If man demonstrated taking responsibility for their actions, democracy would surely [and naturally,] seize to exist, as it has only led to disppointment; however, in a subconscious denial of reality man consistently blames the chosen, never the chooser.
let me know what you think of this statement, in content and delivery.
Your meaning is unclear.
In terms of delivery, it sounds cool. It sounds like you’ve got something really deep and interesting to say.
In terms of content, there isn’t any content. You’ve reached some sort of conclusion about Democracy (clearly, you think it’s meaningful) but you just left it hanging there, in midair, without any explanation or justification.
If I declared to some stranger in the street, one day, “thou shalt not worship any gods”, I couldn’t expect them to say “you’re right” and become atheistic; they’d act like I hadn’t said anything at all (and, in that case, I’d deserve it). However, if I explain that all happiness and virtue comes from using your mind correctly, and that evasion (or “faith”) undercuts your ability to do that, then I would’ve said something meaningful (and I would expect their consideration).
You can find plenty of arbitrary assertions being thrown around at any church; what counts is your reasoning.
It sounds like you’ve got something to say but you haven’t said it, yet. I look forward to the opportunity to hear it. 
It leaves me wondering how democracy would (naturally) come to cease to exist. By popular vote?
22 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
It leaves me wondering how democracy would (naturally) come to cease to exist. By popular vote?
Democracy didn’t come to exist by popular vote, so it also can’t cease to exist by popular vote (at least not popular vote by itself). In general, popular vote accomplishes a lot less than one might expect.
Through history, democracy generally came about through revolution or war…ironically, usually fought, at least to some extent, by conscripts.
In the US, for instance, it came about through a revolution fought by a small minority of volunteers (3% of colonists, if some of the right wing blogs are to be taken seriously…many of them in it for the money rather than patriotic drive), conscripts, and with the help of a lot of foreign assistance, not to mention direct engagement (France was at war with Britain at the time, and threatening to invade Britain itself, which made it impossible for Britain to reinforce their military presence in North America; France also supplied most of the money and equipment needed to pay and arm American soldiers).
That said, there are examples of democracy beginning to end through popular vote (when the voters elect someone who’s ideology is not consistent with democracy, like Hitler, or Hamas in Gaza), but some kind of force is then required to finish the process. Sometimes the process can be pretty long, with barely noticeable changes towards dictatorship, the way it has been in Russia. But, even then, force IS being used, through the repression of speech and political rights, and covert assassinations.
More often, though, democracy tends to end with a straight up military coup (like it ended in Thailand recently).
I had said that tongue in cheek, but your response let me realize that my take of Greece was that their democracy was a “given”. I hadn’t given much thought or recall running across how it came about.
On 12/7/2015, 6:04:28, Nicky said:
Through history, democracy generally came about through revolution or war…ironically, usually fought, at least to some extent, by conscripts.
In the US, for instance, it came about through a revolution fought by a small minority of volunteers (3% of colonists, if some of the right wing blogs are to be taken seriously…many of them in it for the money rather than patriotic drive), conscripts, and with the help of a lot of foreign assistance, not to mention direct engagement (France was at war with Britain at the time, and threatening to invade Britain itself, which made it impossible for Britain to reinforce their military presence in North America; France also supplied most of the money and equipment needed to pay and arm American soldiers).
Ah, democracy is an interesting topic indeed and am reading something that has changed my views on the same. Hope to share with this forum after I complete. But Nicky why do you say that the US war of independence was fought to establish a democracy - the founders established a republic, did they not?
Hope mhx clarifies what they mean by their quote. Doesn’t make any sense at the moment.
On 12/14/2015 at 11:30 PM, Cadence said:
But Nicky why do you say that the US war of independence was fought to establish a democracy - the founders established a republic, did they not?
If you’re confused about the meaning of my post, I’m happy to clarify that I’m talking about countries with democratically elected governments.
If you get what I mean, but disagree with my choice of words, then sorry, but I’m not interested in having a debate about the definition of a word.
On 12/6/2015 at 1:33 PM, dream_weaver said:
It leaves me wondering how democracy would (naturally) come to cease to exist. By popular vote?
The way to end democracy is to eliminate the concept of the state as a social institution. The state feeds democracy and allows it to exist.
7 hours ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:
The way to end democracy is to eliminate the concept of the state as a social institution. The state feeds democracy and allows it to exist.
Eliminate the concept of the state? As in go into everyone’s brain with a magical eraser?
To abolish the state. And CONDEMN the concept, if that sounds better.
On 12/25/2015 at 0:07 AM, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:
The way to end democracy is to eliminate the concept of the state as a social institution. The state feeds democracy and allows it to exist.
As indicated earlier, what you had quoted was stated tongue in cheek.
9 hours ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:
To abolish the state. And CONDEMN the concept, if that sounds better.
