Democracy is mob rule to dictate who will define and interpret the conditions of your slavery.
It is no less contemptible than any other form of Statism.
Ah but if the boot on your throat won a popularity contest that should make all the difference in the world!
Absolutely, even in Switzerland with „direct“ democracy it doesn’t work. If they don’t like for what we voted for they just do it over and over again till it pleases the rulers.
Democracy is not as good as everyone thinks.
If 50.5% like something means 49.5% don’t like it and have a collective temper tantrum.
The system is bullshit.
Again, with all its evil, statism is the alternative to globalism. Those are your realistic choices. Anarchy is not an option. Groups will always form, leaders will always emerge, and there will inevitably be conflict. That combo naturally evolves into a form of statism. Ideally, states would be small and not too powerful. I think centralization is more the problem than statism.
@Vox it's about consent. Anarchy doesn't mean "no leaders, no groups".
@Vox You're asking me to define what a consensual organization of people looks like?
Which kind?
What do book clubs look like? What do sports leagues look like? What do unions look like? What do businesses look like? What this server looks like?
That's a mighty lotta faith in human nature to think you could have book club or sports league level cooperation in a group large enough to provide for things like public works and transportation. And unions aren't always voluntary, unless you're willing to say workers are free to not get a union job. Businesses might be an okay model to start from, but that looks kinda statist with radical capitalism. This server LOL!
> That's a mighty lotta faith in human nature
I'm not under a delusion of faith: https://noauthority.social/@eriner/112470792410078766
> cooperation in a group large enough
I never made any claims about size or expansiveness. I simply gave examples of what consensual organization looks like.
> workers are free to not get a union job
duh
> Businesses might be an okay model to start from, but that looks kinda statist with radical capitalism
Whatever you think "statism" means, that's not what it means.
@eriner I meant "faith" as a synonym of "trust", not as a measure of belief in any particular metaphysics.
You didn't make claims about size or expansiveness. I did. Those examples don't scale, because in groups over the size of the ones you mentioned don't feature personal relationships and the shared goal requires a great deal more sacrifice than the pursuit of a leisure activity.
Fair enough, although that's a rough choice. What about when a company you already work for goes union? Your
@eriner ...choice to quit? I mean, I guess that's freedom, but it feels like a boot in the face.
I think I have a pretty good grasp on the definition of statism, and a business institution, with CEOs, chairmen, presidents, board members, security, an employee pool, HR to handle internal affairs, charter and mission statements, etc... could be said to resemble the institution of state in its organization, if not its purpose.
If you ever get tired of railing against fake ideas in fake dialectics, read the old right.
James Burnham, The Machiavellians
@jazzilla I don't know what that means, but I'll add the book to my list.
Here's a critique that contains a pretty good summary.
His ideas spawned Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan, paleoconservatives. The CIA dispatched agents like William f Buckley to eradicate this from the right in America, a project that took 50 years.