democracy philosophy, not religion

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner OK, but just understand that when *I* use the term "capitalism," I am talking about laissez-faire capitalism. Today's US economy is not that particular kind of economy. It's a mix of capitalism/socialism/fascism/mercantilism. In laissez-faire capitalism, there are no handouts or favors from the government at all, so you would not see the corporate welfare problems we see today. ~ zynner

Let's see if it is possible to get this thread back on track. What you all are talking about belongs in politics. This is the philosophy and religion forum.
Christianity is not about democracy. Christianity is about a God and pleasing the God. This leads to decisions based on faith and ideas about what God wants. Personally, I do not believe this is good for humanity.

Democracy is not about religious beliefs, but the belief that human beings can learn and they can reason. This means wanting information such as the national debt and considering the ways it can be reduced. It means knowing someone's sex life is that person private business, and paying more attention to who voted for the privacy act that took away the family's ability to care for each other, and lead to all medical people varifying our addresses every time we contact a medical service.

Democracy would be paying attention to our oil supply and rate of consumption. When Reagan said we do not have to conserve, he also slashed domestic budgets, and poured money into military spending, including granting arms to the mid east, bringing us to the mess we are in now.

The democratic model for industry means, every employee has a say in the business, instead of the autocratic model which is a hierarchy of authority, and can leave a town without the industry that keeps the town alive. The democratic model makes everyone responsible for industry and enables everyone to make decisions that will benefit not only themselves, but the community in which they live.

Democracy is about sharing the power and responsibility of decision making. This is a completely different ball game from religion and being the children of God, and obedient to a king, or any other autocratic ruler.

[zynner]

Athena --

(1) I would not be surprised if the economy does collapse. If it does, it will be because of the government, not the free market.

(2) Politics is a branch of philosophy and YOU are the one bringing up the concept of "democracy," which MOST people view as a form of voting, which is a topic of politics. So, if you think we are not "getting it," then it is because you have not communicated your concept of "democracy" very well.

(3) You talk about several issues: national debt, sex life being nobody else's business, who voted for the privacy act, medical info snoops, domestic spending, military budgets, employees have a "say" in business, not to mention economic collapse. What do all of these things have in common? They are all questions of laws, which are issues of POLITICS.

Democracy is not about "sharing power and responsibility of decision making." It is about "majority rules and decides," as in 50% plus 1 of the vote make all the decisions for the other 49.99%.

You are talking about POLITICS and you continue to mix terms and take the word "democracy" out of context.

Athena, you often complain that NOBODY on these message boards understands or really discusses the issues you raise.

Wanna know why? Because you do not define your terms well so that people can understand what you are talking about.

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner OK, but just understand that when *I* use the term "capitalism," I am talking about laissez-faire capitalism. Today's US economy is not that particular kind of economy.

The term "laissez-faire capitalism" seems bankrupt and of little use.
I'm not aware of any such thing truly existing. Who would, for example, pay rent without government protection of property?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner I would not be surprised if the economy does collapse. If it does, it will be because of the government, not the free market.

Capitalism has people fighting a war that they can't possible win--the war of each against all. The sad fact is this: The only reason capitalism is able to function at all is rules that protect labor or provide for the protection of the commons and the public good. Not all of these rules are formal law, but just general principles, including the principle that needs and wants of human beings should prevail over the interests of institutions and the minority of wealthy people they serve.

Still, the overall framework must be challenged, for the same state that creates class dictinctions cannot be relied on to get rid of them.

Grandpa h.

[zynner]

Grandpa --

(1) It makes no difference what term you use ("capitalism" or something else). You do understand the concept of a free market WITHOUT government favoritism, right?

(2) You ask, "Who would pay rent without government protection of property?" Good question. Do YOU want a place to live (either rental or ownership)? You want a roof over your head, right? Do YOU also want protection of your property (fire, police, courts, insurance, burglar alarm, etc.)? If YOU want those things then you can probably imagine that MOST everybody wants those things, right? What about food? You want that, too? So does everybody else. The free market supplies food very efficiently -- certainly better than the Soviet bread lines we all heard about. The same is true of property rights -- IF the free market is ALLOWED to function without government politicians' bribes.

