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
( ... )
Time to read morefareSeptember 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.
Re: Time to read morel33tminionSeptember 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.
Assets and Secure rightsfareSeptember 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
( ... )
Yes, of course
anonymous
September 27 2010, 21:52:09 UTC
Yeah. Of course. I'm not sure you know anything about what you are speaking about, really.
Otherwise you wouldn't ridicule yourself in speaking about a (science-fictional) British Empire made of "people living at peace with each other under a same ruler":
The great Mughal capital, in the middle of a remarkable cultural flowering, was turned overnight into a battleground.
The Siege of Delhi was a fight to the death between two powers, neither of whom could retreat. Finally, on 14 September 1857, the British assaulted and took the city, sacking the Mughal capital and massacring swathes of the population. "The orders went out to shoot every soul," recorded Edward Vibart, a 19-year-old British officer. "It was literally murder... The women were all spared but their screams, on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference..." ... )
British and MughalsfareSeptember 27 2010, 22:17:05 UTC
Democracy is not the only totalitarian ideology out there. And totalitarianism is not the only inspiration for mass murder. Religion is another one.
Here you see a peaceful king being overrun by forces of a democracy that is only nominally monarchical, in what is otherwise an intercultural war of conquest. Not worse than when the Mughals themselves overran India.
Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not the enemies of each other.
Now fast forward to the fall of the British Empire, or the Yugoslavian Empire, into the hands of Democracy. Observe how the people who were living peacefully together start killing each other.
Re: British and Mughals
anonymous
September 28 2010, 12:32:09 UTC
> Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given > ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not > the enemies of each other > Perhaps, but this kind of situation is not what I call freedom. You could as well say that people jailed in a prison usually stop killing each other. But it is quite a feeble argument, IMHO.
Real freedom exists when people are ruled by themselves, and then, it's true, they become free to wage wars. Freedom is dangerous. In any case, I prefer freedom with perhaps a war than no freedom at all.
Looks like you think otherwise. You claim to be libertarian, so it seems you should defend freedom first. But then, by a strange weakness of your mind, in your criticism of democracy, you come to advocate regimes having a benevolent ruler, thus still, no real freedom. This is contradictory to your own stated goals.
No situation with a government whatsoever is what I call freedom.
Violence and aggression actually increases in prison as compared to outside a prison.
Democracy is not a lack of ruler, but the existence of millions of rulers, which makes it even worse than monarchy. It is not freedom, but universal oppression. Monarchs are not benevolent. Elected rulers are even less benevolent.
Fine essay and good arguments in the follow-up discussionhodjaSeptember 30 2010, 00:24:09 UTC
Though I would say that NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) is a better term to use. Different people mean different things by "Natural Law", whereas NAP is essentially unambiguous
( ... )
NAP vs Natural LawfareSeptember 30 2010, 02:34:14 UTC
NAP supposes a definition of what "Aggression" is, and that doesn't come for free. If understood properly (pun intended), it's all about Propertarianism. But that also doesn't come for free. Lots of Propertarians say "NAP" without realizing that they are making lots of non-trivial assumptions about it, then wonder why they are not being understood
( ... )
Kings, like any rulers including democratic elects, initially get their power from conquest and/or usurpation. But unlike democratic elects, they need not owe their power to renewing usurpation every so many years. The good thing about Old Kings is not "King" but "Old
( ... )
Comments 23
www.anti-democracy.com
Cheers
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
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
Reply
Otherwise you wouldn't ridicule yourself in speaking about a (science-fictional) British Empire made of "people living at peace with each other under a same ruler":
The great Mughal capital, in the middle of a remarkable cultural flowering, was turned overnight into a battleground.
The Siege of Delhi was a fight to the death between two powers, neither of whom could retreat. Finally, on 14 September 1857, the British assaulted and took the city, sacking the Mughal capital and massacring swathes of the population. "The orders went out to shoot every soul," recorded Edward Vibart, a 19-year-old British officer. "It was literally murder... The women were all spared but their screams, on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference..." ... )
Reply
Here you see a peaceful king being overrun by forces of a democracy that is only nominally monarchical, in what is otherwise an intercultural war of conquest. Not worse than when the Mughals themselves overran India.
Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not the enemies of each other.
Now fast forward to the fall of the British Empire, or the Yugoslavian Empire, into the hands of Democracy. Observe how the people who were living peacefully together start killing each other.
Reply
> ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not
> the enemies of each other
>
Perhaps, but this kind of situation is not what I call freedom. You could as well say that people jailed in a prison usually stop killing each other. But it is quite a feeble argument, IMHO.
Real freedom exists when people are ruled by themselves, and then, it's true, they become free to wage wars. Freedom is dangerous. In any case, I prefer freedom with perhaps a war than no freedom at all.
Looks like you think otherwise. You claim to be libertarian, so it seems you should defend freedom first. But then, by a strange weakness of your mind, in your criticism of democracy, you come to advocate regimes having a benevolent ruler, thus still, no real freedom. This is contradictory to your own stated goals.
You are not very convincing, really.
Reply
No situation with a government whatsoever is what I call freedom.
Violence and aggression actually increases in prison as compared to outside a prison.
Democracy is not a lack of ruler, but the existence of millions of rulers, which makes it even worse than monarchy. It is not freedom, but universal oppression. Monarchs are not benevolent. Elected rulers are even less benevolent.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment