[Edqpdnuu]

"Democracy tends to be equated by many people with prosperity, equality, fairness, togetherness and liberty. There is no evidence for any of this. Democracy rests on three main principles: you have the right to vote, you have the right to run for office, and the majority rules. That’s it. Nowhere is it written for instance that democracy guarantees the right to free speech, a right that many people link with democracy. Nor is there any reason why democracy should lead to prosperity.

In fact, the very principles of democracy give rise to processes that lead society to the opposite of freedom and prosperity."

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/karsten1.1.1.html

[ConoMadura]

Thats why we have the constitution, to define our democracy.

[IssuessBratte]

I found this article extremely interesting.

[casinobonbone]

I found this article extremely interesting.

interesting, but I don't agree with his conclusions.

[dHXaE2h9]

I do.

[CalBettaulp]

Rather mistakes by consensus, than by a despot.

[stastony]

Rather mistakes by consensus, than by a despot.

[Finanziamento]

Rather mistakes by consensus, than by a despot.

Oh, it has nothing to do with despotism. The article tends closer to anarchy, in fact.

[BDDkDvgZ]

When I post an article link, the idea is that you will read it and comment on it.

Commenting on just the headline or the teaser paragraph is a waste of my time, and leads to all kinds of misconceptions that then need cleared up...

[no02rSx2]

When I post an article link, the idea is that you will read it and comment on it.

Commenting on just the headline or the teaser paragraph is a waste of my time, and leads to all kinds of misconceptions that then need cleared up...

*crowd goes 'ooooOOOOooooh'!*

[Honealals]

When I post an article link, the idea is that you will read it and comment on it.

Commenting on just the headline or the teaser paragraph is a waste of my time, and leads to all kinds of misconceptions that then need cleared up...

then how about including a summary and telling us what point you are trying to make?

[Cricequorie]

then how about including a summary and telling us what point you are trying to make?

I like to let people form their own opinions first. And then compare thoughts.

[Ccddfergt]

I like to let people form their own opinions first. And then compare thoughts.

OK, fine. but you know that you were attempting to make some point with the cite.

[offemyJuccete]

OK, fine. but you know that you were attempting to make some point with the cite.

Actually, I read it and thought it was very insightful. And I wanted to share it with you guys, and get your thoughts.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

[Vulkanevsel]

Actually, I read it and thought it was very insightful. And I wanted to share it with you guys, and get your thoughts.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

No, you posted it because you agreed with it and were looking for an argument. no problem with that.

[textarchive]

No, you posted it because you agreed with it and were looking for an argument. no problem with that.

No. Not at all. What's to argue?

[EarnestKS]

Thats why we have the constitution, to define our democracy.

And why we are a republic and not a pure democracy.

[Qahtwugc]

We need a lot less democracy, ASAP.

[Pheboasmabs]

Okay.

Although almost every democratic country suffers from bloated government, over-regulation, heavy taxation and enormous public debts, few people see a causal connection between these problems and the democratic system itself. There is none. It's more accurate to say that these problems may exist within a democracy. Not because of it.

Democracy tends to be equated by many people with prosperity, equality, fairness, togetherness and liberty. There is no evidence for any of this. Shut up. You fornicate with animals. Look at the fucking 'evidence' of democracy's opposite, then say that again.

Nowhere is it written for instance that democracy guarantees the right to free speech, a right that many people link with democracy. Nor is there any reason why democracy should lead to prosperity. And nowhere should it be, that not being it's function. Witling.
In fact, the very principles of democracy give rise to processes that lead society to the opposite of freedom and prosperity. lulz Enthrall me, won't you? Pray, continue.

...they have a strong incentive to spend money on projects that make them popular, with little regard for the future. Conjectural and cynical.

The problems they create along the way, such as massive public debts, they leave for their successors to solve. As could be said for any leader who isn't immortal. Dumb fuck. And that's no compelling argument for the abolition of fixed-term office. Fixed terms being a surety against totalitarianism.

It is quickly run down. Given scarcity, this is moot.

Democracy is a system in which people vote for politicians whom they hope will favor them with handouts and privileges, for which the bill will be sent to other people. This line alone, speaks to the attitude of an impartial author.

It sets groups up against each other: farmers versus urban dwellers, the elderly versus the young, immigrants versus residents, employers versus employees, etc. This leads to parasitical behavior and social strife. Nope. It leads to competition; the very lifeblood of capitalism. And social problems are a universal feature of any government form, not democracy exclusively.

This is the result of the democratic principle that all important decisions are subject to majority rule, i.e. rule by the State... Er, what? No. Rule by majority consensus is of the people, not in spite of it. That 'state' being democratically elected.

