Topic: Should money or democracy have higher authority? (Read 1550 times)
There should be no authority. The premise implies the right to initiate force. This is immoral and destructive.
Money has no authority at all, it is just a tool. (Replace money with democracy if you like.)
These tools inherit their authority. So look where it comes from and address the issue there.
Humans tend to focus stronger on the behalf of their own as they stick less to the rules (they demand from others).
These tools inherit their authority. So look where it comes from and address the issue there.
Humans tend to focus stronger on the behalf of their own as they stick less to the rules (they demand from others).
Neither have precedence. Each is simply an imperfect extension of individual rights.
It's simply that it's the least bad system that humanity can come up with.
A benefic dictator is the least bad system that humanity can come up with.
"dictator" doesn't seem compatible with the outcome I'm after: freedom. Perhaps we can quibble over what effect him being benefic would have to make dictatorship compatible with freedom. I'd be fine then.
Unfortunately, there have been less of these people in the entire history of Earth than I have fingers on my left hand, so democracy wins on practicality.
I think that was, in essence, my point. Democracy is the least bad (perhaps I should have added "practical") system.
Thankfully we don't have real democracy. That's just a recipe for disaster unless you have the democratically-elected equivalent of a benefic dictator. Without such a strong leader, pure democracy devolves into weasels promising anything and everything in order to gain power.
Actually, with real democracy, I don't suppose there would be any such thing as a "leader". Every decision would be decided by the majority (not that I think that would be a good thing, as minorities would tend to get screwed). What we mostly have (in the west) are representative democracies. We give our power (expressed with a vote) to a few, whom we select according to their stated policies and our judgement of their character.
We seem to be getting by using that system I suppose; but I wouldn't say that I find myself singing its praises.
wow, am I the only one that voted for "Money, so its ok for corporations to lobby all they want and indirectly buy laws"?
Who wouldn't use their bitcoins to gain influence to ensure the survival of the bitcoin network?
Who wouldn't use their bitcoins to gain influence to ensure the survival of the bitcoin network?
Democracy
It's simply that it's the least bad system that humanity can come up with.
A benefic dictator is the least bad system that humanity can come up with.
Unfortunately, there have been less of these people in the entire history of Earth than I have fingers on my left hand, so democracy wins on practicality.
Thankfully we don't have real democracy. That's just a recipe for disaster unless you have the democratically-elected equivalent of a benefic dictator. Without such a strong leader, pure democracy devolves into weasels promising anything and everything in order to gain power.
Democracy is a means to an end (freedom) not an end in itself.
Democracy is, unfortunately, the tyranny of the majority; and isn't as great as it's proponents make out. It's simply that it's the least bad system that humanity can come up with.
e.g. Presidential candidate A says "all women shall be required by law to have sex with any man who desires it". Presidential candidate B says no. If 51% of the people vote for A, then that law goes through. 49% of the people are probably not that thrilled with that the democratic will of the people has been done.
I think the question is inherently wrong. Neither money nor democracy should buy power.
Democracy is, unfortunately, the tyranny of the majority; and isn't as great as it's proponents make out. It's simply that it's the least bad system that humanity can come up with.
e.g. Presidential candidate A says "all women shall be required by law to have sex with any man who desires it". Presidential candidate B says no. If 51% of the people vote for A, then that law goes through. 49% of the people are probably not that thrilled with that the democratic will of the people has been done.
I think the question is inherently wrong. Neither money nor democracy should buy power.
Who determines what roles exist, such as Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Defense, etc? Who determines what authority each role has? Which roles exert priority over others? How are individuals for each role chosen?
If you think these 2 divergent forces (money and democracy) can be balanced, explain...
Sortition
Get rid of democracy and randomly select people to make laws.
Democracy, money should be used for goods and services not paying lobbyists that create laws affecting everyone just to benefit the few.
If you think these 2 divergent forces (money and democracy) can be balanced, explain...
Sortition
Get rid of democracy and randomly select people to make laws.
If you think these 2 divergent forces (money and democracy) can be balanced, explain...
Jump to: