Against Democracy

Sep 25, 2010 21:31


While commenting on my previous postl33tminion makes himself the candid voice of the usual democratic propaganda ( Read more... )

libertarian, politics, reactionary, democracy, en

Leave a comment

l33tminion September 27 2010, 18:52:38 UTC
I thank you for this well-thought-out and substantive response to my comments.

My interlocutor as well as all who repeat that Democracy works lack any epistemological methodolody to decide if Democracy works better than the alternative

I'll admit to that. I can compare present-day democracies to present-day dictatorships or monarchies, but it's difficult to distinguish to what extent those differences have to do with form of government versus other factors. What if the American Revolution had opposed involuntary government in general as opposed to "no taxation without representation"? Hard to imagine. Even harder to imagine how that would have turned out two-hundred years down the line.

Of course, I'd level the same criticism at libertarians.

Civilians are targetted by organized famine through blockades, captured populations are subject to large scale oppression and massacres, large numbers of people are parked into concentration camps, cities are bombed.

Besieging or razing cities in war predates modern democracy. Ditto for slavery, civil war, genocide. There's nothing implausible about wars as bad as 20th century wars being fought in a non-democratic alternate history.

Ancien Régime monarchies never did anything quite as bad.

Good to choose the period of relative peace immediately after the Hundred Years' War.

As the pretense of democracy wanes away and the Establishment feels stronger in its political hold not depending on opinion, totalitarian control can be loosened. But only if a viable alternative is offered to either tyranny or democracy.

My statement about libertarian class politics striking me as really bizarre was evidently an understatement.

Reply

Time to read more fare September 27 2010, 20:12:11 UTC
I'd level the same criticism at libertarians.

Except that libertarians DO possess epistemological tools to think about choice between alternate opportunities - praxeology.

Besieging or razing cities in war predates modern democracy. Ditto for slavery, civil war, genocide. There's nothing implausible about wars as bad as 20th century wars being fought in a non-democratic alternate history.

It is certainly implausible for Ancien Régime kings the kind we had
just before Democracy overtook the world to fight those wars.
Those kings regarded people as assets, not liabilities.

Good to choose the period of relative peace immediately after the Hundred Years' War.

To consider the contribution of Democracy,
we should compare it to a different continuation of what was just before it.
If you want to transpose Democracy to barbaric times,
then see how it applies to those times,
but don't play double standards by comparing
Kings amongst XIXth century BC barbarians
to Democracies amongst the XIXth AD civilized.

My statement about libertarian class politics striking me as really bizarre was evidently an understatement.

Cognitive dissonance is a great symptom to recognize.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
- Isaac Asimov

Reply

Re: Time to read more l33tminion September 27 2010, 21:40:34 UTC
It is certainly implausible for Ancien Régime kings the kind we had just before Democracy overtook the world to fight those wars.

Okay, I thought you were making a point about democracy and monarchy in general, not the Ancien Régime in particular. My point isn't that autocrats can never be benevolent, nor that democracy can never go wrong.

I still think that the historical change in whether people are viewed by "the Establishment" as an asset has more to do with technological change and population growth than any particular political idea.

Cognitive dissonance is a great symptom to recognize.

Not every instance of someone else's beliefs seeming odd is cognitive dissonance.

Reply

Assets and Secure rights fare September 30 2010, 03:32:17 UTC
Stop "thinking" without an argument. Whether people are viewed as an asset is directly linked to one and only one thing: whether the (property) of the owner/ruler is stable or not. Where no property right is recognized (conquest underway), then the life of the conquered is worth shit. Where long-term property rights exist across generations without death tax, dynasties invest for centuries ahead (as was common under the Ancien Regime). Regimes based on recent usurpation by mere brute force are most oppressive. Old monarchies based on ancient usurpation are least oppressive. Democracies as such ensure a permanent usurpation with no possible long-term prospects, and are thus extremely destructive; this destruction is often limited by the power being actually held by a non-democratic establishment, but this establishment being insecure in its rights will be particularly ruthless. Western countries additionally have strong traditions of liberty countering democracy, but these traditions are eroding.

When under the influence of leftist scumbag do-gooders the Queen of Spain, with the intention to "protect" her subjects the (american) indians forbids the conquistadores from enslaving them, yet doesn't pay anticonquistadores to defend them (that she can't afford anyway), then she actually artificially lowers the value of the life of indians in the eyes of their masters, and leads to a vast destruction of her "protected" subjects.

Reply

Why do you believe? fare September 30 2010, 03:36:57 UTC
You admit you don't have a good reason to believe what you do believe. Then what is your bad reason? Until you find out this reason and root it out, you are being manipulated.

Apply to forms of governments this quote: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts

Reply

Re: Why do you believe? l33tminion September 30 2010, 04:40:11 UTC
I'm not sure that quote quite works. After reading your posts and comments, I'm not sure we're rejecting dictatorship or monarchy for the same reasons.

Reply

l33tminion October 25 2010, 16:41:20 UTC
Besieging or razing cities in war predates modern democracy. Ditto for slavery, civil war, genocide. There's nothing implausible about wars as bad as 20th century wars being fought in a non-democratic alternate history.

bvanevery writes: Alternate history? 80% of the casualties of WW II occurred on the Eastern Front, between 2 totalitarian states. It was "Total War."

Reply

l33tminion October 25 2010, 19:38:02 UTC
I don't disagree, though Moldbug, at the very least, would characterize both the Nazi and the Soviet states as democratic in origin.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up