 - 06/27/04 05:00 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said: Democracy is actually just acceptance of the fact that the power is in the people
power to do what?
Whatever they want. Off course, more shit they want to do, more shiot will hit them back. And people learn pretty fast when information is not consored.
Quote:
Democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the majority.
you're playing with words now.
No. Demos is not majority, but all.
Quote:
what people if not the majority?
would passing a peice of legislation or electing a politician without majority support be an example of democracy?
It is actually not possible, because if there is no power supporting some decision, that decision is politically irrelevant.
Quote:
Though, having people ruling it seems to be more easily to set legitimacy on the decision that will be the will of the majority, than it would be if thewill of minoritywould be looking for hte same minority.
a policy gains no legitimacy because a majority support it.
Ok. You insist on majority. You are right. But, let me ask you. Who is majority on this forum? Am I majority? Are you majority? Or is EVERYBODY majority sometimes? So, if this was democracy, who would actually rule? You, me, majority, everybody? If it was majority, can you articulate it?
Quote:
I think that the only good thing would be if the every single public policy would be passed due to my recomendation.
if the majority wishes to persecute a minority group, this is to become official state policy?
Big fish eats small fish. Though, as people have some dose of common sense, they realize they will become minority sooner or later. So, following that fact, the people wont be too stupid to do shit to the minority. Off course, is they do that, they will pretty soon learn on their own mistakes.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2834127 - 06/27/04 05:08 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said: i don't know how many here believe that an unlimited democracy is a good form of government, but i know that there are some who do and i was thinking about the whole thing and i realized something that i want to point out.
the very idea of an "unlimited" democracy is a paradox. the "unlimited" part is, in itself, a limit. in an "unlimited" democracy, all people (adults?) are eligible to vote on any issue, and their decision becomes law. what if they vote against this system? what if the majority votes that a minority group (say... blacks, or jews, or non-english speakers) are ineligible to vote?
You imagine people be pretty stupid beings, right? So, let me ask you, would you fight for your right to pariticipate if you where jew? I would. And I would be pretty nasty to those who tried to oppose my right. One more question. Do you consider you being a human?
Quote:
if this is allowed to become policy, then it isn't an unlimited democracy; people may legally be forbidden from voting. if it is not allowed to become policy, then this is a limit to the power of the majority.
I do not know that stupid society who would suck that model you imagine. Do you? BTW, legality is based on legitimacy. Legitimacy is based on common sense. Common sense makes this society be still alive. If there was no common sense, if the people where stupid as you suggest they are, there would be no human race. But look around. We are still alive! Interesting.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
#2834311 - 06/27/04 06:24 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Whatever they want.
ah... 
No. Demos is not majority, but all.
all decisions must be unanimous then?
It is actually not possible, because if there is no power supporting some decision, that decision is politically irrelevant.
it is impossible to appoint politicians or enact laws without the support of a majority? where have you been for the past few millenia? 
Who is majority on this forum?
depends on what we're talking about.
if it's the 2004 election, those opposed to george bush are the majority.
if it's drug prohibition, those in favor of looser drug laws are the majority.
if it's the death penalty, a different set of people are in the majority.
Or is EVERYBODY majority sometimes?
the word "majority" only has meaning in the context of specific issues. everyone is a part of the majority on some issue. what's the point?
So, if this was democracy, who would actually rule?
the majorities specific to each particular issue would rule on those respective issues.
Big fish eats small fish.
tell that to a jew.
Though, as people have some dose of common sense, they realize they will become minority sooner or later.
again i have to ask you where the hell your historical perspective went. oppression of minority groups has been rampant througout history.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
#2834331 - 06/27/04 06:32 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
there is a paradox here. i'm talking about the actual theory. you say that the democracy is to be an unlimited one. can people, by a majority decision, vote to limit it?
if they can, it's not an unlimited democracy. if they cannot, it's not an unlimited democracy.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2885239 - 07/13/04 08:44 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said: No. Demos is not majority, but all.
all decisions must be unanimous then??
No. It is based on those who have enough power to make others accept their policy. It can actually be minority sometimes, too.
Quote:
It is actually not possible, because if there is no power supporting some decision, that decision is politically irrelevant.
it is impossible to appoint politicians or enact laws without the support of a majority? where have you been for the past few millenia? 
I see the problem. You are looking at all of this what I am talking about on the superficial level of observing this system. You have to go a little bit deeper, if you want to profit more out of this conversation.
Quote:
Who is majority on this forum?
depends on what we're talking about.
if it's the 2004 election, those opposed to george bush are the majority.
if it's drug prohibition, those in favor of looser drug laws are the majority.
if it's the death penalty, a different set of people are in the majority.
