Is Democracy the worst system apart from all the others??

pagancornflake

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I favour democracy but with one absolute exception.

Absolutely everything which affects no one but the person engaging in it (and / or other people who actively agree to be affected by it) should be legal. The government has no right to invade people's personal lives and make moral decisions for them.

Lovely theory, doubt it will work in practice though as the question of whether or not something affects another is quite a subjective one. I'd say a decent example would be someone who decides to take coke. This may not affect another for some time but the effects generated by it may affect others socially.

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

Lovely theory, doubt it will work in practice though as the question of whether or not something affects another is quite a subjective one. I'd say a decent example would be someone who decides to take coke. This may not affect another for some time but the effects generated by it may affect others socially.

all you can say is that the person has different time and risk preferences.

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

all you can say is that the person has different time and risk preferences.

Sorry, can you rephrase that please?

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

Sorry, can you rephrase that please?

well, taking coke and I assume we are not talking cola is a risky behaviour to be judged by the individual concerned as is smoking or alcohol , others that are more risk adverse may deem coke to be an unacceptable heath risk or have a different view of the trade off between present versus future gratification/consequences.
In and of itself the primary effects are on the person that takes the narcotic, the water only get muddy for example if someone else is obliged to pick up the medical tab. I see no just reason for it to be a criminal offence for instance as there is no crime against another person or their property.

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

well, taking coke and I assume we are not talking cola is a risky behaviour to be judged by the individual concerned as is smoking or alcohol

The erratic and violent behavior which accompanies cocaine use (as I said) is a matter which may potentially affect others through interaction with the coke user, which is what I was talking about (not the effects that it has on the person taking it, which is what you are talking about). The problem I have with this model is that I don't see how a concrete set of criteria can be devised to determine whether a certain personal behavior "affects no one but the person engaging in it".

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely everything which affects no one but the person engaging in it (and / or other people who actively agree to be affected by it) should be legal.

Some people (such as myself) judge certain things to be harmful to others which others do not (second hand smoke, for example. I think that the effect is negligible but extant). How would policy in these areas be determined?

Joycey

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely everything which affects no one but the person engaging in it (and / or other people who actively agree to be affected by it) should be legal. The government has no right to invade people's personal lives and make moral decisions for them.

I find the question of abortion to be an interesting response to views like this one.

Its all very well if we assume that all the inhabitants of a society are entirely secular, but what if someone has a belief that firstly, you are killing a baby when you abort a baby, and secondly, that by living in a society whereby abortion (killing babies) is seen as legitimate, you are in fact complicit in the murder of human beings and as such will burn in hell for all eternity.

Now its not enough to say "only the person affected can make the decision", because by choosing to have an abortion, the mother (in this person's view), is in fact condemning everyone in the society who is complicit (by not preventing it) in the abortion to an eternity in hell.

There are all sorts of other examples of non-secular belief systems which cause problems for this view. Seeing everything as interconnected and intricately tied to everything else, pantheism, or certain forms of buddhism for example, would prevent the killing of ants or cutting of grass due to the belief that you are harming "me" when you do such things.

In short I think deciding what is morally right or not in a society is a question of compromise and intelligent debate. And I see two people who come together, one of them saying "ITS MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE", the other saying "ITS MY RIGHT TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE WE DONT MURDER BABIES/ITS THE BABIES RIGHT TO LIVE" as engaging in neither necessary compromise or intelligent debate.

The same can be said for any other claim of "natural" or "god-given" rights IMO, they are antithetical to any form of compromise or rational discussion. They are useful as handy political buzzwords (eg "right" to freedom bandied about by various American politicians) which dont actually say anything on their own without being justified and argued for but invariably aren't, or as a kind of rough guideline for laws/behavioural practises (like a child has a right not to be hurt etc) but again need to be recognised as non-absolute and always open to question.

biko

DeVore wrote: »

Democracy has at its heart that every person's opinion should be given the same weight.

nesf wrote: »

No, not really.
Democracy or more accurately parliamentary democracy is about having those in power being elected by those their decisions will affect.

You're both right.
Direct democracy is how it was intended (one free man, one vote). When this became unwieldy parliamentary democracy was invented (one free man speaks for a group of people). Direct democracy is still used to this day in referendums/polls/elections.

A benevolent dictatorship is an oxymoron. I'd rather describe boards as an meritocracy.

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

The erratic and violent behavior which accompanies cocaine use (as I said) is a matter which may potentially affect others through interaction with the coke user, which is what I was talking about (not the effects that it has on the person taking it, which is what you are talking about. The problem I have with this model is that I don't see how a concrete set of criteria can be devised to determine whether a certain personal behavior "affects no one but the person engaging in it.

I dont see the problem , the "crime" is not taking the subsistance, its if here is a "trespass" on the person or their property. Anything else is an arbitrary attempt at social engineering but it has nothing to do with justice

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

I dont see the problem , the "crime" is not taking the subsistance, its if here is a "trespass" on the person or their property. Anything else is an arbitrary attempt at social engineering but it has nothing to do with justice

You dont, but I do see a problem here. The problem I see is that it does not seem reasonable to allow the personal freedom to take highly addictive drugs which lead to such degrees of violent behavior purely on the basis that taking the drug is not a violent behavior in itself. The trespass happens by proxy when under the effect of this drug. Furthermore, if this is allowed, then the strain on law enforcement will be to deal with coke users who are actually committing a trespass as opposed to dealing with the source, which is the supply. The strain is heavier, the staff must be more abundant=> higher taxes which I really dont want to pay just so some people can enjoy more of what they claim to be their "rights".

I am just using the example of a drug which leads to violent behavior to illustrate the fact that the criteria involved in judging what is a trespass and what is going to be a trespass by proxy would be a bureaucratic mess. In light of this, I feel that the whole scenario begs the question as to whether or not the pursuit of absolute individual freedoms takes precedence in all cases, or are some people just using it as a vanguard? I suppose what I am getting at here is that I don't think that the aim of protecting such far fetched personal freedoms takes precedence in dictating policy. The aim of absolute individual autonomy is not justified prima facie.

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

You dont, but I do see a problem here. The problem I see is that it does not seem reasonable to allow the personal freedom to take highly addictive drugs which lead to such degrees of violent behavior purely on the basis that taking the drug is not a violent behavior in itself.........

I dont think the basis for law should be what is convenient or necessarily based on a flawed attempt at cost/benefit analysis. Using your logic it would seem reasonable to legalise heroin and make it illegal to consume more then say 4 units of alcohol inside or outside the home? Also if one was to take a utilitarian approach, the war on drugs has been a distaster in terms of the growth in organised crime which I think would swamp any potential additional crime you've mentioned

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

I dont think the basis for law should be what is convenient or necessarily based on a flawed attempt at cost/benefit analysis.

And I dont think that the basis for law should be some vague platitude which would lead to exactly the same thing. You failed to respond to the rest of that paragraph, so let me list the points that have not been dealt with:

1)The trespass happens by proxy when under the effect of this drug.
2)that the criteria involved in judging what is a trespass and what is going to be a trespass by proxy would be a bureaucratic mess

silverharp wrote: »

Using your logic it would seem reasonable to legalise heroin and make it illegal to consume more then say 4 units of alcohol inside or outside the home?

And using hatricks logic, there would be no reason not to do the exact same thing, since it would be up to the people whether or not a certain behavior qualified as a trespass. So, under your logic, what is the basis for making heroin illegal?

silverharp wrote: »

Also if one was to take a utilitarian approach, the war on drugs has been a disaster in terms of the growth in organized crime which I think would swamp any potential additional crime you've mentioned

And what of the cost to the taxpayer in the event that we allowed people to freely take substances which have a propensity to cause public order offences, vandalism, and violent crime? Anyways, how is this relevant to the method of determining the nature of a trespass using hatricks model? This is not a discussion on the war on drugs, this is a discussion on how such a model of "freedoms come first" can be justified.

silverharp

you lost me I'm afraid. There are crimes against the person and property. However you have not indicated why recreational drug A should be legal say alcohol and recreational drugs B,C..... are illegal.
People have / should have the right to self ownership with all the inherent risks and benefits that come from this. This implies the right to ingest whatever subsistance the person wishes.
One would think it insane to have "angry" laws where people could be jailed for having mild personality disorders because they might have a propensity to commit minor crime. Yet you are suggesting that the basis of law should be an exercise in probabilities.

Gary L

silverharp wrote: »

you lost me I'm afraid. There are crimes against the person and property. However you have not indicated why recreational drug A should be legal say alcohol and recreational drugs B,C..... are illegal.
People have / should have the right to self ownership with all the inherent risks and benefits that come from this. This implies the right to ingest whatever substance the person wishes.
One would think it insane to have "angry" laws where people could be jailed for having mild personality disorders because they might have a propensity to commit minor crime. Yet you are suggesting that the basis of law should be an exercise in probabilities.