Furthermore, let's keep in mind that the free market does not force you to do anything. But ALL other systems point a gun at someone to FORCE them to do X, Y, or Z.

(2) The "war of each against all" is a myth. It is not a war. Are YOU in a war when you go to the grocery store? No, you do it voluntarily and you buy groceries. Where is the "war?"

(3) Capitalism (remember, *I* am talking about the free market -- laissez-faire capitalism) is not allowed to function today in most arenas. However, it is pretty close to a free market in food distribution in the USA and especially the INTERNET. The Internet is a free market. You got a problem with the Internet?

(4) I've got a question for you. Did you know that Karl Marx was a mooch? Did you know that in his later years he was financially supported by Frederick Engels? Did you know that Frederick Engels made his money because he INHERITED his father's factory? Did you know that the factory made PROFITS, some of which Engels gave to Marx, and that is how Marx lived a life of relative luxury? How do you feel about the fact that Marx lived off the profits of the factory that could have been paid to the factory workers?

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner (1) It makes no difference what term you use ("capitalism" or something else). You do understand the concept of a free market WITHOUT government favoritism, right?

I highly doubt the success of such a venture because, in addition to it simply not happening, most people would outright reject being subordinate to a landlord or a boss were it not for the system protecting the owners. The rise of the state has been synonymous with the rise of capitalism. Government support for capitalist organizations is by no means a coincidence.

Quote by: zynner (2) You ask, "Who would pay rent without government protection of property?" Good question.

It is a good question, and one you did not adequately answer. No one absolutely needs to pay rent or property taxes to live anywhere...that is an imposed condition by the state and landlords.

Quote by: zynner (2) The "war of each against all" is a myth. It is not a war.

Well, in the first place, it is all a system of approximating constant, imposed conflict.
It is no myth. Many systems exist to create and exaggerate class distinctions. Labor history itself is can be summed up quite accurately as labor versus employer. Again, it's not a theory, but a fact. It's also a perfectly observable fact that the system is designed to convert people into landlords, tenants, debtors, credit histories, sets of functions and anonymous statistics. This happens EVERY DAY at practically every moment and is the enemy of basic, social rationality.

Quote by: zynner (3) Capitalism (remember, *I* am talking about the free market -- laissez-faire capitalism) is not allowed to function today in most arenas. However, it is pretty close to a free market in food distribution in the USA and especially the INTERNET.

Well, I am discussing a reality in which capitalism does immense damage to
ordinary people who face immense obstacles to collaborating with each
other to fashion a better, more democratic and more human social
order. The major thing preventing that now is the state and capitalism, or state capitalism. Free Trade is something anarchists in fact do believe in--the freest trade of all, which entails non-hierarchical approaches to work and exchange of ideas in cultural life.
In contrast to that vision, we have a system that, for example, exports food from starving countries and systematically deprives people of food and other resources merely over dollar bills and credit. Lack of compassion and generosity is imposed on the population and the creative spirit and human potential in general is significantly muzzled as resources are dominated by small groups of people. Again, this is not a theory, but perfectly observable fact.

Quote by: zynner (4) I've got a question for you. Did you know that Karl Marx was a mooch?

You are escaping from my points. Nowhere here, or anywhere else in Volconvo, have I defended Karl Marx's vision of "Proletariat Dictatorship."
If anything, Anarchists and State Communists have historically been bitter enemies.

Grandpa h.

[zynner]

OK, grandpa, I get you a little better now.

We are both opposed to the state/government using its force (guns) to protect big business in its quest at monopoly. Right?

I say that "capitalism" is an economic condition in which the state/government is left OUT of the equation.

You say "capitalism" is an economic condition in which the state MUST BE INVOLVED in protecting big business (a business/state partnership).

So, we have different terms for "capitalism," which is what I've tried to get across to you.

I am in favor of a free market, which means no state intervention.

