Does Democracy Work?

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Does democracy work in practice or only in theory? What are your thoughts?

Personally, I believe democracy works in theory but not in practice.
 

JoChris

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,168
If politicians are united in looking after their people and their wishes, even when they are on other sides of the political fence - YES.

If politicians give corporations and anyone else further up the financial food chain special privileges in exchange for extra funding, potential employers post-political life et al - NO.

I think politicians who are also idealists have vanished in western societies. They think only of themselves and their own party's future.
 

linderbak

Rookie
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
16
As the saying goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
How do you convince the wolves to give up their power? In anarchy you'll always get wolves who organize and eventually start taking advantage of the sheep and the sheep won't be able to protect themselves for various reasons. There's no escape from this.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
How do you convince the wolves to give up their power? In anarchy you'll always get wolves who organize and eventually start taking advantage of the sheep and the sheep won't be able to protect themselves for various reasons. There's no escape from this.
What are the various reasons the sheep can't protect themselves?

If the wolves can organize and protect themselves, why can't the sheep?

If the sheep can become lions and organize and protect themselves, anarchy can be made to work.

I've seen it happen in real life. In my old slum, we basically had anarchy- we were in the streets and the people in the streets organized themselves. There was no government but someone came into the neighborhood and caused trouble and we got together and forced the guy to flee from the neighborhood. If you have a bunch of pacifists who refuse to defend their community... then anarchy can't work. But if you have men it can work.
 

linderbak

Rookie
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
16
If the sheep can become lions and organize and protect themselves, anarchy can be made to work.
Then they've become wolves themselves. What makes you think they'll be different than the other wolves?
But if you have men it can work.
And those men won't start abusing their power? If you have people in the community organizing, sooner or later someone will gather followers and establish a dictatorship. Most people like to follow. Whether it's prophets, pop stars, or political leaders. Sooner or later the masses will start following one man or a few men.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Then they've become wolves themselves. What makes you think they'll be different than the other wolves?

And those men won't start abusing their power? If you have people in the community organizing, sooner or later someone will gather followers and establish a dictatorship. Most people like to follow. Whether it's prophets, pop stars, or political leaders. Sooner or later the masses will start following one man or a few men.
These are not universal rules that you're talking about. Men standing up to defend their community are not necessarily going to establish a dictatorship and men being men and defending their communities doesn't make them wolves.

You act like it's some sort of iron law but it's not. What it's based on is the character of the people in question.

In the example I mentioned, as I said, a bunch of people in the neighborhood got together and we forced the guy to leave.

He was pulling a knife out on people and was disturbing the peace and being aggressive towards people. We got together and we made him leave the neighborhood.

If what you said was really an iron law, then immediately this group of men who got together to deal with this aggressor would have immediately used their combined power to create some sort of dictatorship. And that's simply not what happened. He ran around causing trouble, we got fed up and we got together and then after he left we all went back to going about our business.

The fact is there's tons of Indian tribes who lived like this before Europeans came along and messed up their ways of life. Of course I know not all the Indian tribes were peaceful and I know there were some which were aggressive... but there also were ones where the people were free and treated with respect and were not dominated and lived in a way that we could consider anarchist.

People have done it before and it's been done for hundreds if not thousands of years.

You can push the thinking of elites and rationalize why people cannot be responsible for themselves and need rulers but it's not actually true.

The fact is, things like police states, surveillance societies and swat teams only become necessary when you have massive social inequality and you have things like super rich people and super poor people. But in societies where people are more equal, there's way less of a need for those things and you can get people to cooperate.
 

linderbak

Rookie
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
16
The fact is there's tons of Indian tribes who lived like this before Europeans came along and messed up their ways of life. Of course I know not all the Indian tribes were peaceful and I know there were some which were aggressive... but there also were ones where the people were free and treated with respect and were not dominated and lived in a way that we could consider anarchist.
How do you achieve that in an advanced society with millions of people?
You can push the thinking of elites and rationalize why people cannot be responsible for themselves and need rulers but it's not actually true.
I do think people can be responsible for themselves. I just don't think they can be trusted to value my rights. That's where the government institutions come in.
The fact is, things like police states, surveillance societies and swat teams only become necessary when you have massive social inequality and you have things like super rich people and super poor people. But in societies where people are more equal, there's way less of a need for those things and you can get people to cooperate.
Are you sure that the intelligent people won't be able to take advantage of the rest of the people even more in an anarchist society? I just don't see how it would work.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
How do you achieve that in an advanced society with millions of people?

I do think people can be responsible for themselves. I just don't think they can be trusted to value my rights. That's where the government institutions come in.

Are you sure that the intelligent people won't be able to take advantage of the rest of the people even more in an anarchist society? I just don't see how it would work.
Your rights are already not respected. Why should you be opposed to a better system? You're already living under a system that doesn't care about your rights. Now I understand there can be alternatives that are also totalitarian and so of course an alternative system would not necessarily be better- but my point is merely that a better system is possible.

