Quote:
|
Quote by: Athena People in places like Iraq and Aghanistan endure hardship, such as walking long distances through mountains, and the risk of being killed, to vote. Perhaps your dissatisfaction with democracy, is not knowing anything different?
...
We are having a problem in the US, but that is because we do not understand democracy. |
I'm certain we'd all agree that walking long distances to vote, in itself, isn't a good thing.
What's are the good ideas typically associated with democracy? - The ability for "people" to self-govern, typically associated with freedom and liberty because it's hard to imagine someone wanting to enslave themself.
So the real value of democracy is only in the envisioned ideal of someone being able to self-govern themself and avoid outside oppression.
Why not skip the long walks and just go straight for the self-governing?
I know disputes will result and people will need to "deal" with these by some form of conflict resolution like voting, but notice that the ideal isn't to vote. The ideal is to avoid needing to vote or fight or otherwise result on force and oppression to rule over people.
I'd agree voting isn't too bad an idea to resolve conflicts, though the typical 50% +1 view doesn't consider a lot. We use juries to resolve things in the U.S. and I think that's not a bad system as outside views in the conflict tend to be more impartial and fair.
But whether it's courts or democracy that's used to resolve disputes, the ideal is to have a system/culture/government etc. that doesn't create additional conflicts than are necessary in the first place. That's why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been so valuable in creating a peaceful and prosperous country - because they reject and limit largescale democracy in favor of simple rules that limit conflict in the first place.
It's the needless application of democratic ideas that causes problems. Voting isn't much different than wars - the winning side even uses guns to rule. We just skip slaughtering the minority under democracy but it's in no way a system that promotes a culture of peace or prosperity.
So yes, wars happen on occasion but we shouldn't rely on virtual ones to create a peaceful nation.
From my view, I see libertarians in this virtual war as people who don't want to rule over other people or have people rule over them. They just want a place to have their homes and live peacefully. I don't believe such views are utopian. Some conflicts are unavoidable but assuming every aspect of our lives is free game for everyone to vote on, including our lives to wars and property to government etc. is a diseased view that will eat itself away from the inside out. We've voted ourself an intrusive, powerful and destructive tyrannt not much different than the others and he's "the People". I voted for something different ... does that mean I'm still part of "the People"?