I've been arguing this case for years I've never heard it put that well. bravo

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

you lost me I'm afraid. There are crimes against the person and property.

What is the basis for determining what the rights of the person are? This is a question which must be answered before you can determine what constitutes a crime

silverharp wrote: »

However you have not indicated why recreational drug A should be legal say alcohol and recreational drugs B,C..... are illegal.

I have no duty to say anything of the sort about drugs since I am not advocating a framework for law surrounding them, nor am I advocating any alternative; I am attacking the idea that "whatever a person does that does not effect another should be legal" on the grounds that it is an inadequate framework for basing law itself since it cannot define a scope for categorizing what effects others as expressed in the stated premise. Do you not realize how subjective these distinctions are?

silverharp wrote: »

People have / should have the right to self ownership with all the inherent risks and benefits that come from this. This implies the right to ingest whatever subsistance the person wishes.

And if the inherent risks of ingesting the substance have a propensity to effect others, as they do in the case of many drugs through the manifestation of violent behavior, why should they have the right to take these risks? Should others not have a say if they are effected?

Ownership is quite a vague notion imo. For example, at this time, people have a right to the fruits of their labour, and to self ownership (thankfully) but what is the point in these "rights" if they are not afforded protection? You can come up with as many rights for yourself as you like, but they are useless unless protected, and the protection of these rights is contingent on the communal adjudicative and executive bodies, which in turn are defined in scope and constitution by those around you who also agree on what rights are to be afforded (in a democracy anyways, which is what we are talking about).
Ownership is of course a right in contemporary society, but you seem to neglect the fact that it is a terribly ambiguous term. The scope of ownership is not defined prima facie; it is contingent on communal agreement. This communal mandate, given the axiom provided in hatricks statement, does not violate the right to self ownership, since the tenets behind what constitutes a trespass, and the tenets which define the scope of ownership are contingent on the peoples agreement.

I am arguing that given the maxim stated by hatrick, the advancement of liberty in some cases could potentially result in the restriction of liberty in certain areas due to the fickle nature of what constitutes a trespass.

silverharp wrote: »

One would think it insane to have "angry" laws where people could be jailed for having mild personality disorders because they might have a propensity to commit minor crime. Yet you are suggesting that the basis of law should be an exercise in probabilities.

Indeed, it would be insane since having a genetic or otherwise uncontrollable development of behavioral disorders is not a choice; the person with the disorder did not choose to develop the pattern of behavior whereas the person taking the drug has chosen to temporarily develop a set of behaviors which will likely lead to a trespass against another. That example is quite silly really.

There is no unfair exercise in probability here. Ingesting a substance which leads to violent behavior, has been proven empirically to do so, and is under scrutiny in a democratic context as to whether or not it should be legal given its concomitant effects is likely to be rejected by the public mandate I should think.

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

What is the basis for determining what the rights of the person are? This is a question which must be answered before you can determine what constitutes a crime

As flow from voluntary cooperation otherwise the only basis for rights are the whim of a committee

pagancornflake wrote: »

....I am attacking the idea that "whatever a person does that does not effect another should be legal" on the grounds that it is an inadequate framework for basing law itself since it cannot define a scope for categorizing what effects others as expressed in the stated premise. Do you not realize how subjective these distinctions are?

I dont agree that it is subjective, to be clear where is the grey line in trespass/aggress against a person or their property?

pagancornflake wrote: »

And if the inherent risks of ingesting the substance have a propensity to effect others, as they do in the case of many drugs through the manifestation of violent behavior, why should they have the right to take these risks? Should others not have a say if they are effected?

There are many risks in life and flawed individuals, it would be up to invividuals to agree to restrictions if so required based on their property rights and market choices. As an example a cinema owner could ban coke heads or drunks from his cinema but the state of being drunk or high should not be deemed to be a crime in and of itsself

pagancornflake wrote: »

I am arguing that given the maxim stated by hatrick, the advancement of liberty in some cases could potentially result in the restriction of liberty in certain areas due to the fickle nature of what constitutes a trespass.

If property rights and voluntary exchange are the basis for society then trespass is not fickle. Of course tyranny by the majortiy is accepted as normal so liberty is a tradable commodity. Currently my right to consume Brazilian beef or even a Pharmaceutical drug is at the whim of the collective.

pagancornflake wrote: »

Indeed, it would be insane since having a genetic or otherwise uncontrollable development of behavioral disorders is not a choice; the person with the disorder did not choose to develop the pattern of behavior whereas the person taking the drug has chosen to temporarily develop a set of behaviors which will likely lead to a trespass against another. That example is quite silly really.