It seems to me like you are more into left anarchism, which is the "pure" form of communism in which everybody pitches in and everybody owns everything together. Is that your vision of the ideal?

If so, I disagree because I support property rights as the primary building block for society.

Let's say you and I both want to live on the exact same plot of land (maybe we like the view). But we each want our families to live on that particular place and there is no room for anybody else

What would be your solution to this?

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner OK, grandpa, I get you a little better now. We are both opposed to the state/government using its force (guns) to protect big business in its quest at monopoly. Right?

I am opposed to that, yes.

As for my position on group ownership, that is in regards to the means of production, in which everyone needs to have a clear voice in decisionmaking.
It does not mean everyone needs to share the same toothbrush.

As for the "wanting to live on the exact same plot of land" scenario, that would be highly unlikely in a truly anarchic society, as plenty of land would be accessible to everyone. In fact, that is largely the case now where there is still plenty of living space even with the overpopulation problem in the world. The big difference is that certain people want to dominate the land and resources and call it "private property."

Rent and property taxes do not solve any land or living problems. They create and exaggerate them. They are an imposed obstacle to situations people could otherwise sort out quite naturally, more than likely without violence for reasons I've already presented.

Grandpa h.

[zynner]

Quote by: grandpa As for the "wanting to live on the exact same plot of land" scenario, that would be highly unlikely in a truly anarchic society, as plenty of land would be accessible to everyone.

I think that avoids the issue.

Let's say we snap our fingers and wake up tomorrow in this ideal you envision.

I might head straight for Beverly Hills to live. I wouldn't be the only one, and there would be people already there.

How would we decide who gets to live near Rodeo Drive? How do we decide who gets to own, or even work at, the Gucci store?

We DO have to live, work and play within some geographic area (land). How do we decide who gets to be where?

~ zynner

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner Athena -- I have no clue what you mean by the word "democracy." It usually is defined as majority rule, or rule by the people. What is your definition of the word (just a definition, without any historical references)? ~ zynner

Rather than address each of you individually, I will start back at the beginning.

Democracy comes from philosophy, not religion. That philosophy began in Athens. What separates this philosophy from religion is critical thinking.

Democracy is an ideology of relationships. It means we can be highly moral without religion.

[zynner]

Athena, I agree with you that we can be moral without religion.

In fact, I generally agree with what you're saying.

The only real disagreement is that you never seem to accept the concept that democracy means a majority rule. Majority rule is not moral.

Also, this idea of "critical thinking" is a good road to pursue. I think that all of Western history, since ancient Greece, comes down to a battle between Plato and Aristotle.

Plato was a mystic. He was extremely irrational. Christianity arose from his ideas, along with borrowed Pagan ideas, etc.

It was Aristotle, the Father of Logic, who paved the way to think critically -- to use the human ability to reason.

In the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, Aristotle's ideas were suppressed and that is why the Plato's ideas were dominant, manifesting mostly in religion.

It was the Renaissance that allowed man to break out of this irrationality. It was a re-birth of reason (or, maybe, what you are calling critical thinking). They had re-discovered Aristotle.

The Middle East today is still stuck in the darkness of Platonic thought. Most in the West are, too, but to the extent that Aristotelian thought is embraced, humans have advanced by leaps and bounds in all areas of life, both in the physical sciences and the social sciences (philosophy, politics, etc.). The only reason we have not advanced even more is that Marx came along, another irrational Platonic disciple, and scrambled people's brains with his social order ideas, while the Aristotelian American experiment was just trying to get established.

The reason we see so much crap going on today in the world is that Plato still has a stronghold, both in the realm of religion and politics. We need to embrace Aristotle again.

So, "democracy," per se, is part of the equation. But it is this battle between Plato and Aristotle being played out through the centuries that is the real story.

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner We DO have to live, work and play within some geographic area (land). How do we decide who gets to be where?

That depends on the objective of the individuals involved, not me--
just like it's not up to me to decide who can enter your home and who
cannot.

Grandpa h.

