I sometimes can't help thinking that since the fall of the berlin wall, western civilisation has, in a complacent sort of high, reduced itself to being about no more than basically two systems: capitalism and democracy. For a while it seemed that those two systems had turned into almost a religion, with "the end of history" by fukuyama as a sort of new bible.
Many young people who've supported sanders in the battle for the democratic candidacy, now blame the clinton administrations of the 90's for having been to cozy with wall-street.
But they don't realise how undisputed capitalism as a religion realy was, back then. In England, thatcher stated that "there is no such thing as society". There was only the market. For a politician, to openly say that a society is more than just a Marketplace, realy was like committing political suïcide. Ayn rand was being hailed as nothing less than a true visionary by realy influential people, like alan greenspan for instance. Capitalism was realy deemed an infallible system, and any call, for any kind of regulation, of any market, was immediately labeled socialist.

Since the crisis of 2008, capitalism is no longer seen as infallible. But democracy still is. I've heard political commentators say that Israel for instance, should have accepted hamas as a legitimate government, and do busines with them, BECAUSE hamas was democratically elected.

Well, i think regardless of what you think of the israeli policy considering the palestinians, it's a bit odd to think that any government should be willing to negotiate with people out for it's destruction.

Simmilarly, it's unthinkable that british MP's would ever decide to vote against brexit, even though a majority of them disagrees, even though they are allowed and even supposed to make decissions independently, and even though IT IS THEIR JOB to be better informed than just any man on any street. And even though the referendum did not change anything in the real world: they knew that a majority of the people was against the EU beforehand, and regardless of that, they where, based on what they as well-informed MP's knew about the subject, for EU-membership. But once this majority has been officially 'confirmed', all of a sudden, they no longer have the guts to go against 'the will of the people'.

In any debate, the remark that something is undemocratic, is realy the end of the discussion. The final word. To say that a person is 'undemocratic' is like comparing them to Hitler.

But to realy say that 'the democratic proces' as a moral argument, always trumps any other argument, is like saying that even genocide could be justified by a democratic majority. If you would accept that genocide would always be wrong, even if a majority of the people would have voted for it in a referendum, then you automatically have to accept that there are moral arguments that are more important than the argument of the 'democratic proces', that the outcome of a democratic proces is not Always right. You would have to accept that democracy is not morally infallible then.

But looking at what happened in Columbia last week, it seems that not many people are actually willing to draw that conclusion.

I sometimes wonder if, like the financial crisis has lead to the deconfiture of capitalism as infallible, western civilisation is waiting for a simmilar catastrophe as a result of the romanticising of democracy. Columbia could be leading the way, if the peace proces would falter.

'Democracy' the way it's used in the West is a fallacy - the US (and all the countries it has exported 'democracy' to are not democracies, but rather, representative republics, which is what allows for entrenched rulers to dictate massive parts of our lives.

The US has never seen anything like true, direct democracy.

Blessings
~ND

100% agreed.. Not only the US but AFAIK no country has seen a true democracy for any extended period of time.

What we call democracy now is merely a "show of appearances". There are two main flaws I see: The problem of representation, and the problem of the non-consensual 50%+1 dictatorship.

The problem of representation is basically the idea that we don't vote directly on issues but we vote on people who supposedly will represent us. Maybe this made some sense when the leaders had to go on horses to gather in some far away town to decide things. Nowadays with the internet this is ridiculous.

But even more than that, the issue is that there is no control mechanism to guarantee that I am actually being represented in my vote. If I vote for person A because they promiss XYZ, and yet when they get into power not only do they not even mention XYZ anymore, but they do the complete opposite, and I have no real way to request they do as promissed, how is that really a true representative of mine? It clearly isnt.

So the bare minimum that needs to be done in order to become a bit closer to democracy in that sense is that the politicians are held accountable for their promisses. As an example, lets say that in every campaign you establish a system that they have 3 levels of promisses they can officially make:
1- Certain - Any such promiss they dont fulfill within a given timeframe, they are immediately kicked out and heavily fined.
2- Likely - If such level of promiss isn't fulfilled, they are fined, and after a certain number of unfulfilled promisses they are also kicked out.
3- Possible' - These are probably the more daring and bold promisses/desires that they can state but people know its not as likely, so they should suffer no consequences for if unfulfilled

That would force more honesty and being reasonable/practical/realistic about one's political plans.