There is no unfair exercise in probability here. Ingesting a substance which leads to violent behavior, has been proven empirically to do so, and is under scrutiny in a democratic context as to whether or not it should be legal given its concomitant effects is likely to be rejected by the public mandate I should think.

You might not like the example but it highlights in other areas of life the crime is seperate from the state of mind of the individual at the time. People have free will so could one deem it criminal to not seek help knowing that they are a risk to people around them? It really doesnt matter to me if I get beaten up by someone who is drunk, high, has anger management issues or because of mob violence at a football match.

I've no idea how the public might vote , I cant actually think of an example where it has been put to a direct vote. However it wouldnt be an exercise in determining right or wrong behaviour. A utilitarian I guess could put a good case together but again its not my preferred method of arguing the case.

pagancornflake

pagancornflake wrote: »

What is the basis for determining what the rights of the person are? This is a question which must be answered before you can determine what constitutes a crime

If you admit that the rights of the individual and the scope of their protection (the latter not opposed by you) are contingent on the communal mandate...

silverharp wrote: »

As flow from voluntary cooperation otherwise the only basis for rights are the whim of a committee.

Then I reply:

pagancornflake wrote: »

The scope of ownership is not defined prima facie; it is contingent on communal agreement. This communal mandate, given the axiom provided in hatricks statement, does not violate the right to self ownership, since the tenets behind what constitutes a trespass, and the tenets which define the scope of ownership are contingent on the peoples agreement.

Hence...

pagancornflake wrote: »

Ingesting a substance which leads to violent behavior, has been proven empirically to do so, and is under scrutiny in a democratic context as to whether or not it should be legal (since the right to ingest it does not exist unless agreed to) given its concomitant effects is likely to be rejected by the public mandate I should think.

I dont agree that it is subjective, to be clear where is the grey line in trespass/aggress against a person or their property?

I have already clarified this above:

pagancornflake wrote: »

The scope of ownership is not defined prima facie; it is contingent on communal agreement. This communal mandate, given the axiom provided in hatricks statement, does not violate the right to self ownership, since the tenets behind what constitutes a trespass, and the tenets which define the scope of ownership are contingent on the peoples agreement.

What constitutes a trespass is not conceptually defined without the mandate of subjective, reciprocal deterministic beings. Hence, the products of their mandate are themselves subjective. Therefore, what constitutes a trespass is subjective, since it is subject to the mandate of the people. No Grey line exists because there is no line. Hatricks axiom is too ambiguous since it does not set out what constitutes a "right" or a "trespass", and neither have you (since you do not have the authority to do so). Hence, if we accept that the "tyranny" of the majority determines what rights and trespasses are, then their executive body (the government) will then encroach on the individuals conduct. However, according to hatrick, the government has no right to do so. Hence, I dont see how his statement is anything other than platitudinous and trite.

There are many risks in life and flawed individuals, it would be up to invividuals to agree to restrictions (as I said) if so required (what determines when it is required?) based on their property rights and market choices

As an example a cinema owner could ban coke heads or drunks from his cinema but the state of being drunk or high should not be deemed to be a crime in and of itsself

Why not? People determine the "rights", so why would they not make something illegal if it had no discernible benefit and a large risk of detriment to themselves and the community around them?

If property rights and voluntary exchange are the basis for society then trespass is not fickle.

Since property rights and voluntary exchange do not carry with them ubiquitously assented to terms, then the notion of trespass is indeed fickle.

Of course tyranny by the majortiy is accepted as normal so liberty is a tradable commodity.

Elaborate on this platitude please.

Currently my right to consume Brazilian beef or even a Pharmaceutical drug is at the whim of the collective.

What does this have to do with anything at all?

You might not like the example but it highlights in other areas of life the crime is seperate from the state of mind of the individual at the time.

One would think it insane to have "angry" laws where people could be jailed for having mild personality disorders because they might have a propensity to commit minor crime. Yet you are suggesting that the basis of law should be an exercise in probabilities.