So, you can actually not say by name who is actually majority in this little mind game?
Quote:
Or is EVERYBODY majority sometimes?
the word "majority" only has meaning in the context of specific issues. everyone is a part of the majority on some issue. what's the point?
The point is that we all, as the people belong to that majority. Even we are all minority sometimes.
Quote:
So, if this was democracy, who would actually rule?
the majorities specific to each particular issue would rule on those respective issues.
It will be actually the one who has legitimacy of the people. Not of the majority only.
Quote:
Though, as people have some dose of common sense, they realize they will become minority sooner or later.
again i have to ask you where the hell your historical perspective went. oppression of minority groups has been rampant througout history.
You are talking about the age that is going to finish very soon. The age of uninformed society where these non informed people made many decisions and actions that turned pretty soon against them.
I am talking about informed society, where those who are not willing to obey to the facts will get fucked up, cause diffusion of responsibility wont be possible any more. The time where the right people will finnaly prosper.
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
#2885442 - 07/13/04 10:06 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Madison's The Federalist #10 <-----The most famous argument against too much democracy--avoiding majority factions.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
#2886235 - 07/13/04 01:11 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
No. It is based on those who have enough power to make others accept their policy. It can actually be minority sometimes, too.

will you please clear this one up very simply. you're getting confusing:
in a democratic decision, what portion of voters must vote in favor of a particular policy for it to become law?
I see the problem. You are looking at all of this what I am talking about on the superficial level of observing this system. You have to go a little bit deeper, if you want to profit more out of this conversation.
i have no idea what you're talking about. to be honest, it doesn't sound like you do either. political decisions need not be supported by a majority to become law. it doesn't matter how much "deeper" you go, this is a simple fact.
So, you can actually not say by name who is actually majority in this little mind game?
if you need to see the actual outcome of a vote to comprehend this rather simple idea, i suppose we could start a thread on it.
we cannot speak of "the majority" without mentioning a particular characteristic which allows us to segregate the whole into different subgroups which we can then order by size
The point is that we all, as the people belong to that majority. Even we are all minority sometimes.
and the "point" is no point at all. of course we all belong to a certain type of majority somewhere. in the case of people with two hands vs. people with only one, just about everyone is in the majority. what the hell difference does it make?
It will be actually the one who has legitimacy of the people. Not of the majority only.
what?
You are talking about the age that is going to finish very soon.
ah. 
when will this happen?
and what is wrong about prohibiting a majority from enacting a policy which violates minorities? what is wrong about prohibiting a majority from enacting a policy which, according to you, at some point in the near future, they would be too "informed" to enact anyway?
would you please address the fundamental logical flaw in your theory for an unlimited democracy:
can a majority vote to limit the extent of democratic power?
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2909417 - 07/20/04 04:55 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said: No. It is based on those who have enough power to make others accept their policy. It can actually be minority sometimes, too.

will you please clear this one up very simply. you're getting confusing:
in a democratic decision, what portion of voters must vote in favor of a particular policy for it to become law?
We are talking about two different things. I am talking about concept of selfgoverning people, you are talking about some aproximation where 50%+1 decides about everything.
So, let me talk about this selfgoverned people principle.
This principle means that all you need about making decisions is legitimacy of the people. Not of the majority, but of the whole people. If you do not have legitimacy, you have politicaly unstable situation that leads to represion and represion leads to complete corruption and revolution.
Anyway. These decisions can be made by the small group of the people, such us some minority interest stuff. Others, not just majority have to accept that.
Off course, as long as some people are not willing to legitimase some decision, here comes up golden rule of power and obeying to the power. So, those who have power have influence and yet, knowing the fact we as the people are all connected, related, bonded, call it however you wish to, means that you can not do some major injustice and not expect to get fucked up by that.
These bonds keep us be moral, worshiping justice.
Quote:
So, you can actually not say by name who is actually majority in this little mind game?
if you need to see the actual outcome of a vote to comprehend this rather simple idea, i suppose we could start a thread on it.
we cannot speak of "the majority" without mentioning a particular characteristic which allows us to segregate the whole into different subgroups which we can then order by size
The only thing why majority "rules" is concensus that we will take the vote of majority be a legitimate one. Yet, it is not the essence of democracy, but only sort of aproximation.
Quote:
You are talking about the age that is going to finish very soon.
ah. 
when will this happen?
and what is wrong about prohibiting a majority from enacting a policy which violates minorities? what is wrong about prohibiting a majority from enacting a policy which, according to you, at some point in the near future, they would be too "informed" to enact anyway?