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner Athena, I agree with you that we can be moral without religion. In fact, I generally agree with what you're saying. The only real disagreement is that you never seem to accept the concept that democracy means a majority rule. Majority rule is not moral. Also, this idea of "critical thinking" is a good road to pursue. I think that all of Western history, since ancient Greece, comes down to a battle between Plato and Aristotle. Plato was a mystic. He was extremely irrational. Christianity arose from his ideas, along with borrowed Pagan ideas, etc. It was Aristotle, the Father of Logic, who paved the way to think critically -- to use the human ability to reason. In the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, Aristotle's ideas were suppressed and that is why the Plato's ideas were dominant, manifesting mostly in religion. It was the Renaissance that allowed man to break out of this irrationality. It was a re-birth of reason (or, maybe, what you are calling critical thinking). They had re-discovered Aristotle. The Middle East today is still stuck in the darkness of Platonic thought. Most in the West are, too, but to the extent that Aristotelian thought is embraced, humans have advanced by leaps and bounds in all areas of life, both in the physical sciences and the social sciences (philosophy, politics, etc.). The only reason we have not advanced even more is that Marx came along, another irrational Platonic disciple, and scrambled people's brains with his social order ideas, while the Aristotelian American experiment was just trying to get established. The reason we see so much crap going on today in the world is that Plato still has a stronghold, both in the realm of religion and politics. We need to embrace Aristotle again. So, "democracy," per se, is part of the equation. But it is this battle between Plato and Aristotle being played out through the centuries that is the real story. ~ zynner

Excuse me, but Plato's republic is not a democracy! I seriously hope all good Christians who insist the US is a republic and not a democracy, get a gripe on the difference. The difference is not majority rule as so many say, but the difference is who we believe are fit to rule. There are only two choices. You can agree with Plato that only a few are fit to rule and have a republic, such as Europe had since Plato influenced Christiantiy spread over Europe, and the USSR adopted, minus the religion.

Or you can believe we are created equal, in that we all have the capcity for understanding the universe and therefore are capable of being self governing. That any differences between us, excluding organic brain disorders, and special talents, are a matter of environmental and educational differences.

What do you believe? That a few are born best fit to rule over others, or that we are born equal, and from there are differences are a matter of environment and education?



Democracy is far more than politics. You are ignoring the most radical change in humanity was in Athens. Yes, Plato was a mystic and Christianity arose from his ideas, and much of Europe was modeled after his republic. Before Athens democracy, the whole world defined reality with religious or superstitious beliefs. Christianity does this and yes they adopted Plato's ideas for this and they promoted autocracy, until the democracy of the US proved successful. Democracy is about understanding the universe through math and science, and the belief everyone has the capacity for learning these things, and therefore, the capacity for self government. Seriously why are you doing this? Democracy is completely different belief system than the one carried by religions.

It was not just Aristotle but also Pythagoras and math revealing an order universe, and Socrates believing we were all capable of understanding of the order of the universe, and demonstrating that. This is what democracy is about. It is about believing the universe is ordered and we can understand that order. How we come to decisions is so minor compared to the belief that we are capable of having the knowledge necessary for self government.

Can you wrap your mind around this. There is autocracy, the rule of a few over the many. Or there is democracy, rule by the people. Which side are you on? Either you believe we can succeed at self government, or you don't. What do you believe?

You are literate, but I think your teachers failed you, and I question why? Sinerely, why did your teachers fail you? What do know of the early and late philosophies that lead to democracy? Because we do not appear knowledgible of the philosophy that brought the west to democracy, I can only hold something vitally important to survival of our democracy was left out of your education, and everyone else's and I want to know why this happened? What aren't educating for democracy? Dang Christianity for claiming everything we value as Christian, when in fact it was the Greek and later philosophers who gave us what we value, not Christianity. We separated from Christian Europe and are now consumed by the same religion that Europe evil.

[zynner]

Quote by: Athena Excuse me, but Plato's republic is not a democracy ... The difference is not majority rule as so many say, but the difference is who we believe are fit to rule.

