"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - HL Mencken

What happens if your concept of the role of Government aligns somewhere between the Libertarian and Pre-Goldwater “Log Cabin” Republican ideal, yet you realize that concentrating state power in the hands of an elite few will inevitably result in a corrupt, megalomaniac upper echelon running the country from deep within the pockets of fascist heads of industry and commerce and at the same time you don’t have enough faith in the masses to run the government via some version of direct, or even representative democracy, especially in such a huge and diverse country as the USA?

You look at the pure communistic ideal of tribal living and strict autonomy of individual, self-governing, small collectives as perhaps the perfect system of life and government, but recognize the fact that without global domination and near-complete destruction of all modern technology and social systems, then it is as absurd an idea of a small den of foxes trying to build a den in the fast lane of a superhighway, and expect it to flourish.

Where does that leave you?

WE CAN have FREE market cities... with small socialist pockets of paradise, right in the center of each city.... intelegently organized communes.

in this way... we have both.. we can have our cake and eat it too.

-MT

The USSR has already broken up into smaller countries and that was a good start. There is quite a bit of latent support for the USA to do the same thing. We'd all be happier if the Pacific Northwest, New England, the Great Plains, the Old South, the Wild West, the Rust Belt, Texas, California, New York, etc., could go their own ways.

There's plenty of regionalism in China, it's just suppressed. Ditto for India.

And I think that in the long run the world would be safer without those huge concentrations of power.

Nonetheless, "empires" have been a feature of civilization since... well since the dawn of civilization. The nature of cities is to attract disparate clans of people, toss them together, and expect them to get along.

The problem with that, however, is the same problem that Communism has.
It needs global domination to be successful, or it is the family of foxes in the fast lane.
If a huge, conglomerate world power decides to attack New York, New York is fucked without the support of a large military by its side.
So, you have to have a union of states.
With a union of states, you have to decide exactly where the line is drawn concerning policy, common interest, common values, all the things that will induce one state to fight alongside, or against another state.
Thus the birth of the federal government.

For the states to retain any appreciable level of autonomy, the federal government must be only marginally involved in public policy, if at all.
Thus the birth of the Republican ideal.
A colection of independent democracies under the protective umbrella of a federal republic.
The main role of the president in the Republican ideal is head of the military.
Thus, my idealistic belief in the core Republican political ideology (which says NOTHING about the current social agenda of the modern Republican party, of course).

Then we get back to the probelm of concentrated power, and the decision making process of a world military power getting beyond the control of the people is is supposed to be serving.

The more power the federal government has, the less power the colletion of autonomous democracies have, therefore the less poer the people have.

You nullify the whole ideal of democratic rule at that point.

one_raven:

I believe the last time we spoke about politics, you called me a Fascist, or implied such. Whilst this is somewhat true - I differ a bit from what may be considered orthodox Fascism in many crucical ways - I shall nonetheless endeavour to present to you my views on the subject.

""Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - HL Mencken"

An excellent, and quite true, quote.

"What happens if your concept of the role of Government aligns somewhere between the Libertarian and Pre-Goldwater “Log Cabin” Republican ideal, yet you realize that concentrating state power in the hands of an elite few will inevitably result in a corrupt, megalomaniac upper echelon running the country from deep within the pockets of fascist heads of industry and commerce and at the same time you don’t have enough faith in the masses to run the government via some version of direct, or even representative democracy, especially in such a huge and diverse country as the USA?"

Then you conceive of an alternative, my silly man.

"You look at the pure communistic ideal of tribal living and strict autonomy of individual, self-governing, small collectives as perhaps the perfect system of life and government, but recognize the fact that without global domination and near-complete destruction of all modern technology and social systems, then it is as absurd an idea of a small den of foxes trying to build a den in the fast lane of a superhighway, and expect it to flourish."

Tribal living and strict autonomy of the individual are completely opposed to one another. The tribe as a social unit demands the subordination of the individual to the collective, and indeed, all communistic systems impose these shackles upon the individual, whilst adding to this the flagrantly immoral concept of:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Were one to analyze the above statement, we would see that it sanctions taking the best of what can be produced, and giving to the worse. In essence. Making need worth more than merit, we topple not only the idea of merit, but make merit impossible, and therefore commit a double evil, as I would say. It is as the difference in destrouying one's enemies crops and destroying one's enemies crops and sewing the soil with salt.

Now we must also ask: Why is this system of small collectives at all a positive system? In what way would this benefit us? It would hamstring the individual to small aims, and by nature of it being collective, would frustrate the efforts of the meritorious in achieving that which is their right to attain - success. Consider if evolution worked on such principles. The wolf subjected to the collective whim of the lamb. Why, coul dman ever so form from out of the animal mire if greatness wasn't allowed to flourish and to prevail.

Mosheh Thezion:

"WE CAN have FREE market cities... with small socialist pockets of paradise, right in the center of each city.... intelegently organized communes."

A market cannot be free when socialist elements exist within it. Socialism demands central planning built on the absurd (and evil) notion I covered above. Moreover, one must ask why you so declare socialism "paradise", when it clearly stands in opposition to the pursuit of merit?

Fraggle Rocker:

"The USSR has already broken up into smaller countries and that was a good start. There is quite a bit of latent support for the USA to do the same thing. We'd all be happier if the Pacific Northwest, New England, the Great Plains, the Old South, the Wild West, the Rust Belt, Texas, California, New York, etc., could go their own ways."

In what way would make us happier? The strength of the United States lays within the notion of union. Without union, the different interests cannot resolve themselves in a way that retains American power and internal peace on the American continent. For as we all know from history, it is when conflicting interests come to clash in sovereign nations, that war ensues. Moreover, America, by disintergrating, would lose all her power. As an American, I would affirm that it is both in my interest, the interest of all Americans, and indeed America herself, to forever keep her domination of the world in check. By the might of her arms and the vigour of her economy, she has supplanted Great Britain in imperial might and in order to retain her position, she must forever retain her unity, so that her military and economic might may never dwindle. For what is America without an army large and well funded enough to crush all opposition? To send the world to Hell in nuclear flame?

Power is control. Control is force. Force is achieved by means of economic and military subjugation in this world. America is on the top. To submit to anything less is to castrate oneself. It is illogical.

Better that the world should burn than America die. This was the mantra of MAD and it ought to be the mantra of all things for America.

Of course, the rest of the world may disagree, but such is the way of life.

"And I think that in the long run the world would be safer without those huge concentrations of power."

The world be damned.

"Nonetheless, "empires" have been a feature of civilization since... well since the dawn of civilization. The nature of cities is to attract disparate clans of people, toss them together, and expect them to get along."

And they do, when subjugated to the will of a powerful government. Rome, for instance, was cosmopolitan, but had few internal rebellions during her Pax Romana. America, similarly, has had few internal times of true unrest, aside from the Civil War.

You look at the pure communistic ideal of tribal living and strict autonomy of individual, self-governing, small collectives as perhaps the perfect system of life and government, but recognize the fact that without global domination and near-complete destruction of all modern technology and social systems, then it is as absurd an idea of a small den of foxes trying to build a den in the fast lane of a superhighway, and expect it to flourish.

Where does that leave you?




one_raven:

I believe the last time we spoke about politics, you called me a Fascist, or implied such.
It certainly is possible, but I can't honetly recall.
I do recall thinking that a good deal of what I have read from you has at least tinges of fascism (lower case "f").
:D

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - HL Mencken"

An excellent, and quite true, quote.
I agree, for the most part.
As communities get larger, it gets more true.
Also, as people become more and more "busy" in the modern world and in these larger communities, ignornace is inevitable.
It is not an insult, rather a reality of the situation.

Then you conceive of an alternative, my silly man.
LOL.
That's what I am trying to discuss.


"You look at the pure communistic ideal of tribal living and as perhaps the perfect system of life and government, but recognize the fact that without global domination and near-complete destruction of all modern technology and social systems, then it is as absurd an idea of a small den of foxes trying to build a den in the fast lane of a superhighway, and expect it to flourish."