Eventually though, I think the best path is to make direct voting on specific issues by people using the internet and cryptocurrency, instead of having a representative in a system from centuries ago.

Another aspect as mentioned is the problem of the 50%+1... This means that in order to get power, you need a certain number of votes that is just the bare majority. Now lets say that this is a very polarizing person, for example, an extreme right person, and they are able to get that bare minimum of votes. Now they will be able to make decisisons that will possibly ruin the lives of practically half the country, but it's "democratic". In my opinion no democracy is a true democracy if you don't take minorities into account. This is not a consensus-building system, which is what a true democracy should be, this is a dictatorship of the bare majority.

So one suggestion for that? Do something like was done during the meetings in the spanish 15M movement (the equivalent to Occupy). Basically the idea is that every decision can be vetoed by a minority. So lets say for example 20%. So when an action was proposed, it wasnt only about minimum of 50% voting yes, it was about not more than 20% of people saying NO too... So whenever a minority voted 'No', a couple of representatives from that group would come up and explain why they voted No, and what way they think could improve the proposal if any. This would make people go back into discussing the issue and come up with a better proposal. This is a way to build consensus, because you take in account minority groups and ideas.

Etc etc .. lol

I think the more philosophical problem behind this is that having a form of democracy, any form of democracy, does not nessecarily equal having civil rights.

Firstly there is the question of, when different rights are at odds with eachother, wich one should be given priority. At this moment, in the current political systems, the right to vote, could outweigh the right to live, religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. And it is the question why the right to vote should be considered a more important right than any of those other rights. I would say that the right to vote is pretty worthless if you don't have the right to live.

But it's also clear that no democracy, in whatever shape or form, could realy function properly without a constitutional state that guarantees these other rights and things like for instance the separation of powers. Without the separation of powers, anybody could, at any given time, be put away with phoney, political trials. This is what's constantly happening in Russia for instance. Wich is why democracy simply doesn't work in Russia. At the moment, at least. Anybody who opposes vladimir putin, eventually will be sent to siberia by some phoney trial. Or get shot.

And then there's the following thing to consider: If any majority could, at any given moment, take away some fundamental right of yours, how could fear NOT be the primal motivation for whatever political engagement you may have? How could you ever have an open and honest debate, if the outcome of that debate could potentially mean the destruction of everything that matters to you?

I simply believe that, without a good and transparant justice system, without guaranteed civil rights, without respect for minorities...you cannot ever expect a democracy to function. And as these things are all a precondition for even having a democracy in the first place, they should be considered more important than democracy itself. But at this moment, democracy is often being confused with the concept of the constitutional state and of human rights. And if it's not, democracy is given priority above those other things. Like in Colombia, where it seems to have been given priority over peace.
I think that's insane. And very obviously so.

I'm not sure I buy that...can you give a specific example of what you're talking about? How could your right to vote be in competition with any of the rights you've listed here?



It's worth remember that phony political trials can only exist within a state as well. You're sort of suggesting you need a state to protect you from the state. As an anarchist, I'm really interested in the possibility of structuring a system in which no one person or group is capable of amassing power over another one. The problem is when you say 'okay, we need the state to enforce the limitations on it's own power.' That, I think, is one of the problems the US is running into.

There are different kinds of democracy. Many smaller communities make use of something called 'consensus democracy,' in which a decision is not binding unless the entire community agrees, rather than having a majority rule system (which is what you seem to be imagining). Related to this is deliberative democracy, which is related, but it's one in which the decisions being voted on are tailored by community-wide deliberation.

Cellular democracy is kind of a fusion of the two similar to our current system, although more decentralized and with a greater emphasis on local politics.

All of these have their problems, of course - often requiring a high degree of civic engagement, but, in theory, more local democratic systems would foster that because people have stakes in their communities and relationships with other members.

These kinds of democracy are integral to (realistic) anarchist thought and held up as model ways to create a society while limiting the amount of power that any one individual or group can have on another by decentralizing the decision-making process.

Some kind of constitutional limitations of power would probably be wise of course and I doubt most folks interested in radical formulations of democracy would disagree with that.