Lets be concrete. Write down one policy that violates minority. Lets look at it closely. From your point of view. OK?
Quote:
would you please address the fundamental logical flaw in your theory for an unlimited democracy:
can a majority vote to limit the extent of democratic power?
Voting is just formalisation. If it has no base, it looses its legitimacy and becomes irrelevant. So, people can indeed vote to limit its power, yet, id they find it be not appropriate after a while, these same people will fuck off that limitation, finding new legitimasing ways their stupidity wont hurt.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
#2909470 - 07/20/04 05:25 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
We are talking about two different things. I am talking about concept of selfgoverning people, you are talking about some aproximation where 50%+1 decides about everything...
you've got it in reverse.
... could you please answer my question clearly?
i'm all about self-governorship. however, democracy is NOT about people governing themselves. it is about a majority governing a minority.
you are not talking about a situation in which decisions are made by more than 50% of voters? how then are decisions made in a democracy?
here's how this works. in a democracy, people vote on public policy decisions. the policy with the largest number of supporters becomes law. simple as that. there are very few public policies which gain (or lose) legitimacy based on the number of supporters. this is the flaw of democracy, and is why democracy is not a political end in and of itself, but only a means to an end.
Lets be concrete. Write down one policy that violates minority. Lets look at it closely. From your point of view. OK?
here's 4:
drug prohibition slavery censorship religuous, ethnic, or gender persecution
did i really need to tell you that?
your position is that as long as such policies are democratically supported (whatever that means at the moment), they are legitimate. you've attempted to dodge the issue thus far by saying that people wouldn't be so "ignorant" as to enact such policies, that the "golden rule" would save us from the problem, or that this isn't what democracy really means. it doesn't work that way. pure democracy is not a legitimate political goal. democracy has its place, but it is not the role of the state to make majority opinion on every issue law.
Voting is just formalisation. If it has no base, it looses its legitimacy and becomes irrelevant. So, people can indeed vote to limit its power, yet, id they find it be not appropriate after a while, these same people will fuck off that limitation, finding new legitimasing ways their stupidity wont hurt.

can you understand what i'm posting?
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2911440 - 07/21/04 06:30 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i don't know how many here believe that an unlimited democracy is a good form of government, but i know that there are some who do and i was thinking about the whole thing and i realized something that i want to point out.
Talk about setting yourself up to give a speech. I dont know of anyone on here who supports unlimited democracy and I take a keen interest in the issue. The rest of the post is the same old paranoia that we will suddenly decide to socially unevolve and bring back slavery...hardly likely. But as I have already said the people would not neccesarily be able to propose issues as this would be chaotic. Instead you would still elect a government whose proposals would then be put to the people. Its fairly simple really. Forget about unlimited democracy and turn your attention to an open democracy where the people are consulted on issues rather than being allowed to propose issues. I for one no I would be alot happier if I had got a vote on: 1) Iraq war 2) Drug laws 3) MP's Payrises 4) Fuel tax 5) Income tax 6) Structuring of National Health Service 7) Privatisation issues Even if the votes didnt go in my favour at least I would know that this is what most people voted for and not just the tiniest minority of the population.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2912935 - 07/21/04 04:16 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The rest of the post is the same old paranoia that we will suddenly decide to socially unevolve and bring back slavery...
that isn't the point at all. the point is to illustrate the theoretical flaws in the idea of unlimited democracy. theoretically, anything supported by a majority is made law in a pure democracy.
the will of the majority cannot legitimize any and all activities of the state. a public policy is either legitimate or it is not. a vote cannot make right a policy which is wrong, nor can it make wrong a policy which is right.
i don't understand what is so difficult about this. what is so wrong about establishing a limit on democratic power, such as a bill of rights, and securing liberties which, even at the request of a majority, may not be stripped away from individuals?
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2915170 - 07/22/04 08:11 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the point is to illustrate the theoretical flaws in the idea of unlimited democracy. theoretically, anything supported by a majority is made law in a pure democracy.
But you are the only one talking about unlimited democracy. If you want to criticise open democracy at least criticise the form of it that is being suggested.
Quote:
the will of the majority cannot legitimize any and all activities of the state.
Then what does legitimise the actions of the state? You dont believe the concept of legitimacy has an objective property do you?
As I see it, the will of the majority is the only thing that can truly legitimise the activities of the state.
Quote:
a public policy is either legitimate or it is not.
Ok, so you do believe that legitmacy is an objective concept. Or do you simply mean what YOU consider to be legitamate?
Quote:
i don't understand what is so difficult about this. what is so wrong about establishing a limit on democratic power, such as a bill of rights, and securing liberties which, even at the request of a majority, may not be stripped away from individuals?
Theres nothing difficult in that because it is basically the system we have now. The problem is it allows minorities to pursue their own interests at the expense of others.
Also its basically a system that has remained relatively unchanged for a long,long time. The world has not remained unchanged and we need an organising principle that reflects the technology we have created which has allowed us to become more interconnected than ever before.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2915192 - 07/22/04 08:23 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
The problem is it allows minorities to pursue their own interests at the expense of others.
1) By "minorities" I presume you mean "individuals"? If not, to which minorities do you refer?
2) By "at the expense of others" I presume you mean that the "minorities" are causing harm to others while government sits idly by. Can you give us an example of this harm? If you are speaking of something other than harm, to what are you referring?
The world has not remained unchanged and we need an organising principle that reflects the technology we have created which has allowed us to become more interconnected than ever before.
That principle exists already -- it's called "communication".
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Phred]
#2915442 - 07/22/04 10:14 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Minorities can be any special interest group that is able to influence the government to pass or reject new legislation. They are basically able to buy votes etc etc to further their own agendas. Under open democracy it would be alot harder for them to push these agendas through.
At the expense of others simply means that with the current system it is far to easy for laws to get passed which benefit a minority, allowing them to make some good money etc, but have no benefit to the majority of people and may even effect some people negatively. Im not saying that every law that gets passed is geared to benefit minorities but it is clear that many are and as far as im concerned 1 is too many.
Quote:
That principle exists already -- it's called "communication".
Not really sure why you felt the need to point that out but thanks anyway!
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2915644 - 07/22/04 11:10 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Let's try this again. Here's how we got to the last posts: mushmaster: "what is so wrong about establishing a limit on democratic power, such as a bill of rights, and securing liberties which, even at the request of a majority, may not be stripped away from individuals?" GazzBut: "The problem is it allows minorities to pursue their own interests at the expense of others." I guess what I am trying to understand is how you manage to take the fact that limits are established on what government can do and derive from that the unsupported hypothesis that minorities are therefore left free to pursue things that harm others. You see this as a problem. Can you not see that with no limits on democratic power (wielded of course by the government), anything goes -- including things that definitely harm others? At the expense of others simply means that with the current system it is far to easy for laws to get passed which benefit a minority, allowing them to make some good money etc, but have no benefit to the majority of people and may even effect some people negatively. And removing all limits from which laws get passed improves this situation how, exactly? Think of welfare, foreign aid, minimum wage, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, import tariffs etc. All of these are laws which benefit a minority, allowing them to make some good money etc, but have no benefit to the majority of people and may even effect some people negatively. None of them are legitimate functions of government. All of those laws (and more) could (and would) be passed in a direct democracy as well. If you are criticizing one form of governance and recommending another, it's usually a good idea to contrast the difference between the alternatives. pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Phred]
#2915664 - 07/22/04 11:16 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Can you not see that with no limits on democratic power (wielded of course by the government), anything goes -- including things that definitely harm others?
We wouldnt have reached this point if you had read the part where I said "We are not talking about unlimited democracy" Go back and read what I actually wrote and get back to me.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2915730 - 07/22/04 11:32 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I read what you wrote. It doesn't change the fact that under a direct democracy of the kind you advocate, all the same laws would be passed, they would just be passed by plebiscite rather than by elected representative.
There would still be laws which benefit a minority, allowing them to make some good money etc, but have no benefit to the majority of people and may even effect some people negatively. Yet you are saying that the existence of these laws is "the problem" with the current system. By what mechanism would "direct democracy" prevent laws such as these from being passed? In other words, how is the end result any less of a "problem" than the end result reached through representative governance?
That's what I'm trying to get you to answer. Sorry if I was not clear enough about it.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Phred]
#2915782 - 07/22/04 11:51 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There would still be laws which benefit a minority, allowing them to make some good money etc, but have no benefit to the majority of people and may even effect some people negatively.
Why would a majority vote in such a law? But lets get down to it shall we, you are talking about welfare right? Well perhaps a majority would vote to benefit a minority with no benefit to themselves simply because they feel its the right thing to do?
But hey perhaps you'd get your way and open democracy would bring an end to all forms of state welfare..wow Id sure have egg on my lefty face then wouldnt i? But at least the decision would have been made by the people rather than by a bunch of politicians who would then cream off the savings!
To be honest, we may not be ready for open democracy yet because for it to function successfully I think we need a higher level of social awareness but I do think thats the way we are evolving at the moment.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
|