Democracy must, by definition, be a majority rule situation. The suffix has to do with rule, as in political rule. The prefix has to do with everybody. If everybody rules, in the context of a society, there will have to be some way to sort out the votes. You *could* come up with something other than majority rule, but that is how it is usually set up.

Or you can believe we are created equal, in that we all have the capcity for understanding the universe and therefore are capable of being self governing.

"Created equal," means equality of rights, not that each of us has the same situation in life, the same mental capacities, etc.

Democracy is about understanding the universe through math and science,

That is "reason," or "logic."

This is what democracy is about.

No, it's what reason and logic are about. Democracy is a political system. The underlying philosophy of *why* we should (or shouldn't) have a democracy instead of a monarchy or whatever is arrived at by reason and logic.

There is autocracy, the rule of a few over the many. Or there is democracy, rule by the people.

And HOW is democracy, or rule by the people, ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT ???

There is VOTING. And HOW will that voting be arranged???

It will be by MAJORITY RULE, or something very similar.

Put the concept of "rule by the people" into the real world and HOW WILL THAT RULE MANIFEST????

Right.

Which side are you on? Either you believe we can succeed at self government, or you don't. What do you believe?

Yes, I am a believer in SELF-government, and that is why I question the concept of democracy -- democracy is NOT *SELF*-government (not on an individual basis; it is rule by the majority). That's why the founding fathers of the USA did not like democracy. I think they were right.

You are literate, but I think your teachers failed you, and I question why?

LOL. You are RIGHT. What I know today is NOT what my teachers taught me in the GOVERNMENT schools. I had to UNLEARN the bullshit they taught me. That becomes more and more apparent each day.

Athena, I generally agree with you. HOWEVER, if democracy is rule by the people, which you say (and with which I agree), then it MUST be a majority rule of some sort.

IN ADDITION TO THAT ... logic (reason) is the method of gaining knowledge that was handed down from ancient Greece.

Aristotle was the Father of Logic. WHY is it that the founding fathers of the USA were great followers of Aristotle but NOT democracy?

Please answer that.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: grandpa That depends on the objective of the individuals involved, not me-- just like it's not up to me to decide who can enter your home and who cannot. Grandpa h.

You are evading the question.

Let's say I want to live in YOUR home. What is your solution?

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner You are evading the question. Let's say I want to live in YOUR home. What is your solution?

Again, I was not evading the question for reasons I stated very clearly.

And here we see you're slipping yet again.
Your last sentence simply has no absolute answer and is certainly not a universal question. It's dependent entirely upon innumerable specific circumstances, so I don't know exactly where to look for a solution to such a preposterous problem.

On top of that, this question does NOT justify rent or property taxes, which do NOT solve housing issues as they merely pay the way for Yuppiedom and land speculators to gain ever more sway and political prestigue.

Grandpa h.

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner Democracy must, by definition, be a majority rule situation. The suffix has to do with rule, as in political rule. The prefix has to do with everybody. If everybody rules, in the context of a society, there will have to be some way to sort out the votes. You *could* come up with something other than majority rule, but that is how it is usually set up. "Created equal," means equality of rights, not that each of us has the same situation in life, the same mental capacities, etc. That is "reason," or "logic." No, it's what reason and logic are about. Democracy is a political system. The underlying philosophy of *why* we should (or shouldn't) have a democracy instead of a monarchy or whatever is arrived at by reason and logic. And HOW is democracy, or rule by the people, ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT ??? There is VOTING. And HOW will that voting be arranged??? It will be by MAJORITY RULE, or something very similar. Put the concept of "rule by the people" into the real world and HOW WILL THAT RULE MANIFEST???? Right. Yes, I am a believer in SELF-government, and that is why I question the concept of democracy -- democracy is NOT *SELF*-government (not on an individual basis; it is rule by the majority). That's why the founding fathers of the USA did not like democracy. I think they were right. LOL. You are RIGHT. What I know today is NOT what my teachers taught me in the GOVERNMENT schools. I had to UNLEARN the bullshit they taught me. That becomes more and more apparent each day. Athena, I generally agree with you. HOWEVER, if democracy is rule by the people, which you say (and with which I agree), then it MUST be a majority rule of some sort. IN ADDITION TO THAT ... logic (reason) is the method of gaining knowledge that was handed down from ancient Greece. Aristotle was the Father of Logic. WHY is it that the founding fathers of the USA were great followers of Aristotle but NOT democracy? Please answer that. ~ zynner

Show me a dictionary definition that democracy is rule by majority. What does it mean to do things democratically? Why would anyone choose to do things democratically?

