Democracy is Immoral and Illegitimate

illegitimate Part
A democracy does not choose what is right, it chooses what is popularly, and popularity does not equate to correctness. The "will of the people" is nothing more than a trend. No one should have to face the consequences of some else's decision. Just because 51% of a nation wants something doesn't mean the other 49% should suffer.

Immoral Part
Democracy also turns people against one another, as you can see in today society. Under normal circumstances, people trying to tell you what to do, and how to live your life, is seen as authoritarian, immoral, and illegitimate. However, this is exactly what government does, and those who control government control the people. If you allow people the ability to control another individual's property via vote through a democratically elected force. Then everybody in society becomes a threat to you. Creating a "Us vs Them" mentality.

what do you propose we do instead?

us vs them is how capitalism functions, brainlet

Do what you want, I don't care. Just don't hurt people.

lel if you really think this. the masses have little to no input on many issues in "democratic" countries. the ruling elite do what they're going to do and then make up an ideology to market it through the media outlets they own, so that people think they were voting for it all along.

Daily reminder that political scientists have used empirical data to prove the Marx was right about so-called "democracy" under capitalism.

How countries operate is irrelevant to the post, the concept still applies to majority rule, a important criteria of democracy.

nice suggestion faggot

lel. the absolute state of neoreactionary thought

the existence of majority rule in reality in "democratic" countries is precisely what I am disputing here

Forgot freedom of association isn't a thing for you guys. You can do what you want, just don't involve me or anyone else who doesn't want to participate.

I'm saying this is how democracy work, not if it present. It's not a secrete that a governments exist and are corrupt, that's irreverent to the topic.


There are numerous models of democracy that mitigate he majority rule aspect to suprisingly large degrees.

I agree with the illegitimate part, but democracy doesn't turn people against each other, no matter what kind of government do you have, you will always face opposition (except if you kill them).

What would be stopping you?

Dude, you realize you're my property…right?

mcdonalds, who would invariably own all the land and all the people in glorious ankekistan

If a democracy doesn't have a majority rule, then it really isn't democracy at all.

Not this shit again, that's another debate for another day.

what? i answered your question. i know ancaps can only play pretend but cmon now

I don't get you point here? What does that have to do with interacting with who you want to?

Didn't think it would land into another topic, you know how thread work. I can answer you in another thread, but not this one.

Doesn't 'Freedom of association' also entail that you have the right to leave/stop interacting with a group/person?

looks like you're having trouble facing the outcomes of your own ideal society. you're acting like answers to questions you brought up are irrelevant because your praxis is too loose and handwavey to have any answers of it's own in the first place

Main point begging, if you allow people that ability to control ones life and property via voting. Then they're are a threat to your life style. Hence why people get so heated during politics.


i think even by ancap standards you're being idealistic and silly. you think people can just apparate their own society but see all sort of cooperation for that society coming to it's own and having any kind of rules or structure at all as some kind of bad thing because "uhh someone else might not want it." well someone else might not want ankekistan so i guess anarcho-capitalism is a farce?

Well, if you're my property then you have no right to disassociate yourself from me.

Short answer: No companies is going to take up all the land. Once you take the land, you're going to have to maintain. And that takes A LOT time and resources which can be otherwise put into the company.

??? You can leave you know that right?

Wrong. Democracy is ethical, and it is objectively ethical whether you perceive it to be or not. But it's worth noting that what is normally called democracy (e.g. the US) is actually republicanism.

UUUUUUUUuuuhhhhhhh the land becomes company resources. that's why they'd buy it in the first place. and companies have to expand to grow

Leave what? The aforementioned hypothetical group or the thread..?

Do you know what anarchy is?

ancaps definitely don't

Kiddo stop being spooked and be an egoist

I think he's coming around.

They're are plenty of more resources than just pure land. Employees, equipment, security, water, electricity, repairs. etc. All are which are expenses. Having resources are only good if you can use them properly.


the home.

I still don't know what you're referring to, but I'm going to assume we're still talking about the hypothetical situation from earlier.

What I was trying to say is that there is no such thing as 'freedom of association'. It is a spook.

Fuck off John. This is what your utopia looks like.

Interacting with who you want to is spook now?



No, but saying you have a 'right' to be able to do so is a spook. It's an ideal which plagues the mind.


what fucking maintenance
aren't ancaps all about absentee ownership and rentier economics?
why not just buy up all the land and then force people to pay you rent for the glorious right to exist on YOUR PROPERTY


You know you're right, why not just spend up all your company money on land. Although the prices may raise every time we buy some more do to the limiting supply, and people are going to charge us low, but we can still afford it. And hey, lets forces these people to pay for rent, although there's no guarantee they're produce enough money to pay it off. But we can still take that bet boys. Debt is impossible for us.