Tribal living and strict autonomy of the individual are completely opposed to one another.
You misunderstand.
I suppose my wording was a bit cumbersome.
Not "strict autonomy of the individual".
Not only is that impossible outside living as a hermit, but even if it were possible, it would be just plain stupid.
What I said was "strict autonomy of individual, self-governing, small collectives".
The "communist cells", for lack of a better term would be autonomous with regard to the other cells, except by choice for trade/diplomacy/etc.


From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Were one to analyze the above statement, we would see that it sanctions taking the best of what can be produced, and giving to the worse. In essence. Making need worth more than merit, we topple not only the idea of merit, but make merit impossible, and therefore commit a double evil, as I would say. It is as the difference in destrouying one's enemies crops and destroying one's enemies crops and sewing the soil with salt.

In large collective communites in the modern world, I whole-heartedly agree with you, which is why communism is not possible in the modern world without destroying essentially all semblance of modern life and achieving global domination, which is what I said in my opening post.
If you consider, for example, an agrarian lifestyle in communities of no more than, a few thousand people, individual communist rule would most certainly be ideal.
If you can work, you do, and all needs are taken care of.
If you can't work, you don't and all your needs are taken care of.
If you can work, but don't, you are exiled.
If you grow corn, you share your corn with all.
If you raise cattle, you share your cattle with all.
It is based on an extended family principal.
It is hard to deny that cooperation will get any group of people much further than competition.


It would hamstring the individual to small aims
How?

would frustrate the efforts of the meritorious in achieving that which is their right to attain - success.
Define success.

Consider if evolution worked on such principles.
It most certainly DOES work on these principles.
If you do not take care of your own and cooperate, your are damning your species, therefore yourself.
That is the core of any sucessful animal society, and we would not be here today if it was not our roots.


The wolf subjected to the collective whim of the lamb.
No. The wolf subjected to the needs of the collective and the success of the pack.
If a wolf works against the best interest of the pack, he is shunned and ejected, if not killed.
Otherwise the pack will not prosper.
Did you forget that humans are all one species?
Here comes that fascist mentality coming through...
:)

Why, coul dman ever so form from out of the animal mire if greatness wasn't allowed to flourish and to prevail.
Define greatness and why it is impossible in a small communal collective.

A market cannot be free when socialist elements exist within it.
True, but "free market" capitalism will necessarily downslide into fascist rule by it's nature, and the people will be ruled by a non-representative aristocratic few.
How is the batter for the people other than the aristocrats?
It is not.

Power...control...control...power
Power and control are over-rated, fleeting, dangerous, usurpable, unnecessary and counter-productive.

The world be damned.
Therein lies the core, irreconcilable difference between you and I.
And thanks to those with similar outlooks, the world IS damned.
I think it is not necessary to fuck others in order to succeed.
In fact, the best way to succeed, is to cooperate with others and help ALL succeed - again, not unlike a family.

who lives in a democracy?????????????????????????

seriously who???

no one does... thats who.

most of the world lives in federalist republics.... republics... not democracies.


the whole idea of democracy is a sham... its is promoted.. but never applied.

and with good reason... democracy means 'mob rule'.

republics means, elected ruling councils... to protect the individuals from the mob.

-MT

democracy means 'mob rule'.

republics means, elected ruling councils... to protect the individuals from the mob.

Not quite.
"Direct Democracy" may be akin to "mob rule" but there is a difference between a "Representative Democracy" and a "Republic".
Quite a few people live in "Representative Democracies" - and successfully at that.
Outside very small tribal communitied, a "Direct Democracy" is impossible, and no one claims to have one.

The main difference between the two is that in a Democracy, representatives are elected to speak for the people and act according to their will.
In a Republic, you have leaders (often elected, but not necessarily so) to supposedly act in the best interest of the people, regardless of the people's will. It is essentially the theory that people can't perform operations on themselves because they do not have those skills, so they hire people do do the job for them. People that know better than they do what is best for them.