As to eliminating the state, or the concept of the state as a social institution, what plans do you have for stopping someone or a group of people from deciding to create a social institution in an absence of one?
Are you seriously advocating allowing organized crime such as any of these, to operate unchecked?
Even the symbolism behind the Gadsden flag (you currently sport as your profile photo) is representative of the spirit of the Continental Congress adopting it as the official Seal of the War Office.
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
As indicated earlier, what you had quoted was stated tongue in cheek.
As to eliminating the state, or the concept of the state as a social institution, what plans do you have for stopping someone or a group of people from deciding to create a social institution in an absence of one?
Are you seriously advocating allowing organized crime such as any of these, to operate unchecked?
Even the symbolism behind the Gadsden flag (you currently sport as your profile photo) is representative of the spirit of the Continental Congress adopting it as the official Seal of the War Office.
I advocate anarcho-capitalism. The free market can provide legitimate protection and justice better than the state the same way it provides any other service better than the state. The demand for security that would be present in absence of a state would bring about private protection agencies and private arbitration agencies. The competition they would face would cause them to have to provide the best and most just services or be put out of business. The fact that they would have to use their own resources and be responsible for the costs of conflict would cause them to resolve disputes between agencies in the most peaceable ways. This is opposed to the state which is the very type of organize crime syndicate you oppose. The amount of violence and suffering the state has created has been unprecedented in human history due to the fact that it serves as an unchecked coercive monopoly on the use of force within a given territory. As to my profile flag, it is a mixture of the Gadsden flag and the voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist flag as indicated by the diagonal split of yellow and black. It should also be noted that the reason organized crime syndicates have the type of power they do is because they bribe officials in government who aid and abet them.
So you don’t actually mean abolish the state and condemn the concept.
My mistake on the Gadsden flag. The cropping doesn’t display the whole of it. Now that I’ve clicked on the photo, I see the difference.
I do believe that the state, which I define as an entity that either holds a coercive monopoly on the justice system, the police, the military, the law etc. or collects money forcibly should be abolished and condemned as evil.
This however does not mean that I am opposed to having rules. I believe we need to have rules preventing the initiation of force and persuasion through force which can be best enforced by privately owned civil, restitution-based civil courts. There will not be one entity that will be allowed to initiate force to prevent competition.
On 12/25/2015 at 11:07 PM, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:
The way to end democracy is to eliminate the concept of the state as a social institution.
“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame… as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…”
-Robert Heinlein
On 12/26/2015 at 1:22 AM, dream_weaver said:
Are you seriously advocating allowing organized crime such as any of these, to operate unchecked?
On 12/26/2015 at 3:36 AM, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:
It should also be noted that the reason organized crime syndicates have the type of power they do is because they bribe officials in government who aid and abet them.
I don’t think they’re enabled by bribery, but rather by senseless prohibitions.
The Los Zetas, for example, is a Mexican gang whose brutality is as blatant as it is horrific. While they aren’t motivated by money (they’re in it for the brutality, itself) I doubt their reign of terror could’ve lasted this long, if they weren’t so profitable. Their profits come exclusively from the drugs they buy from Mexican producers (who will accept almost nothing, in return) and sell to American consumers (who will pay almost anything - because of the artificial shortages created by the War on Drugs).
The same thing happened during our prohibition of alcohol; the only difference is that Al Capone didn’t leave his competitors’ bodies dangling from highway overpasses.
Incidentally, cartels like the Los Zetas don’t deal with any actual consumers, directly; they sell in bulk to American gangs, who (after distribution) use the proceeds to buy their bullets.
Without those prohibitions, every single gang member involved would have to get a real job (which might interfere with such hobbies as dismembering people at 3:00 AM).
22 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame… as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…”
-Robert Heinlein
I don’t think they’re enabled by bribery, but rather by senseless prohibitions.
The Los Zetas, for example, is a Mexican gang whose brutality is as blatant as it is horrific. While they aren’t motivated by money (they’re in it for the brutality, itself) I doubt their reign of terror could’ve lasted this long, if they weren’t so profitable. Their profits come exclusively from the drugs they buy from Mexican producers (who will accept almost nothing, in return) and sell to American consumers (who will pay almost anything - because of the artificial shortages created by the War on Drugs).
The same thing happened during our prohibition of alcohol; the only difference is that Al Capone didn’t leave his competitors’ bodies dangling from highway overpasses.
Incidentally, cartels like the Los Zetas don’t deal with any actual consumers, directly; they sell in bulk to American gangs, who (after distribution) use the proceeds to buy their bullets.
Without those prohibitions, every single gang member involved would have to get a real job (which might interfere with such hobbies as dismembering people at 3:00 AM).
This is definitely true. I’m just stating that even brushing this aside it would be much harder for a criminal enterprise of any kind to exist without the state.