Blessings
~ND

As a dutch citizen, i hope you don't mind that the first example that comes to mind is that of the former dutch internal minister donner, a legal expert, specialised in constitutional law. He stated that, if a majority of the people would want to install sharia-law, then sharia-law (the death penalty for homosexuals, blasphemy, adultery, etc.) should be adopted.

Other examples are what's happening in Hungary, a member of the EU. Any TV or radiostation, or newspaper that critisizes the current fidesz government is being shut-down. The separation of powers is gradually being terminated. The polish PiS government is attempting to do the same.

In ireland, a referendum was being held on gay-marriage. The outcome was positive this time, but it might as well have turned out otherwise. The fact remains that this was a referendum about the rights of a particular minority.

Turkey is a democracy. Or at least it isn't any less democratic than the U.S. Yet there is no country (not even china) where more journalists are being imprisoned than Turkey. These are journalists who're critical of the elected government, and a majority of the turkish people supports these measures.

The elected president of the philipines has recently, proudly compared himself to Hitler. Drug addicts or supposed drug addicts are being hunt-down and killed. And seemingly, all of this is backed by a majority.

And then there is the referendum in Colombia ofcourse. The right of people to live in peace has clearly been sacrificed here, to the right to vote.

For most parts, a machine based dictatorship would be best.
I'd say let's develop AI to the point where it can build new laws based on an algorithm which would need to be decided upon beforehand. Remove all the ego, ideologic warfare and replace it with the cold heart of a machine.

If you want a typical government at all, that is.

"Democracy" is a meaningless word.

The thing is..the reason why (at least theoretically) all of the examples you and endlessness have mentioned, could be effective, is because they are essentially doing exactly what i'm suggesting. They restrain the power of the voter. They protect minority's from harm that could be inflicted upon them, if voting power would be unrestrained.

I find these alternatives to 'the state' very interesting. But they essentially do not solve the problems that innevitably come with power. There is Always the power of for instance, the majority, the wealthy, or those in an otherwise economically powerfull position (the only doctor in town, the only guy in the tribe who knows how to make fire, etc), or of those with the biggest guns or greatest physical strength.

So in all of these systems you're left with the same question: how to control power?
And thus, when the people are given a say in how the local system of power works: should the right to have a say in local affais, wich is the very essence of what democracy is about, extend to the point where it can come in conflict with other rights? How to keep the peace in the village, and prevent wichhunts? How to keep whatever judicial system you may have, impartial, fair and transparent? Or how to keep the guy with the greatest rhetorical talent from Always getting his way, at the expense of the local stutterrer?

I think that, paradoxically, the answer doesn't lie in any kind of system itself. Though some systems are ofcourse more effective in protecting the individual, than others. I think the main problem is the blind faith in democracy itself. If people realy believe that their right to have a say in things, IS more important than other rights, then it is more likely that the rights of minority's are getting trampled. Blind faith in democracy itself keeps people from asking themselves the question whether they should realy have the right to infringe other people's rights. When people are consistently being told that not only sharia law should be imposed if they would want it so, but also that this principle is the most beautiful and precious thing there is, and beyond any criticism, and that anyone who does dare to critisize this 'democracy', is essentially Hitler or stalin, then at some point they will start to believe that they are realy entitled to decide over other people's lives.

That sense of entitlement is realy a dangerous thing. It's been demonstraded by for instance the stanford prison experiment. But i think the examples i gave, like what happened in the philipines, Turkey, Colombia and Hungary, also show this.

That's where the focus on decentralization comes in. The goal is not to 'control' the power, because that doesn't work. The goal is to create a system in which it is impossible for people to amass power over others in the first place.

Here's an example:

Right now, the fossil fuel industry has enormous power because it controls access to that which makes the entire global economy run: energy. They have centralized control over it, and because of this (and with the help of The State, which enforces property laws and generally stacks the deck), they are able to extract wealth from pretty much everyone.

Compare that with something like solar energy: it is impossible to have centralized control of the sun (there are solar panel manufacturers, it's unfortunately true for the moment) - solar energy could be produced on a local, individual, or community level, without any need for either a corporation to buy a product from, or an arm of the State to interact with and aid that corporation.

In this way, you can see that, rather than using State power to coral the corporation's power (in much the same way a court or constitution corals that state power), we've built a system in which power cannot be amassed in the first place.