It is obvious there is a problem with grasping that democracy comes from philosophy and perhaps moving to on to Locke will help? Of course if people don't go to the link they will not have the necessary information, and what we are doing here will be completely futile, because everyone will continue arguing from what they don't know, instead of being about to discuss democracy as it come from philosophy.

Locke: Government The Second Treatise on Government develops Locke's own detailed account of the origin, aims, and structure of any civil government. Adopting a general method similar to that of Hobbes, Locke imagined an original state of nature in which individuals rely upon their own strength, then described our escape from this primitive state by entering into a social contract under which the state provides protective services to its citizens. Unlike Hobbes, Locke regarded this contract as revokable. Any civil government depends on the consent of those who are governed, which may be withdrawn at any time.

Democracy has something to do with ideas of human rights, and those ideas of human rights, have something to do with our ability to reason. Democracy has something to do with Natural Law, or what we might also call Universal Laws. This is philosophical in nature, not just ideas of political form. Whatever, if you study the bible and not philosophy, you probably won't get it.

[Athena]

Quote by: grandpa Again, I was not evading the question for reasons I stated very clearly. And here we see you're slipping yet again. Your last sentence simply has no absolute answer and is certainly not a universal question. It's dependent entirely upon innumerable specific circumstances, so I don't know exactly where to look for a solution to such a preposterous problem. On top of that, this question does NOT justify rent or property taxes, which do NOT solve housing issues as they merely pay the way for Yuppiedom and land speculators to gain ever more sway and political prestigue. Grandpa h.

I hate to discourage anyone from participating in what I think is a vitally important discussion, but this thread is about philosophy. If it were about politics, I would have posted in the political forum.

[zynner]

Quote by: grandpa I don't know exactly where to look for a solution to such a preposterous problem.

I am not asking about a specific example, though I use that as a means of getting to the principle. It is the principle I am interested in. What is a method that could be used in the example? What is the principle here?

Let's say that I offer this solution: I like your house, so I decide to kick you out and take over. Would that be okay with you?

On top of that, this question does NOT justify rent...

Are you opposed to ownership of property?

If not, then are you opposed to being compensated for someone else using your property?

...which do NOT solve housing issues...

"Solve?" I thought you just said that there is no way to "solve" housing issues. At least, you offer no means of figuring out a solution.

If one could "solve housing issues," what would that mean to you? What would it be like, to have this "solved?"

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Athena Show me a dictionary definition that democracy is rule by majority.

democracy - Definitions from Dictionary.com

The second set of definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, definition #4: Majority rule.

Furthermore, if you are talking about "rule by the people," then there has to be some sort of method to figure out how. Typically, that results in majority rule.

What means do you suggest for decision-making amongst many people other than majority rule? I am not saying that people can't figure out other ways, but it typically means majority rule. That's how it was done in ancient Greece, with the people voting directly. Why do you think it has nothing to do with voting when we are talking about rule by the people? There must be some way to sort out differences and make decisions, right?

It is obvious there is a problem with grasping that democracy comes from philosophy...

Again, philosophy has several branches, one of which is politics. Democracy is a form of politics.

"Philosophy" is from "philos," meaning love and "sophia," meaning wisdom. It is a love of wisdom, or love of knowledge, or a desire to seek truth. Of course, democracy is a concept that is a part of philosophy, but then so is every human idea.

Whatever, if you study the bible and not philosophy, you probably won't get it.

LOL. If you think I'm a theist, you got the wrong guy.

What is your definition of "philosophy?"

What is your definition of "politics?"

~ zynner