Starchild,
A universal free society is not in the best interests of the majority so democracy will always concentrate power unfavorably to a minority.
John,
I think a universal free society *is* in the best interests of the majority. Of course there's no guarantee that the majority will always recognize this, but I'm not cynical enough about humanity to presume the majority will always choose wrongly against its own best interests. I think history is slowly, in fits and starts, moving in the right direction, and people are becoming more appreciative of liberty and individual rights. I think that democracy has in most cases meant less concentration of power with a minority than the systems it has replaced.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Be that as it may, the majority will still concentrate power in a manner unfavorable to the minority. These are the conditions we face today.
Certainly. But let's not just speak against democracy without making it clear that the alternative we favor is something more like republicanism, lest we aid and abet the forces of tyranny that are already subverting democratic practices in the U.S.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
We are in the process of testing this theory now.
How do you think this gun "debate" will work out? More freedom?
John
Starchild,
It seems to me a republic consists of tyranny in sheep's clothing.
Warm regards, Michael
Certainly. But let's not just speak against democracy without making it clear that the alternative we favor is something more like republicanism, lest we aid and abet the forces of tyranny that are already subverting democratic practices in the U.S.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I didn't figure that would be necessary on this list.
I'm not speaking against democracy any more than I speak against fire.
And democracy/republic IS the force of tyranny most dangerous to us since it has the force of arms and it has a monopoly of power over us and our property..
We can do democracy at the yacht club, until the cows come home, with nothing worse than the usual aggravation. And when it goes to hell as they always do, a few people get together and straighten it out.
This is the most important distinction we must make if we expect to have liberty.
Perhaps. Maybe a republic is a very heavy, cumbersome sheep's suit that makes it difficult for the wolf underneath to move around and attack fast enough to cause trouble. 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
John,
My thought is that if people get used to hearing "democracy is bad" in forums like this and start to internalize the meme and spread it elsewhere, it can be harmful taken out of the context in which we are discussing it here. As bad as tyranny can be *with* democracy, it tends to be worse *without* democracy. If we support individual rights, this means we seek a fully bottom-up society (one in which all power stems from individuals, and is only concentrated when they choose to voluntarily cooperate with each other). By favoring systems which are more bottom-up over those which are more top-down (e.g. democracy vis-a-vis dictatorship, individual rights vis-a-vis democracy), we help move society in the direction of this vision. So I'm certainly not suggesting unqualified support for democracy, but I think supporting it has its place in the present circumstances.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
We cannot loose track of the point that the formation of liberty is not a democratic process.
I have never said that democracy is bad. I strong disagree with your assertion that is what is being said.
Democracy is government. You can't get less government doing more democracy.
It may sound like Yogi Berra, but it is true for any form of government. Liberty is not a governmental process.
If we lived in an otherwise favorable governmental system that had gotten out of hand, I would be saying the same thing about it.
In order to see the landscape we are really dealing with, we must stop doing what doesn't work.
John,
Hmm. When you say "Democracy is government", and "you can't get less government doing more democracy," I'm afraid it still sounds to me like you are saying democracy is bad. If that's not what you're saying, perhaps you can explain why you don't think it's bad, or when you think it is good?
My contention is that you often can get less government by doing more democracy. Whether that is true in a given situation or not depends where a society is on the continuum that has maximum freedom at one end and maximum government control at the other. If a society is free enough, then supporting democracy becomes counter-productive.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
I think rather you should explain why is sounds bad.
It is what it is. If I said you can't stop flooding with more rain would you say it sounds like rain is bad?
Meanwhile, here, the principle agent of tyranny is democracy. I have been in the liberty game for fifty years, on the heels of two generation before me.
Iv'e seen this country descend into a police-state by the democratic process of the people who wanted just the opposite of what they got. Meanwhile the enemies of liberty did something else. They used the consultation hierarchy to get what they wanted.
Unless the the proponents of liberty change tactics, there will be less liberty tomorrow than yesterday.
The language I am using is a necessary element of new tactics.
John
Amen, Starchild!
Marcy
Anybody checked the trajectory of liberty lately?
Yup, downward, and like to stay that way, since most folks have no clue what "liberty" is, and we are doing a lousy job explaining.
Marcy
You totally make my point!
Are you trying to convince me to sail out the Golden Gate? It's an option.
I have no interest in dealing with people for whom less-liberty is an acceptable result of our efforts. Why waste my time? What's the difference between them and people who are working for less-liberty? The results are identical.
If "explaining what liberty is" isn't happening, DO SOMETHING ELSE!!
We can't? THE HELL IF WE CAN'T!!
The fact is we won't.
And we make excuses for it, by doing things that aren't working and have never worked.
The first step is STOP DOING WHAT DOESN'T WORK!!
Stop being the trained animals in the circus.
Get out of the hamster-wheel and start looking around. I don't even live in SF and yet I have begun a working relationship with real people in the SF Board of Supervisors. Anybody else? Let's talk about it.
Sorry, John, your post is over my head. But I do applaud you for your working relationship with the SF Board of Supervisors.
Marcy
Marcy,
That's cuz it's Yogi Berra simple:
We know the "car is going off the cliff but we keep driving it" cuz that's all we know how to do.
As you said yourself, "Yup, downward, and like to stay that way"
It's so simple it is confounded by the least amount of thinking.
John,
Your analogy with democracy and fire raises questions.
I can think of good fire does. Can you think of good democracy does?
Warm regards, Michael
Amen, Starchild!
Marcy
Michael,
Absolutely. Democracy pacifies diverse interests. It's a fairly easy sell to gain enthusiastic. cooperation from large numbers.
However, there is no absolute reason why a minority would submit to a majority. In fact, it is not in its best interest, if it has the power to do something else.
This is the condition we face now. But even as a minority, our voluntary association would tend to proceed along democratic lines, where individuals are making advised concessions.
But without a concurrent consultation hierarchy, it will go to hell like any other. And even at that, the consultation hierarchy is a democracy of sorts, guided by a high degrees of confirmation. instead of a majority.
John