(Yes, I know there are a few scientific details that may need to be worked out in this case, but it's more of a thought experiment rather than a concrete plan).

Blessings
~ND

Well said nathanial. Thats also related to the cryptocurrency mention earlier. If you haven't yet dragonrider, look into smart contracts and the use of the blockchain technology in social organization. Good thing maths can't be corrupted

Just like AI.

Maths exist independently of human beings, unlike AIs, which we make.

I wouldn't trust any AI to rule me that had been programmed by a human being. Way too much potential for abuse.

Blessings
~ND

Of all the alternatives to the 'majority-model' mentioned, i particularly like the idea of consensus-democracy. Especially because i think that there is a powerfull incentive there, to base choices not just on sentiments, but also on rationality, as participants can't just go with their own guts. They have to take the interests of others into consideration as well.

I think the model would work even better if we'd up the stakes a bit: Say that everybody who would want to join, would first have to pay an 'entrance fee' of say, 50 euro's. If consensus is reached, everybody get's his money back, and if not...well, too bad.

If people realy háve to reach consensus, while still trying to maximise there own gains, not only would minority's not have to fear the 'dictature of the majority', you could also expect the outcome of the proces to be realy good and rational policy. At least theoretically.

If two people would have to reach consensus on how to share a cake, the only rational solution would be for each to take half of it. It would be irrational to go for less, but it would ALSO be irrational to go for more, as their is a need for consensus. Economically this is the most efficient 'distribution of utility'. This principle is called pareto efficiency.
In terms of game-theory, you would call this equilibrium between two strategies a nash-equilibrium, after john-a beautiful mind-nash. In this case, the equilibrium would be a mixed strategy equilibrium, consisting of the consensus based strategy, and 'retribution' in case the other party would want to play hawk. You could probably expect places with such a system, to have realy flourishing as well as somewhat sustainable economies: everybody get's as much 'utility' as reasonably possible. In theory at least.

Honestly, I think that 'rationality' in the economic sense of the word is pretty much a total fiction. The 'homo economicus' model is one that is, in my experience, almost completely divorced from reality.

You and I are cutting a cake - if we're both that brand of rational, yeah, we each get half a cake, but what if I think the cake is gross? What if I'm just a dick and want more than half the cake?

The economy is way too complex to be modeled with anything like individual, rational analysis, and (IMHO), anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is selling something. In the case of most economics, it's a neoliberal economic picture that justifies the actions of those who fund them (in the interests of avoiding accusations of conspiracy check out the very well-researched documentary 'Inside Job,' which chronicles the collusion between economic academics and the financial sector).

Blessings
~ND

Just my little input.

I think that for a true democracy, where all can vote for every decisions, to work there should be a VERY important rule: before you can vote about something you have to be knowledgeable about what you are voting for.

Lets take a referendum as an example. About any time there is a referendum the majority who is voting knows 'jacks excretion' about what they are voting for, so they usually end up voting with their underbelly which has little in common with reality. Ask the generic population if they want to lower taxes and you probably have a majority of votes for YES. Never mind that this will mean the end of infrastructure maintenance and emergency services (just an example).

So I think that if you are voting for something you should know about the dynamics of what you are voting for to a pretty high degree. At least an education in the field that you are voting for should be mandatory.

You should also have extra free educational classes to prepare you for your vote if you do not have any degree in that field, if you fail that class that means you cannot vote for that particular item.

You can probably call this a technocratic democracy.


As for local versus national power. I think there should be a clear demarcation on items that can be voted for on a national level that affects only a specific local area or minority. Those local areas or minorities should be able to vote on those items within their own area or group.

One thing I do know though is that I currently not have the correct education to know what the demarcation lines should be, so I cannot vote for that yet .


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Well first of all, i already said that it's just theory, so i think we both just agree on that.

But there are actually two good reasons why the theory, in this particular case, would be a good theory.
1-A lot of research has shown that in many cases the idea of the 'homo-economicus' doesn't work because people tend to have other powerfull motives. People very often tend to behave in a much more social and ethical way, than you would expect them to. In situations of strategic social interacting, people are driven very much by moral sentiments and gut feelings like empathy.
But in this case, those motives coincide exactly with what 'reason' would proscribe. If you'd ask people how they would share a cake, the vast majority of the people tends to, automatically, without thinking, immediately respond with giving one half a cake to each.
So in this case, the reasoning would just help to explain why moral sentiments can sometimes coincide with reason.
2-A powerfull incentive is added: the potential loss of 50 euro's. The loss of something, research has shown, tends to be a very powerfull motive.