...which makes everyone a cog in the collective political system. Moot.

Although many people associate democracy with freedom, in reality no liberty is safe from democracy. If the majority (or often some small influential group) wants it, they can intervene into any kind of voluntary action, transaction or relationship – and that’s what they do. No shit, Einstein. It's called democracy. I love how this bovine witling attempts to equate a majority with a minority. The difference, of course, being that the minority won't dictate the outcome of elections, by, ya know, a majority. And it's that 'intervention' that assures representation. Otherwise, decisions go unchecked, and without oversight.

They forbid people to drink booze, burn flags, speak out against wars, watch particular movies, ‘discriminate’, and so on. Democratic governments continually intervene in voluntary transactions between sellers and buyers, employers and employees, teachers and students, doctors and patients, renters and landlords, service providers and customers, et cetera. They also meddle in people’s personal choices: their choice to smoke, to use drugs, to engage in a particular profession (without a ‘license’), to ‘discriminate’ (i.e. to choose with whom they want to associate), to make particular products (for which others have been granted a ‘patent’, i.e. a government monopoly), et cetera. There is no limit to how far this meddling can go. This idiot's describing government corruption, and activity beyond it's delineated purview. Not democracy.

The little freedom we still have in western societies we owe not to democracy, but to our freedom loving heritage. That as reflected by a system that allows for subsidiarity and social inclusion. As if freedom is some magical component of human relations, that moves mountains on a whim. What the fuck is this witling gibbering about?

In pre-democratic times rulers tended to be distrusted and every new tax was seen as an infringement of liberty. In monarchical times few could ever hope to gain power, so most were suspicious of the ones in power. Yeah. How very odd.

But democratic decisions are seen as fundamentally legitimate because they are supposed to have been made by the people themselves. No treatment of the difference between direct and representative democracy here. Only more leading language, by a myopic buffoon, with the mind of an insect.

This makes people believe that they ought to subject themselves to the rule of the majority. No. They're merely aware of the opportunity. Witling. It doesn't 'make' them think anything.

They might not agree with specific laws and regulations but they feel they ought to abide by them. They wouldn't be laws otherwise. Admit it, your brain hurts, doesn't it?

But naturally they then will try to get a party in power that adopts laws and doles out money for their own benefit. Yep. That democracy. Terrible stuff it is. Better we should have no say at all, eh?

This is how state spending grew from roughly 10% of GDP prior to the First World War to almost 50% now in most democratic countries. Is it? Democracy directly dictates expenditure? Then it's allotted wholly within the public's power to influence? Shit, first I've heard. Here, I had believed that governments dictate those parameters themselves.

And why we have so many laws on the books now that it’s safe to say there is a law for everything under the sun. There's a law telling me how many oranges I can eat in a day? Hysterical much?

Although rule by the majority is bad enough in itself, the reality of a democracy is much more sordid. Don't speak of reality; you know it not. Go home. You're a fucking idiot.

Since the elected government has virtually unlimited power and controls virtually all of society’s resources... Much less so than in an unelected one.

...all sorts of interests and lobby groups are at work behind the scenes to influence government to bend laws to their advantage. One obvious example are the banks and financial interests that together with the government have set up a paper money system which they control and manipulate to their own advantage. But there are many powerful interests that use the system at the expense of the rest of the people: labor unions, NGO’s, pharmaceutical companies, farmers, the military-industrial complex. Individual citizens can do very little about this. Bold: The only comment that's relevant here.

They usually don’t have the means or the time to find out what is going on. Or rather, the interest.

All they can do is vote every once in a while... 'Once in a while'. lol As if they're merely bored. They're only granted the opportunity to do so, every once in a while, you witless shit.

...but they cannot hold their rulers accountable for their actions. Well, they can. They simply don't.

So the cause of our economic and social ills is not that the wrong politicians are in power. Yes it is. That and corporate self interest, which traditionally takes precedence over and above social welfare.

It’s the democratic system itself that causes the problems. No, it isn't.
What we need to do is start changing the system so it becomes less rather than more democratic.

SIEG HEIL!

The most important way to do this is by taking away the government’s powers and decentralizing decision-making processes. By rendering it less answerable, and further consolidating that selfsame centralisation?

Jes, wtf are you thinking, brother? A man of your intelligence found this bullshit 'interesting'.

It's shit. Complete and utter shit. This Karsten creature evidences all the critical thinking skills, of an infant mongoloid. Either that, or he's the ultimate enemy of freedom.

If this submoron isn't a shill, I'll eat my fucking hat.

[vipdumpp]

http://youtu.be/p_CwdUPi2-g
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I DESPISE DEMOCRACY.