What's so great about democracy?

[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.

[klr]

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.

[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. It was the worst of times.

[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.

[Drewish]

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.)

[Hermit]

A totalitarian state which doesn't support or permit a free press isn't despotic. A totalitarian state which weeds out contrary opinion is an efficient state.


A state dependant on propaganda and censorship is superior to one of 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

So, where would you rather live? In a democratically governed society or a totatilitarian state?




Rumertron & KLR: +1

[charlou]

therefore a nation without democracy and with a government which can't be perceived as bad

"can't be" ... Presumably you mean it's not allowed?

Their perception of the value of their government cannot be dictated to the citizens, only their expression of their perception. A government may censor and suppress that expression but they can't censor and suppress the perception itself.

So with the above in mind, how did you leap from this:

therefore a nation without democracy and with a government which can't be perceived as bad

to this:

is not bad.

And then how did you leap from this:

therefore a nation without democracy and with a government which can't be perceived as bad is not bad.

to this:

A totalitarian state which doesn't support or permit a free press isn't despotic. A totalitarian state which weeds out contrary opinion is an efficient state.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lou, I read

therefore a nation without democracy and with a government which can't be perceived as bad is not bad.

as saying a government with total control of the media would be portrayed at the best possible government for that country. "Because I said so."

[Lozzer]

Lou, I read

therefore a nation without democracy and with a government which can't be perceived as bad is not bad.

as saying a government with total control of the media would be portrayed at the best possible government for that country. "Because I said so."

That's right.

So, where would you rather live? In a democratically governed society or a totatilitarian state?

I'd rather be the leader of a totalitarian state.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lou, I read

therefore a nation without democracy and with a government which can't be perceived as bad is not bad.

as saying a government with total control of the media would be portrayed at the best possible government for that country. "Because I said so."

That's right.

Typical of totalitarian states. Idi Dada Amin ordered that everyone in the country had to have a picture of him visible on their person (thus avoiding having his face on the seats of knickers.) National Socialism was THE way for Germany to go, Hitler said it, they believed it, end of story.

[charlou]

Lou, I read

therefore a nation without democracy and with a government which can't be perceived as bad is not bad.

as saying a government with total control of the media would be portrayed at the best possible government for that country. "Because I said so."

That's manipulation of perception, yes.

If that government behaves in any way that the people must accept without choice or argument, that is despotism.


Historically, examples of despotic rule have always been governments that censor and suppress the people's freedom to express their perception of the governance. People are compelled by the methods of censorship and suppression to silently conform. That's not taking the perception of government out of the picture at all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lou, I read

therefore a nation without democracy and with a government which can't be perceived as bad is not bad.

as saying a government with total control of the media would be portrayed at the best possible government for that country. "Because I said so."

That's manipulation of perception, yes.

If that government behaves in any way that the people must accept without choice or argument, that is despotism.


Historically, examples of despotic rule have always been governments that censor and suppress the people's freedom to express their perception of the governance. People are compelled to silently conform by the methods of censorship and suppression. That's not taking the perception of government out of the picture at all.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'd rather be the leader of a totalitarian state.

I suppose that in a totalitarian dictatorship there is actually one perfectly satisfied citizen - a situation which never occurs under any other form of government!

[Hermit]

I'd rather be the leader of a totalitarian state.

Why am I not surprised?

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?

[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.