In a Republic, people are subject to the will of the government.
In a Democracy, the government is subject to the will of the people.

one_raven:

"I agree, for the most part.
As communities get larger, it gets more true.
Also, as people become more and more "busy" in the modern world and in these larger communities, ignornace is inevitable.
It is not an insult, rather a reality of the situation."

I would also add the power accorded to a non-ignorant person in larger communities continually declines, which by more than just a little exacerbates the problem.

"You misunderstand.
I suppose my wording was a bit cumbersome.
Not "strict autonomy of the individual".
Not only is that impossible outside living as a hermit, but even if it were possible, it would be just plain stupid.
What I said was "strict autonomy of individual, self-governing, small collectives".
The "communist cells", for lack of a better term would be autonomous with regard to the other cells, except by choice for trade/diplomacy/etc."

Oh, excuse me. I did misunderstand. My mistake.

Moving on....

"If you can work, you do, and all needs are taken care of.
If you can't work, you don't and all your needs are taken care of.
If you can work, but don't, you are exiled.
If you grow corn, you share your corn with all.
If you raise cattle, you share your cattle with all.
It is based on an extended family principal.
It is hard to deny that cooperation will get any group of people much further than competition."

Well here we have several problems.

Firstly: Why ought those who can't work, and don't work, have their needs taken care of for them? They are leechers, are they not? And how easy would it be to feign illness? I would also imagine that this growing population (both sincere and false) would even engender a bitterness amongst the general population.

SEcondly: If I grow corn, why ought one share it? SPecifically if one does not truly gain back equally, which is inevitable in any system that does not allow the market (be it small or large scale) to decide for the individuals in exchange? Also, what about varying skills of the farmers? Suppose Johnathan works twice as hard as Jacob and thrice as hard as Robert? Yet all get equal shares in return? What benefit is there for the individual? What logic accords this system a place of esteem?

Thirdly: Competition, in fact, does let us get along far greater than cooperation. For it is in competition that there is a benefit - and yes, also a risk - in performing to the best of one's capacities. When it is in one's best interests to work harder and when one can get true results from this, does not this automatically work better than a system where such is not present whatsoever?

"“ Originally Posted by Prince_James
It would hamstring the individual to small aims ”


How?"

For a system that does not allow individual growth through the profit one can gain from one's goods, necessarily impinges upon his capacity to extend his aims beyond the present moment, season, et cetera. An entrepeneur might look out an untamed piece of land and say "hmmm, were I to make some extra money off this year's harvest, and could buy that new plough from the general store, I might be able to tame that land and expand my fields by 25 percent...making me quite a deal more wealthy!".

Without the notion of "wow, I could get something from this!" instead of "wow, I would just have to work harder so other people can enjoy the fruits of my labour", there is no impetus to greater things.

"Define success."

In business? Profit. Material gain greater than loss.

"It most certainly DOES work on these principles.
If you do not take care of your own and cooperate, your are damning your species, therefore yourself.
That is the core of any sucessful animal society, and we would not be here today if it was not our roots."

Excluding the bonobo, the other great apes exist in a society that is roughly hierarchical, and similar animals which exist in a sort of rudimentary community (wolves, for instance) also have this notion. The silverback or alpha or whatever the proper term for the animals rules over his tribe and makes sure he himself benefits the most before bequething his gains to those beneath him in the totem pole of his organization. It is in his best interest to rule with a degree of fairness and with a concern for others - and I do not suggest this is not a good thing to have, and indeed, community and society necessitates we adopt some notions of civility to one another, as is appropriate - but he also has a -vested interest- in domination and pursuit of his ends, and moreover, toleration of weakness and of laziness is not allowed, specifically on his part, as he would soon find himself ousted if he grows too weak. In essence, there is competition there, and with greater effort, those wh work harder get more.

"No. The wolf subjected to the needs of the collective and the success of the pack.
If a wolf works against the best interest of the pack, he is shunned and ejected, if not killed.
Otherwise the pack will not prosper.
Did you forget that humans are all one species?
Here comes that fascist mentality coming through..."

One species, but not one race, nor one people, nor one country, nor one region, nor one state/province, nor one city...Humanity is not an allegiance that must categorically come before these others.