Because that land is already my property and u aint allowed into my union of egoists

I want the land and the shit it produces. It's mine. Bosses are lazy ass weaklings who stopped working by themselves thats why they became weak. Pigs outta my property.

fuck off pol

Damn, the egoism is strong in this thread. Well done, my property.

of course my property


You know the drill, folks.


Because as you monopolise more and more of the land the more rent you can charge. How are the people going to avoid this rentierism? Human beings occupy a part of three-dimensional space. If someone buys up all the land they can't just choose to stop existing so they can stop paying rent.
It's not like they have an option. You are the King after all. They can always sell their kids on the Free Market if they can't make this month's payment.
How wasn't Feudalism ancap actually? The king personally owned all the land and then rented it to his subjects, he just called the rent 'tax'.
What bet? What debt?

No, we won't let you.


Why do you hate freedom?

Oh look, It's that time again.

I'm not sure illegitimate is the right word here. Since popular support is by definition legitimate. Maybe incorrect or bad leadership is how to define it.
I think the correctness is relative though. You have to remember that the people are going to living under the elected leadership. So the values, concerns and issues of the majority of people should be reflected in the leadership. People getting what the ask for is correct.

As for divisiveness that democracy causes, I just call that advanced citizenship. Your not a passive subject under authoritarian rule. You are an active participant. It's not going to be easy, there will be disagreements and debate between people. This is not a bug, it's feature. Embrace it and know that you values and views are part directing your country.

If there is any criticism of democracy it's how it can be so easily subverted by the wealthy who can basically buy politicians. Also how elections can degenerate into public relations campaigns where you are told one thing then when lected, do what your donors want.

if majority decisions are not legitimate, then nothing is
lolbert belief that there exists some inherent in nature set of rights is the biggest spook of them all
like property rights for example, they're not natural, they're enforced by society

people act against each other because they have antagonistic interests
you know, like capitalists want to lower wages and wageslaves want them to rise

do you really think that if you get rid of bourgeois democracy those antagonisms will magically dissappear?

So what do you do when people do hurt people? Would you have a group that would deal with them? What constitutes hurt? How is someone punished? Who has authority to make the call? Who gives them authority?

Or do you just want a pg rated anarchy?

How the fuck do these graphs work? They seem the same.

Your brain has been fucked by radical individualism. Please pick up a few books to learn why your pipe dream will never work out and understand that governments are for the most part a self organizing system and trying to remove them would be futile because they are a natural extension of groups of people living together.

As others have mentioned even your one caveat of "don't hurt people" throws open the floodgates to government because it is this very notion that necessitates government in the first place.

Of course majority rule fails this criterion. This criterion cannot be made a reality anywhere.

You're completely right, but you missed one other problem with democracy.
It can be hacked.
I'm not talking about hacking voting machines, although that is quite easy. I'm talking about the fact that if you have a big enough advertising budget you can get people to agree with pretty much any idea, no matter how counter to their own interests. As advertising tactics become more refined, democracy becomes indistinguishable from oligarchy.

That's not a serious means of setting up a society.
Try again.

these graphs look exactly the same…

The solution is a benevolent dictatorship.

rights are a spook though

Yes, people having power over others is an inherent quality to capitalism. We already know that.

You are a spook.
Rights aren't something that people have, they're more like principles that a person can believe in. In that sense they aren't much different to, say, the principle that spooks are bad.

The problem would still exist, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, under communism. A small group of people could still use automated systems and their knowledge of psychology to amplify their vote.

This. Read "The True Face of Democracies" by Jean Thiriart.

Ye, Ad populum, it's the basics of the basics.

There's no such thing as "right" in politics, only a question of who's interests are served. And fuck yeah, I am for the interests of the masses

Who woulda guessed

How so? There's only one democracy in all of the western world and it's in Switzerland.

Everyone in this thread is a fucking retard except for myself. Read a book people.

this but unironically

It’s not really an argument against socialism though. Direct democracy doesn’t work currently. You cannot abolish the state absolutely. It can only whither away.

The line is the important part (predicted probability of adoption). The grey bars are just showing the relative sample size, ie very few issues have 0-10% or 90-100% support. Full paper attached.

I could argue immorality is doing what is wrong

well no shit, everybody can do shit that isn´t right even aristocratic leader, ceos etc. not only the people.
then isolate yourself from society, go to a lonely island or shit like that. There will always be civilization and people that make decions, hierarchies it´s an important natural part of society.
so retarded wont even try to arguement.