|
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?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Oct 31, 2018 19:05:48 GMT
I absolutely agree with the bolded part.
1. There is always room for improvement to the systems in my opinion. However, I am not yet sure which step should be taken next.
2. I'll have to come back to this question after some more thought.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Oct 31, 2018 22:39:12 GMT
1) Do you agree with the objections made to current democratic systems? If not, why? Do you have any other? Yes, democracy is a horrible system as America's founders understood. The ideal was the system implemented by most states in early America. Restrict voting to men with property and without debt. This is a minority electorate that is responsible enough to vote. Free markets are not democratic (thank God) because power is proportional to capital, not equally distributed. An ideal free market would eliminate limited liability so that business owners would be fully responsible for their actions. To avoid monopolies, monopolistic contracts should not be enforced by the government. Note that the ideal political and economic system applied to chimpanzees or modern Americans would not produce a good society. A good society requires civilized people, and this requires a sound religion. So religion comes before politics and economics.
|
|
PISTON1246
Full Member
Posts: 361
Likes: 90
Ethnicity: I HAVE ANCESTORS OF DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR AND EYE COLOR AND I MET SOME OF THEM WHILE THEY WERE STILL LIVING
Politics: REGISTERED VOTER
Religion: ISLAM
|
Post by PISTON1246 on Oct 31, 2018 22:53:39 GMT
I wouldn't compare a free market to a democracy, because in a free market you get to purchase and get what you want regardless of how many other people voted for the same option.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Nov 11, 2018 0:42:00 GMT
Free market is a political term which means no government intervention. We don't have a "free-market", the government plays a huge role in supporting businesses. We have a competitive market. The benefits of a competitive market are efficiency, innovation, opportunity. Competitive markets can be unstable if they are not regulated.
Competitive markets are subject to boom and bust cycles. The Great Depression is a good example. Much of the history of the U.S. until the 1930s is actually full of boom and bust depressions of varying levels.
In the 1930s people began to regulate the economy to reduce the amplitude of the cycle. Which worked until the political de-regulators such as Phil Gramm junked that system beginning in the 1980s, and then we had the banking collapse of the early 1990s followed by the near-depression of 2008.
|
|