So how are y'all preparing for the Apocalypse?

[Fish Owl]

When some leader screws up, we don't shoot them or send them for reeducation along with every worker involved to isolate the blame.

I'm not saying they should be shot or put in prison. But some kind of financial responsibility would be fine. For example if you vote for some party and it screws up big time you need to pay some additional fee to help rebuild economy. This way we can be assured people at least do some research before voting for certain candidate.

t is certainly imperfect. But it is better than being at the mercy of well meaning mass killers who answer to no one.

If you would ask me 5 years ago I would agree with you completely.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m very well aware that any action I mentioned above may lead to dictatorship, fascism and prosecution of innocents labeled as “enemies of the state”. But on the other hand I’m not so sure because I witnessed myself what evil can democracy bring when people do not consider consequences of their choice. I haven’t converted to totalitarian ideas or fascism but still this experience altered my perspective. Today I can understand both sides of this constant conflict and it probably make me alien to both of them (it is funny that many people from Russia and various parts of former USSR call me a traitor and liberal US lapdog).

I think in order to build better world we need to listen to each other and try to understand motives of other nations. Today we tend to dismiss other ideas and paint reality in black and white strokes. As long as this continues nothing will ever change.

 

[RX-79G]

I'm not saying they should be shot or put in prison. But some kind of financial responsibility would be fine. For example if you vote for some party and it screws up big time you need to pay some additional fee to help rebuild economy. This way we can be assured people at least do some research before voting for certain candidate.

That would be partisan and divisive. We elect leaders that are understood to represent all of us.

The world is slowly graduating to representative government. Fascism and Communism were post-monarchy experiments in non-representative government, and they have proved exceptionally lethal. We are likely stuck with some version of democracy until (sci fi tie in) some technological substitution could be fashioned, or technology causes self reliance to end economies and nation states.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
― Winston S. Churchill

 

[Fish Owl]

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

The problem is: every modern political regime claims to be "the real democracy". Nobody say "you must obey us because we are evil Empire and want you to work for us 24 hours 7 days a week so we can achieve our megalomaniac desire just to be evil tyrants". Everybody believes they are doing the right thing.

 

[RX-79G]

The problem is: every modern political regime claims to be "the real democracy". Nobody say "you must obey us because we are evil Empire and want you to work for us 24 hours 7 days a week so we can achieve our megalomaniac desire just to be evil tyrants". Everybody believes they are doing the right thing.

That isn't the problem. The problem is that governments built around "the good of society" rather than rights of individuals have to be totalitarian in structure, which means that they concentrate a few people in unassailable positions at the top. This ALWAYS leads to abuse, because such a structure is a selection mechanism for sociopaths and their sycophants who quickly rise in such an organization.

Let's say Lenin had his heart in the right place, and maybe Trotsky, too. Did that prevent a person like Stalin from filling Lenin's shoes and bumping Trotsky off? The Soviet went from social revolution to terror state with the change of one leader, and that leader constructed his power base so he could torture his country for 30 years.

At the very least, monarchies are less likely to install tyrants because the selection criteria is birth, rather than a cunning ability to manipulate power and climb a hierarchy that caters to those who are the most self interested.

Democracy, in almost any form, short circuits the tendency of sociopaths to consolidate power because the rights of individuals creates too much red tape to effectively dictate. You can pick whatever representative government you want, but all of them are going to be superior to a dictatorship that serves an ethos rather than people.

 

[Fish Owl]

Let's say Lenin had his heart in the right place, and maybe Trotsky, too. Did that prevent a person like Stalin from filling Lenin's shoes and bumping Trotsky off? The Soviet went from social revolution to terror state with the change of one leader, and that leader constructed his power base so he could torture his country for 30 years.

You tend to oversimplify matters. Like I said, life is not dystopia fiction. Stalin had huge support from people. Even now he is praised by lot of old-timers who actually lived through that era. They are not oblivious to things that happened and know about all the atrocities committed. But they still think it was all justified by concept of "lesser evil for greater good". So it's not like dictator "torturing his country". It is country that torture itself. I hardly doubt that any leader could prevent this from happening. After the collapse of Russian Empire it was only two possibilities: Communist regime under Lenin and Stalin or Fascism under White officers like Kolchak or Wrangel. All other options like peaceful transition to democracy was already failed long before this. It is the same with Germany and Hitler. Hitler was not the source and origin of all problems, he was final result of troubled society and time.

You can pick whatever representative government you want, but all of them are going to be superior to a dictatorship that serves an ethos rather than people.

You probably know that Aristotle rightfully said that uncontrolled democracy (rule of the poor) will always lead to tyranny (election of Hitler and Nazi party for example). I was actually citing him in my previous posts.

 

[RX-79G]

You tend to oversimplify matters. Like I said, life is not dystopia fiction. Stalin had huge support from people. Even now he is praised by lot of old-timers who actually lived through that era. So it's not like dictator "torturing his country". It is country that torture itself. I hardly doubt that any leader could prevent this from happening. After the collapse of Russian Empire it was only two possibilities: Communist regime under Lenin and Stalin or Fascism under White officers like Kolchak or Wrangel. All other options like peaceful transition to democracy was already failed long before this. It is the same with Germany and Hitler. Hitler was not the source and origin of all problems, he was final result of troubled society and time.