And how can we say that we're the advanced ones? If you have a tribe of people who are technologically less advanced but socially and spiritually more advanced than we are.... I say those are the advanced ones.

Whether or not people can be responsible for themselves and actually support each other and live in harmony is dependent on their character.

And if it's an anarchist society.... pretty much by definition, your rights will be respected- if it's an anarchist society. I'm not talking about a Soviet Union society. But if we managed to actually create an anarchist society- if we managed to actually make an anarchist society then whether it actually managed to stay anarchist would be based on the character of the people. If they were intelligent, community-minded and not selfish and individualistic and they were prepared to defend their communities and the people were educated, it would be possible.

The fact is it's already been done on a small scale. There's no reason it couldn't be done on a larger scale.

Now when I say anarchist I don't mean a total absence of governance. What I mean is the people governing themselves. Self-governance. For example, in my building where I live you have a person who manages the building and you have various other people who impose their will. If we applied these ideas, then that class of people would simply be fired and everyone who lives in the building would simply come together and we would come together as equals with a horizontal power structure rather a vertical, hierarchical power structure and we would run the building ourselves.

What I am talking about is a decentralized power structure. Communities would govern themselves. It would not be some massive, centralized power structure. You would not have a centralized power structure and people all over would govern themselves and be responsible for themselves. As far as defending these decentralized communities, you would have to have all these decentralized communities come together to form some sort of way to unite in the event of some sort of external threat.

This is not purely theoretical- this was already done by the Iroquois Confederacy. You had different tribes retaining their autonomy and managing themselves and each tribe was also a part of the larger Iroquois Confederacy. The tribes were self-governing and autonomous and retained their independence but there also a larger confederation if they needed to do something like unite to face some large, external threat.

You say you can't imagine this sort of thing and I understand that. My message is simply that it has been done and it is possible.

The fact you can't imagine this.... it's totally deliberate. Because if people go out and spread these sort of ideas- and manage to gain a large following- what happens to them? There have been tons of people who were honest and sincere and wanted to make a better society and were not wanting to be dictators- and what happened to them? They got shot or died under mysterious circumstances.

The fact is the elites have engaged in torture, genocide, murder and psychological warfare and all sorts of evil tactics to erase these sort of ideas. And systematically educated us so that we are not strong, independent, independently-minded, community-oriented people so that we're not capable of forming these sort of ideas and forming these sort of communities.

But it's been done before and it's possible. The Iroquois didn't have the indoctrination, repression and psychological warfare directed against them that that we've had directed against us. That's why they were able to pull it off. As They Live said, "we are being bred for slavery".

Look at the food that we eat. Look at pretty much everything around us- pretty much around us is artificial. Could the average people around us live in decentralized, self-governing societies and manage themselves? Probably not but it's because they've been bred to be slaves and we have to recognize that the status quo is not natural. Alternatives are possible. Of course, that's hard for people to imagine but that's because we have been subjected to psychological warfare for that for very end- to kill off any idea that anything different is possible and to make us never question the status quo and to think that the status quo is normal and natural.

My point is a better way is possible. Our societies are corrupted and we would have to reverse the psychological warfare and indoctrination but a better way is possible- if people had the will to create it. If people were not just watching TV and polluting their heads with garbage and started really thinking..... it would be possible. Unless you somehow manage to take over the media, I doubt you can simply go and wake up the masses and make them rebel and turn against the system. It would be up to the will of the people to make the decision to go against the system. But if the people did it- a better way would be the possible. We've been indoctrinated into thinking this is the best we can do but it's simply not true. We've just been programmed to think like that. It's up to the people if they'll wake up or not.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Personally, I am optimistic. I do think the masses will wake up one day and revolt against the system and that people will live in freedom, happiness and harmony. I really do believe it will happen one day. And I'm not talking about a utopia- what I'm talking about has already been done and I'm only talking about it being done on a larger scale. A certain amount of suffering is inevitable- we'll all have to die one day, for example- but it's very clear that there is a lot of unnecessary suffering.

I think one day the masses will wake up, revolt and that we will live in a better world. I don't even think this is any sort of blind optimism- the present system can not be sustained indefinitely and it will have to collapse eventually. Empires have come and gone before and it's just part of history.

So I think one day the masses will wake up and the world will be better. I just think that they will have to be waken up with cold water and that it will take intense suffering and misery for them to get fed up and wake up. Because the people are asleep and choose to remain so, things will have to get much worse before they get better. Fortunately and unfortunately, there will be no shortage of misery to wake people up in the future. A better world is coming, though it will take a whole lot of misery and suffering before the world will get there.
 

linderbak

Rookie
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
16
Your rights are already not respected. Why should you be opposed to a better system? You're already living under a system that doesn't care about your rights.
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't live in Africa, I live in Europe. I've had to turn to the government several times for help and it has always worked.
If you have a tribe of people who are technologically less advanced but socially and spiritually more advanced than we are.... I say those are the advanced ones.
Most tribes I'm aware of have been quite brutal. I have no trust in people that this time it's going to be better. I'm not a tribal person, nor a spiritual ones.

As far as defending these decentralized communities, you would have to have all these decentralized communities come together to form some sort of way to unite in the event of some sort of external threat.
We've been there. It won't last very long. Sooner or later someone will overpower the others. You seem to have too much faith in the idea that all people come together and be nice to each other.
If people were not just watching TV and polluting their heads with garbage and started really thinking..... it would be possible.
Something we agree on. I haven't had TV for 10 years.

I just don't see what your problem is with the modern system. The poverty in most European countries is very low. The social safety nets we have are mostly amazing. I grew up in a poor family yet I never felt hunger, I always had clothes on, got a free education. In what anarchist system have they done it better? Could it be better? Sure, there's always room for improvement. Would it get better if we got rid of our government? I don't see how. At the end of the day they don't do much anyway except organize the healthcare, the education, the building of roads, etc. I'd agree that America has some serious problems but they hardly have democracy anyway. They basically only have two parties and they choose just one person, who then acts like a king.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
I just don't see what your problem is with the modern system. The poverty in most European countries is very low. The social safety nets we have are mostly amazing. I grew up in a poor family yet I never felt hunger, I always had clothes on, got a free education. In what anarchist system have they done it better? Could it be better? Sure, there's always room for improvement. Would it get better if we got rid of our government? I don't see how. At the end of the day they don't do much anyway except organize the healthcare, the education, the building of roads, etc. I'd agree that America has some serious problems but they hardly have democracy anyway. They basically only have two parties and they choose just one person, who then acts like a king.
Even if we never create an anarchist society, we at least have to make the government do what it is supposed to do instead of it abusing it's power like it does now. I don't have a problem with a well functioning non abusive government that actually follows the constitution. But if anarchy does work, I don't have a problem with that either.
 
Last edited:

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
But if anarchy does work
The only way anarchy can work is for the people to govern themselves. External anarchy; Internal monarchy. Sadly, the vast majority will not govern themselves. They can, they just choose not to. I am really tired of people.:mad:
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
The only way anarchy can work is for the people to govern themselves. External anarchy; Internal monarchy. Sadly, the vast majority will not govern themselves. They can, they just choose not to. I am really tired of people.:mad:
What does it mean to govern one's self?
 

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
What does it mean to govern one's self?
To not need enforcement from a cage/fine(s) to be respectful of others. To stop at lights when you can safely do so. To not steal from others. To not cause a victim etc.. Even with anarchy, there would still be a need for some type of "govt" to deal with instances where there is a victim, but that govt would be community/tribal based.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
To not need enforcement from a cage/fine(s) to be respectful of others. To stop at lights when you can safely do so. To not steal from others. To not cause a victim etc.. Even with anarchy, there would still be a need for some type of "govt" to deal with instances where there is a victim, but that govt would be community/tribal based.
@Haich @DesertRose @manama @grateful servant @Karlysymon @Kung Fu @Serveto @JoChris @Lady @GhostOfHugoChávez

I want y'all in my tribe! #tribalism

you too Lurker
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
@Aero you too but you would have to sign a contract not to worship a certain evil entity... on pain of suffering a stern talking to and a look of disapproval by the tribal council!

#ToughOnCrime
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Democracy works because it allows a standard of governing to exist without requiring a federal government or a monarcy.

To make democracy work, you have to shrink the scope, which is why our present democracy doesn't work. Like taxes being sent to the Federal government only to be sent back to the states to distribute for schools, police, hospitals, etc.; this is actually how communism works even though we still call America a democracy.

Democracy is the permission to govern a smaller area within the same framework we call a constitution that someone across the country does. This should in theory create a sort of peace between two regions that doesn't require someone acting as king to delegate between the two parties. They are able to live freely and execute laws when necessary without anyone's permission.

It is essentially a tribal scenario with a common practice that would prevent the downside of tribal wars.

In theory, if you could create a sort of global democracy, you should be able to end wars. War is the real enemy that causes philosophical discussions about the negative side of democracy and suggestions that removing a modern society defined by the presence of democracy, and going back to a primitive one, would solve all problems.

You don't need to do that. You would just need to get rid of war.

Without war, it is possible that we would still be living in a much more primitive state because most technologies were developed in order to advance military efforts. If we were to picture a world without war, we would possibly be living in a time much more like the 1950's. It would be a much simpler time when democracy did work more effectively.

This was an interesting article I found on the subject: Does War Drive Innovation.

Democracy has allowed rights for women and other ethniticies to be realized without revolution or war. As a result, I would have to say that democracy is a fairly efficient method of governing.
 
Top