Topic: Why do our governments keep reminding me of the borg? (Read 1109 times)

And they claim resistance is futile!

Because people who are not related could never agree to follow someone voluntarily. 

No, neither in theory nor in reality can this be just. A kingdom is a collectivist organisation, and as soon as somebody wants to rule more than one natural blood community, he needs weapons, soldiers, henchmen and organised violence, and therefore census, tribute and taxes.

Of course you could.  If your rule/master allowed freedom of speech, dissent, etc. 

Nothing wrong with a King as long as he is just.  The problem is just the tendency for a King to not be just.

In theory you could have a just authoritarian state.  It is is highly unlikely as it would require a utopian (not to be confused with utopia).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship

Democracy is simply a belief that a large group of people is more likely to be just than a small one (or a single one).  In general it true however it is still flawed.  Lots of very horrible things have been done by Democracies.  Genocide, ethnic cleansing, unnecessary war, unfair treatment of "others/outsiders", assassinations, confiscation of private wealth/property, slavery, political prisoners, etc.

Generally a group of people is more rational than a single one but not always.  The Monarchy in England declared slavery to be unlawful long before the Democratic people of these United States did.

I think there is truth to what your saying. Let's plan on staying pissed off then. 
We like our government to fear us in the U.S.

I know what you mean, there's quite a bit of stuff we can get away with but I think that's only because they know we would be happy beating the crap out of them if they went too far, often you'll see them trying to gauge us all and if they think there's going to be enough pissed off people they back off.

yes. when it comes to terrorism the gov has no sense of humor or proportion. They should know that a real terrorist would not tweet about it first. But when you put high school dropouts in charge of airport security the best you can get is a mindless rule follower.
I only wanted to temper the discussion with the fact that many of us are lucky enough to live under a gov we can criticize. I have spent a lot of my time in shitty, war torn and corrupt places. It has helped me to realize my good fortune.

While some of the stuff was clearly said by morons who don't know how the internet works, there was one here which is clearly just someone being frustrated and having a joke, I even found an article for you, it was awhile ago but it illustrates my point perfectly.

http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/top-stories/438817/man-arrested-after-airport-bomb-joke-on-twitter

Can you imagine what would happen if even the police etc. could be arrested for what they said on the internet or comments they made about people? Everyone would end up in jail!

I by no means think we live in a perfect society. But us Americans have become such complainers about our perceived rights. When you say arrested, I wonder what for?
A threat or something? You have to say something that is a crime to be arrested.

I agree with you that democracy should be the political state only, I just think it's been used in popular culture so much now that it's actually helpful to point out the difference between say a group of friends making decisions, or tenants in a group of units or any situation like that and what happens with government.

If you clearly delineate the differences between the 2 situations, you can show why democracy (in the govt sense) is completely invalid and anti-freedom.  

just a thought...

Honestly, don't you read about how many people are getting arrested for saying stupid things on twitter and facebook? Yes, I said arrested, there have also been cases where politicians in my country are getting into trouble for saying stuff. While that's a given over here I'm surprised at how much trouble normal people are getting in, this is why you won't see me post real details on the internet. There was once a time when I thought it would be okay but now I know better.

In our current Democracy, you can only say what is considered acceptable not what is true and you can't even have fun being stupid anymore

That's a good reason not to even bother trying to pry apart a "small d" definition away from the "large D" understanding.

We already have perfectly good words to describe what happens when a group of friends decide where to go eat. It's called "negotiation" or maybe even just "getting along with people". There's no reason for voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions to share a word with the concept via which a small minority of the population claims it's justified in ruling the rest of the population.

Democracy is not a bad thing.   It is necessary in any group situation where the one decision has to be made for everyone, like in say a group of friends going out for dinner.  Unless one person or  "council" has been allowed by the group to make the decision for everyone.  The key thing in all of this is that each member of the group has agreed to be a member of the group.  Even then if they don't like the decision they can opt out and not go while everyone else does.  They aren't forced to abide by the majority decision.

That's why when you get these groups who come along, like the Zeitgeisters for example that want to set up their own commune, we anarchists say fine, you can do that as long as all members are there voluntarily and free to leave as they wish and anyone who doesn't want to take part doesn't have to.

And that's the fundamental difference between the "small d" democracy and the "large D" democracy.  In the small d democracy it can easily be seen that people have freedom of choice even though in certain circumstances they are necessarily a part of group decisions.  But they are a part of those group decisions by choice.  The Big D democracy does not have that same freedom of choice.  But politics conflates the two ideas making it seem like we have freedom when in fact we do not.  

And because labels are used for expediency it is easy for the political types to make people think they are free by confusing the above two ideas.

Don't worry, our representatives are hard at work trying to fix that problem. 

None of you could even say these things if you didn't live in a democracy. 

Dictatorship: "You do what I say or I kill you."

Representative Democracy:  "You do what we say or we kill you."

It's not unusual.  It has to be dressed up that way for people to accept it.  People have to think that democracy="freedom of choice" in order for it to work.

That's why democracy is held up as the highest ideal.  Just don't anyone look at the actual mechanics of it.  Watch TV.  Watch sport.  And do as you are told.

lolz I guess I have a way different view on what I think Democracy should be than to what it actually is.

Democracy dresses up the ethics of gang rape in the pageantry of patriotism in an attempt to make it look less barbaric.

Democracy is by definition collectivism.   The majority rules and there is no opt out.

It's not when you are like with a group of friends and you are all deciding where to go and if you don't want to go where the majority wants you can opt out. 

There is no opt out from decisions made in a democracy.  Or hadn't you noticed?