The fact that mass murders retain "popular support" is neither here nor there. They certainly don't have the support of the citizens they murdered.

If you think the only choices for Russians were systems that emphasized the state, I won't argue with you. But Russians chose to support political systems that put zero value in individuals, and both individuals and the state suffered. If the state is formed around a concept that is divorced from the people, it is going to serve that concept above all.

You probably know that Aristotle rightfully said that uncontrolled democracy (rule of the poor) will always lead to tyranny (election of Hitler and Nazi party for example). I was actually citing him in my previous posts.

Aristotle believed that world was made of four elements, and his philosophy was that actual scientific research was beneath the ideal, which effectively ended the kind of work early mathematicians.

Now you're quoting him to suggest that representative government must turn to tyranny, even though it is a fact that some of them have existed for a thousand years, and some of the largest for 300 years.

So what is Aristotle "right" about?

 

[Fish Owl]

The fact that mass murders retain "popular support" is neither here nor there.

In this case "mass murderer" is not one person. It is majority of population. It was not Stalin or Hitler pulling the trigger every time.

They certainly don't have the support of the citizens they murdered.

They are usually minority of society in question.

But Russians chose to support political systems that put zero value in individuals, and both individuals and the state suffered. If the state is formed around a concept that is divorced from the people, it is going to serve that concept above all.

If majority of people want this kind of system - is it not democracy? I understand that your concept of democracy is closer to Popper's "Open Society" where democracy is not the power of majority but rights of minorities. This is why I said that "everyone have their own concept of democracy".

representative government must turn to tyranny

Under certain conditions.

So what is Aristotle "right" about?

Democracy will be source of tyranny if majority of voters are uneducated, immoral, fanatical and so on.

 

[RX-79G]

If majority of people want this kind of system - is it not democracy? I understand that your concept of democracy is closer to Popper's "Open Society" where democracy is not the power of majority but rights of minorities. This is why I said that "everyone have their own concept of democracy".

If the majority has the power to deprive the minority of rights or life, then it is not a democracy, it is mob rule.

Your idea of "democracy" works like this:
Two men kill a third man. When the police arrive, the two men tell the police that they took a vote and death was chosen for the third man by a 2/3 majority. The police therefore rule the death a suicide.

You can't have democracy without individual rights, not because "minorities" need protection, but because if everyone doesn't have some protection their votes will be coerced.

A mob chose Communism, and a small portion of that mob helped the psychopaths further subvert representation with mass murder.

Democracy will be source of tyranny if majority of voters are uneducated, immoral, fanatical and so on.

What does that have to do with it being "inevitable" as you previously claimed?

 

[Fish Owl]

Two men kill a third man. When the police arrive, the two men tell the police that they took a vote and death was chosen for the third man by a 2/3 majority. The police therefore rule the death a suicide.

Not exactly. Policeman participate in this vote too. And they all agree that murder in that case is not a crime.

You can't have democracy without individual rights

What you seem to forget or dismiss is that whole concept of crime or individual right in democracy is determined by people, not by some holy book or heavenly law. If majority of democratic society decides that homosexuality is a crime - it will be judged as such. If they decide otherwise - it will be viewed as an individual right. For example in some states of USA homosexuality was a crime until 2003 (as far as I know) - does it make USA nondemocratic country until 2003? After all today all civilized world view homosexuality as a basic individual right.

small portion of that mob

It is wishful thinking. It is always majority of the mob that support really bad decisions.

What does that have to do with it being "inevitable" as you previously claimed?

Inappropriate use of wrong adjective or confusion caused by the wrong structure of whole sentence. I didn't mean that any democracy will immediately deteriorate into dictatorship. But this possibility is always present.

 

[RX-79G]

What you seem to forget or dismiss is that whole concept of crime or individual right in democracy is determined by people, not by some holy book or heavenly law. If majority of democratic society decides that homosexuality is a crime - it will be judged as such. If they decide otherwise - it will be viewed as an individual right. For example in some states of USA homosexuality was a crime until 2003 (as far as I know) - does it make USA nondemocratic country until 2003? After all today all civilized world view homosexuality as a basic individual right.

You chose that particular issue because it is something that is still a matter of debate because of varying theories about what behaviors are innate properties of human beings.

Instead, let's keep it simple: Can the majority of an actual democracy legalize ritual murder?

The answer is no, because a society that grants people a vote due to their rights (rather than their force of numbers), cannot take a human right away.

Your distracting example of homosexuality is a good example of how societies over time decide what human rights are. Some were decided a very long time ago, like the basic right to life for men, and some took longer, like the right to life for women. The fact that is a process rather than something intrinsically obvious doesn't invalidate the concept of human rights. It just demonstrates that we have become human by a series of introspective choices.


