Post by fusillialdente on Oct 31, 2018 18:13:23 GMT
For the purpose of this question, I assume that democracy has a spectrum, in which the ideal democratic system is the one in which everyone can (but not necessarily does) take part in the political process and everyone bear the responsibility of their decisions.
I take as a premise that there are no ideal democratic systems currently in place. For me, most are oligarchies with democratic elements. A have a few reasons to believe that. First, the organization of political forces in parties (we all saw what happened to Bernie). Second, because decisions that affect everyone are subject to the rule of the majority. To prevent the tyranny of the majority, most countries adopt a constitution (written or not) that limits and distributes power. By doing so, the constitution impose restrictions on the rule of the majority. Surely, the majority can restrict itself if it wishes, recognizing fundamental rights that can not be subtracted. The problem is, the moment that this rights stop being a guideline (a suggestion/a cultural imposition) and start being an legal imposition on the majority, we stop having a democratic system. That is because we have restrictions made from few (the majority of the past) to the many. That is without saying that most constitutions in place today where enacted by monarchs or full blown oligarchies.
This premise is totally up for debate and I appreciate if you take your time on it.
Free markets, however, work in a very distinct fashion. If you agree with something (I like this product, I like the company that makes it, I like their policy, etc.), you vote for it in the form of consumption (I buy it). You are the only responsible for your decisions and the only one who will suffer its consequences.
Yes, I do bear in mind the environmental problem, and that is why I can not yet commit to the idea of absence of the State. But, overall, it does seem more democratic.
Anarcho-capitalists have long defended that the consumer should make his decision considering even the laws, the controversy solving system (Judiciary or arbitration), the environmental footprint and the work policies of the company. The idea is that, if you do not like the way the company handles its business, you simply stop buying from it. While it certainly would be a challenge in monopoly prone areas (such as energy, long distance transportation, etc), it would probably work well in most.
So, the questions I pose you are:
1) Do you agree with the objections made to current democratic systems? If not, why? Do you have any other?
2) Do you think the free market is democratic? If yes, is it the most democratic system? If not, why? Is it fixable?
I take as a premise that there are no ideal democratic systems currently in place. For me, most are oligarchies with democratic elements. A have a few reasons to believe that. First, the organization of political forces in parties (we all saw what happened to Bernie). Second, because decisions that affect everyone are subject to the rule of the majority. To prevent the tyranny of the majority, most countries adopt a constitution (written or not) that limits and distributes power. By doing so, the constitution impose restrictions on the rule of the majority. Surely, the majority can restrict itself if it wishes, recognizing fundamental rights that can not be subtracted. The problem is, the moment that this rights stop being a guideline (a suggestion/a cultural imposition) and start being an legal imposition on the majority, we stop having a democratic system. That is because we have restrictions made from few (the majority of the past) to the many. That is without saying that most constitutions in place today where enacted by monarchs or full blown oligarchies.
This premise is totally up for debate and I appreciate if you take your time on it.
Free markets, however, work in a very distinct fashion. If you agree with something (I like this product, I like the company that makes it, I like their policy, etc.), you vote for it in the form of consumption (I buy it). You are the only responsible for your decisions and the only one who will suffer its consequences.
Yes, I do bear in mind the environmental problem, and that is why I can not yet commit to the idea of absence of the State. But, overall, it does seem more democratic.
Anarcho-capitalists have long defended that the consumer should make his decision considering even the laws, the controversy solving system (Judiciary or arbitration), the environmental footprint and the work policies of the company. The idea is that, if you do not like the way the company handles its business, you simply stop buying from it. While it certainly would be a challenge in monopoly prone areas (such as energy, long distance transportation, etc), it would probably work well in most.
So, the questions I pose you are:
1) Do you agree with the objections made to current democratic systems? If not, why? Do you have any other?
2) Do you think the free market is democratic? If yes, is it the most democratic system? If not, why? Is it fixable?