And what happens when the wolf pack does not meet the aims of the individuals? Why, there is rebellion, there is usurption, there is dissolation. What happens in communistic systems? Who truly benefits?

"Define greatness and why it is impossible in a small communal collective."

The achievement of greater power through profit of various types and attainment of personal excellence to gain such profit and greatness. See above for why the non-self focused aspects of a communistic society cannot foster the necessary conditions, on the foundation that it defeats the point of merit to have one's fruits taken from one and distributed without reference to excellences of one's own.

It is generally called justice to give to another what he deserves, and I ask whether it is just to give to Johnathan the same as to Robert when Johnathan has produced thrice that of Robert?

"True, but "free market" capitalism will necessarily downslide into fascist rule by it's nature, and the people will be ruled by a non-representative aristocratic few.
How is the batter for the people other than the aristocrats?
It is not."

No one suggests that Democracy will result from capitalism - or rather, I do not suggest, but some others do and they are rather wrong, I'd say - but rather that capitalism results in an Aristocracy of Merit, on the basis that all business in a free market requires talent on the part of those in said business to retain their position of power, lest they sacrifice their profits, or even lose out against newer, fresher competitors. Consider the mp3 player market. Apple made the better product for what the consumers wanted - the Ipod - and has dominated. TiVo did the same in Digital video recorders. Are we not well off to have the results of these competitions, even if only for leisure?

In all things, it is the way of life for the best to come out on top. The best is a term different in different situations, but never do we find the lower defeat the high. When a man has unlimited access to success in a world free to him to pursue anything within legal bounds (and we'll assume the laws are just, for that is a matter all together different), how can he not be better off than, than in a system that prevents his rise to greatness through robbing him of all the fruits of his labours and subjecting him to the will of those around him and their needs and desires above, or equal, to his own?

Do we not call a man a slave who must subjugate his will to another?

"Power and control are over-rated, fleeting, dangerous, usurpable, unnecessary and counter-productive."

Yet those with it are in a position of dominance and superiority. They prosper. Yes, heavy is the crown to the head who wears it, but all power comes at a price, and all benefit must come at some loss.

Do not Bill Gates and George Bush live a greater life than you or I?

"Therein lies the core, irreconcilable difference between you and I.
And thanks to those with similar outlooks, the world IS damned.
I think it is not necessary to fuck others in order to succeed.
In fact, the best way to succeed, is to cooperate with others and help ALL succeed - again, not unlike a family."

I have no problem, philosophical or personal, with the helping of others to draw them to a higher position, so long as this act is done for rational ends. For instance, to be a king of squalor is rather ridiculous, is it not? Nor in general does beauty flourish in ugliness. That being said, if I too cannot rise, if I too cannot seek my greatness, and if my greatness shall be disallowed, whyever ought I support such a system? For if it is within my scope to gain, why ought I not? If I can make my way in the world, why should I not? And if I must defeat others through my superior skills, why ought I not?

Indeed, why ought anyone seek not the best for themselves? This does not necessarily mean I must -destroy- another in the process, to -reduce- them, only that I myself must rise. When a man wins a race, all others who participate do indeed lose, but considering they have neither gained nor lost anything but the effort, they are not any less off. It is not a game where only one winner must be the result, but where many - and indeed many - can achieve equitable levels of success at different times and in different respects, et cetera, et cetra.

Also, are you familiar with the notion of "The Tragedy of the Commons"?


Mosheh Thezion:

"seriously who???

no one does... thats who.

most of the world lives in federalist republics.... republics... not democracies."

Federalist Republics - as well as non-Federalist Republics - in the modern world are almost universally ruled by a representional democracy with universal suffurage over an age of majority. To call a system a "Federal Republic" is to speak of its composition, not its voting process. But the voting processes -in- such Federalist Republics -are- democratic at the core.

One man, one vote.

And all that jazz.

All of the abvoe being said, One_Raven, I can see some of the benefits of the federalist system you seem to favour in a way similar to the original model of the United States. It does seem fruitless to have a government in power on a national level that supercedes the local level on too many issues.