I love that example because it was easy to destroy and it demonstrates the absurd nature of your position:

pagancornflake wrote:

Indeed, it would be insane since having a genetic or otherwise uncontrollable development of behavioral disorders is not a choice; the person with the disorder did not choose to develop the pattern of behavior whereas the person taking the drug has chosen to temporarily develop a set of behaviors which will likely lead to a trespass against another. That example is quite silly really.
There is no unfair exercise in probability here. Ingesting a substance which leads to violent behavior, has been proven empirically to do so, and is under scrutiny in a democratic context as to whether or not it should be legal given its concomitant effects is likely to be rejected by the public mandate I should think.

You failed to justify how there was "probability' involved. You failed to justify why people should ".. have / should have the right to self ownership (in this case, the right to use drugs which cause violent behavior) with all the inherent risks and benefits that come from this" when the rights involved will inevitably detrimentally affect the person who contributes in creating the rights.

People have free will so could one deem it criminal to not seek help knowing that they are a risk to people around them?

No.

It really doesnt matter to me if I get beaten up by someone who is drunk, high, has anger management issues or because of mob violence at a football match.

Thanks for that piece of irrelevant information. It's nice to share.

Denerick

I didn't bother to read any of the other posts, but will insist on giving my two cents regardless.

I've had hundreds of conversations with friends who've experimented with the whole far left craze at university. Often they go through a metamorphis of playing at being an anarchist, with only a rough understanding of the political theory but a hell of a lot of chips on shoulders. Eventually they come out the other side and realise, for the most part, that the theory is completely vacuous and out of kilter with human nature. In my opinion these kids consistently overlook the vital fundamental; mankind is not inherently good, or inherently bad. Its inherently self interested.

In any political system it is vital to control all political power, under the overused yet ever true mantra that power corrupts. Liberty unrestrained is merely a tyranny of the mob. Democracy unrestrained is a tyranny of the majority. It is a sham majoritarianism, not dominated by logic or reason but by demagoguery, often by those who shout the loudest or have the most cash to run a propaganda campaign.

Democratic Republics are flawed, flawed beasts but the alternatives are worse. Without recognising those alternatives it is easy to say the cause of mankind is lost. It is not. We are not so far above the animal kingdom - we are fallible mammals, and capable of self destruction on an epic scale. The Democratic Republic is in my humble opinion the greatest advance of any civilisation in the history of ideas.

It is based almost singularly on principles of moderation: precedent, justice, order, equity, egalatarianism, liberty and security, both in a balanced manner. It prevents and punishes, within the bounds of a liberal constitution, abuses of power, excessive corruption, and a justice system based on fairness. It provides for a judiciary independant of the executive (The History of the U.S. Supreme court is both an inspiring and sobering tale - it has taken on prejudice and government abuse over the years but has also become a haven for political partisanship)

What is liberty without personal security? What is security without liberty? (Don't ply out the overused Franklin quote, people often choose to ignore the word 'essential' in that vignette) The balance between these two vital concepts, which regulate human existence and enable our co-operation in a humane, law abiding and relatively peaceful community, is what makes the modern world possible. Our civic duty is to protect the limitations of power as responsible and educated citizens. Our duty is as a check and balance on the power of the executive. Without the power of the people, the government could with ease resort to tyranny. Without the power of independent legislators, the people would make decisions in the chaotic and haphazard (And most importantly, fickle) manner that only the easily led mob are capable of.

Be thankful for the world we live in. Too many have died trying to create 'a perfect world', and many others fell at hands of ideologically enraged savages, determined to stamp out contradictory beliefs with the full power of the sword. Violence, in my opinion, is the birthchild of any revolution. I'm prepared and happy to live in a system based on compromise, reason, and order; and I defy anyone else to prove some theoretical system could possibly be superior.

Joycey

Denerick wrote: »

I defy anyone else to prove some theoretical system could possibly be superior.

Well unless you believe (a la Hegel) that the society you live in today is the absolute best, most perfect of any possible society, and as a result have no suggestions of how to make it better, then any one of those suggestions will be based (hopefully) on some theoretical system
=> point proven.

Denerick

Joycey wrote: »

Well unless you believe (a la Hegel) that the society you live in today is the absolute best, most perfect of any possible society, and as a result have no suggestions of how to make it better, then any one of those suggestions will be based (hopefully) on some theoretical system
=> point proven.

I could fashion a theoretical system right now that would be perfect in the scenario I create. It wouldn't have the actual longevity and experience by precedent that the Demoratic Republic has. The Republic learns by mistakes, is constantly changing (Though very gradually) and moulds itself to meet the threats of its generation. No other system is so versatile (IE, it can accomodate extreme capitalism and social democracy within the one jurisdiction) or as moderate (The independent judiciary is vital)