So in case of the cake: if you would not want any of it, then there is no reason at all, not to come to an agreement. Nothing is lost by giving all of the cake to the other person. But if you don't know in advance if you're going to like the cake, wich is far more likely, then the 'sharing-problem' still applies. You're forgetting that this is not just about how much cake you would want, but also about how large a piece you would grant the other person.

Remember, you have a good reason (50 euro's) to want the other person to agree with you. If you have two pieces of different size, there is Always the question who get's the greatest piece. There is no reason to assume that your 'opponent' would want to agree with having the smallest piece. If you're gonna be a dick, the other person might as well. Only when the two pieces have equal size, this problem is eliminated. And then half a piece is the largest amount of cake you can have, while at the same time having good reasons to assume that the other person is going to agree, wich is what you want because of the 50 euro's you've invested.

Besides, you've said yourself that a consensus based model would theoretically offer a good alternative.

This is exactly what happened in the state of California. The state went bankrupt because of the combination of lower taxes and higher government spending, both the outcome of a referendum.

Another thing is...does anybody of you think that democracy is uniting people, or does it rather put people up against eachother?

Looking at the upcoming elections in the USA, i wonder if americans are feeling more united or more divided by all of the campaigning that has been going on?
And do britons feel that the united kingdom has become more united after the referendum?

As a dutch citizen i certainly feel that dutch society is being polarised more and more by politicians and their toxic rhetoric's.
If there's anything that unites us, it's the constitutional state that ensures our civil rights and that assures that all of us are equal to the law. But not the divisive politics with it's purely symbolic, and ineffective, inadequate and often counterproductive policy's, it's fear-mongering and it's spreading of fact-free worldviews.

And in Iraq, democracy has surely made everything worse than it already was. It already was a mess with the reign of saddam hussein and the american-british invasion. But democracy has definately been the great catalist there, that truly helped to ignite all of the hidden sunni/shia tensions.

The same is undeniably true for thailand. A good constitution could have prevented the military coup. But not the democratic processes that have put people up against eachother.

And in Kenia, pakistan and countless other places, the time just before and after elections is Always the most dangerous period, with lynch-mobs, riots and car-bombings.

I don't think democracy the way we know it unites. Maybe a consensus based system would. I think i've argued quite convincingly in posts 13 and 16 that it is likely to do so. But how to organise a consensus based system on a scale that exceeds that of the small town?

The main problem is, i think, not even democracy itself but the fukuyamic (if that is a proper word) paradigm. Not democracy and capitalism should be considered the end purpose of history, but human rights and simply good governance. In other words: respect and practicality.

I can see all governments as we know them becoming obsolete, hopefully.

Democracy probably worked as a decent system for a time, but it like all forms of governance is about to outgrow its usefulness. The only legitimate reasons there may have been to have a government will no longer exist because of technological advancements. Things like large scale energy production and distribution is on the way out. As advancements in technology progress, things move more towards a decentralized model. Its becoming more and more feasible for people to run their households off a renewable energy source generated at their household with excess being distributed to those in need. Eventually any type of needed infrastructure will be built and maintained by robots, along with any other types of products and services. Sure people will still have the ability to decide if they want to be a part of and of which type of the community infrastructure services that are available, and they will have to freedom to choose either way. I imagine a majority will elect to be part of most, but no one will be forced. These decisions can be made through already existing technologies like smart phones in real time, and will be recorded and delegated by computers.

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that anarchism is the greatest good. Democracy looks cool from the god eye, however, it's a system made to lead every human towards nowhere, or towards everything, while anarchy unites groups. What I mean, it makes people lonely, it's so inclusive that it takes huge part of humanity into line to fake happiness. However, I'd agree that it's an mediocre system for any lad to hold on to. And mediocre is great, since either greatest guys and lowkeys can participate in the same place. Else, why do I like democracy, it leads people mutually towards wealth and prosperity, while anarchism greatly lacks this aspect.