If a society wants to make oxygen illegal, it can certainly give that a try. But stupid or unfair laws generally have a downside that hurts that society as a whole, which is why more mature societies tend to recognize most of the same human rights. They aren't 'smarter' societies, but they do have more experience operating under the same type of social conditions than an Emirate or a Russian Federation which isn't even 30 years old.

It always seems like people living in relatively young societies have the strongest opinions about how unworkable longstanding foreign institutions must be (despite the historical evidence to the contrary).

 

[Fish Owl]

You chose that particular issue because it is something that is still a matter of debate

In USA, Europe and some other countries. On the other hand there are nations where homosexuality was individual right for a long time and didn't faced prosecution. Like in Japan.

Can the majority of an actual democracy legalize ritual murder?

By indicating murder as "ritual" we can already see that this society is theological. This is different case and different theme for discussion. But democracy can definitely legalize murder. Like death penalty in USA.

how societies over time decide what human rights are.

Because it is subjective matter that change through time, economic situation, technological progress, psychology and other factors. Death penalty is a perfect example. It can be abolished or reinstated at any time if society desire this. Another great example is prostitution. Is it crime or individual right? Different societies had different answer to that during their history.

people living in relatively young societies have the strongest opinions about how unworkable longstanding foreign institutions must be (despite the historical evidence to the contrary).

I can totally relate to that. For example USA exist for 240 years and people who live there actually have strongest opinion about societies like China and Iran that have more than 3000 years of continuous history.

 

[Facing]

This us getting more interesting. @Fish Owl the longer you debate this, the more I attribute some of my prior shock to a language barrier.
I still don't agree with you on many points but your perspective is becoming clearer and easier to understand.

 

[Fish Owl]

This us getting more interesting. @Fish Owl the longer you debate this, the more I attribute some of my prior shock to a language barrier.

I think I understand why this is happening. In my culture when you need to address some problem you need to voice it in same arguments and ideas as its author does. Without any editing or commentaries. Then, after you addressed the issue, you can begin to discuss it. And in English everything person say immediately viewed as his own vision and ideas.

For example I don't believe and want to have direct democracy where poor people do not have votes. I'm simply addressing and pointing out the problem by voicing different opinions on the matter.

I think it is a source of major misunderstanding between our cultures. Of course I will try to adjust to English way of expressing myself to avoid it in future.

 

[RX-79G]

I can totally relate to that. For example USA exist for 240 years and people who live there actually have strongest opinion about societies like China and Iran that have more than 3000 years of continuous history.

The current society that we call "China" was created in 1949, even if the place is far older. If you want to play games about how old countries are, then we can say that "America" was established 1607 by British colonists, or we can say that the US is an extension of England and use British history as the measure. We are certainly using the basis of British law going back to at least the Magna Carta in the 13th century, while the PRC discarded nearly every law, religion and custom of Chinese society with its formation.

I would say people in the US, like people in England, have considerably more experience refining a single set of laws and ideals than the People's Republic of China, who has only had their particular values, customs and laws for less than 70 years.

By indicating murder as "ritual" we can already see that this society is theological. This is different case and different theme for discussion. But democracy can definitely legalize murder. Like death penalty in USA.

These are different because an execution is the result of actions taken by the accused. People that are murdered have no responsibilty in their selection.

And "rituals" are not synonymous with religion. The changing of the guard is a ritual.

 

[Fish Owl]

If you want to play games about how old countries are,

I was just being sarcastic. I understood what you meant and I agree with the main idea.
But still the issue of death penalty remains. You claim that in democracy you can't kill a person just because majority approve it. But still USA have death penalty. Don't you think it is absurd?

 

[RX-79G]

I was just being sarcastic. I understood what you meant and I agree with the main idea.
But still the issue of death penalty remains. You claim that in democracy you can't kill a person just because majority approve it. But still USA have death penalty. Don't you think it is absurd?

I don't approve of the death penalty for many reasons, including the fact all killing is essentially wrong and we have executed innocent people.

But the point remains that a proper democracy cannot vote to kill one of its citizens. A citizen can be executed only after committing a crime that due process finds that they are guilty of, and then we install many safeguards and protections to make sure that happens correctly and justly.

Judicial executions and war are not considered murder, right or wrong.

 

[Fish Owl]

Judicial executions and war are not considered murder

Then you can't call Nazi murderers. They had some form of judical system and trial they considered correct and just and with all necessary safeguards. How is it different from death penalty in USA?

 

[RX-79G]

Then you can't call Nazi murderers. They had some form of judical system and trial they considered correct and just and with all necessary safeguards. How is it different from death penalty in USA?

Because being born Jewish is not an illegal act propagated by a free person.

As stated earlier, a crime is an action that a person chooses. Without an act or a choice, there can be no crime. A trial without a crime is not a trial.

 

[Fish Owl]

Because being born Jewish is not an illegal act propagated by a free person.

What about treason or crime against the state? In Stalin's USSR they were judical reasons for execution.

 

[Fish Owl]

Without an act or a choice, there can be no crime

What about duty to rescue? You can do nothing and it will be considered as a crime.