What's so great about democracy?

[Hermit]

Considering your chances of being a leader of any nation, where would you rather live as an ordinary citizen - a democratic one or a totalitarian one?

But it depends. I'd rather have power and be successful in a totalitarian state that poor and a failure in a democratic state.

You have not answered my question. Where would you rather live as an ordinary citizen - a democratic one or a totalitarian one?

In light of your chances of being a leader of any nation that ought to be your primary concern, as it is the primary concern of the vast majority of all human beings, in deciding whether a democratic or a totalitarian state is preferable.

As for totalitarian states which weed out contrary opinion being efficient states, have a look at what happened to the USSR, Poland, the GDR, Albania...

[Lozzer]

Considering your chances of being a leader of any nation, where would you rather live as an ordinary citizen - a democratic one or a totalitarian one?

But it depends. I'd rather have power and be successful in a totalitarian state that poor and a failure in a democratic state.

You have not answered my question. Where would you rather live as an ordinary citizen - a democratic one or a totalitarian one?

In light of your chances of being a leader of any nation that ought to be your primary concern, as it is the primary concern of the vast majority of all human beings, in deciding whether a democratic or a totalitarian state is preferable.

As for totalitarian states which weed out contrary opinion being efficient states, have a look at what happened to the USSR, Poland, the GDR, Albania...

As someone consciously aware of what totalitarianism is, I'd prefer a democracy. But it depends on the totalitarian state, and the democracy.


I don't see how you can't call The Soviet Union unsuccessful. It lasted for over 50 years and its past existence continues to influence the globe today.

[Hermit]

I don't see how you can't call The Soviet Union unsuccessful. It lasted for over 50 years and its past existence continues to influence the globe today.

The reason I cast aspersions on your claim of efficiency is that the countries I mentioned, including the USSR, collapsed from within. If "a state dependent on propaganda and censorship is superior to one of 'freedom' and 'democracy'" this sort of thing simply would not have happened.

I suppose, you can always re-define 'efficient'.

[War Arrow]

[Lozzer]

I don't see how you can't call The Soviet Union unsuccessful. It lasted for over 50 years and its past existence continues to influence the globe today.

The reason I cast aspersions on your claim of efficiency is that the countries I mentioned, including the USSR, collapsed from within. If "a state dependent on propaganda and censorship is superior to one of 'freedom' and 'democracy'" this sort of thing simply would not have happened.

I suppose, you can always re-define 'efficient'.

I see, you seemed to have pwned me.

Well done sir

[devogue]

Lock thread.

[Don't Panic]

Please. As an Objectivist, just call me a traitor. Associating me with communists is just WAY too insulting. If I were an anarchist, I'd be a anarcho-capitalist.

Hey, if it wasn't for the Communists I might not have had a job, access to large caliber weapons, or all the explosives I could carry.

You make that sound like it's a good thing.

It was the best of times for me. It was the worst of times for everyone else.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Please. As an Objectivist, just call me a traitor. Associating me with communists is just WAY too insulting. If I were an anarchist, I'd be a anarcho-capitalist.

Hey, if it wasn't for the Communists I might not have had a job, access to large caliber weapons, or all the explosives I could carry.

You make that sound like it's a good thing.

It was the best of times for me. It was the worst of times for everyone else.

Warm, happy, well fed, and full ammo boxes.

[JOZeldenrust]

The only good reason to have a government is to protect its citizens form other governments.

EDIT -

I am applying for higher security clearance right now. So let's hope they don't see this thread or interpret it to mean that I'm contemplating treason.

It also exists to protect citizens from each other. (I know, as a positivist you'll probably claim that role can be fulfilled by commercial enterprises. One problem though: wealthy people would be better protected then poor people.)

You need an authority - preferably one selected by consensus of the majority) that will enforce contracts at least on the behalf of the weaker one of the two parties in a transaction.

I see no difference between a corporation and a government except in power and name. A collective with no individual accountability of its members yet that exerts force as if it were an individual with rights? People should be allowed to become as wealthy as they want, but the idea of companies that aren't owned in whole by a single individual is ridiculous, as those types of collectives were the precursors to governments. Not realizing that is the primary weakness of anarcho-capitalists' world view (as they do not realize that governments would then arise anew.)

Between companies owned by single individuals, who is going to enforce contracts on behalf of the weaker party? A third party owned by a single individual? Who's going to prevent the more powerful party to buy the loyalty of the enforcing party? A fourth party?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

The only good reason to have a government is to protect its citizens form other governments.

No.

[Drewish]

The only good reason to have a government is to protect its citizens form other governments.

No.

Wow, I never thought of it THAT way before.