Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are

[loremar]

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by loremar

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

NO,

I want water and electricity and trash PU and schools and infrastructure and am more than willing to pay takes for these luxuries!

Communism and Capitalism both look good on paper. Add people and its a disaster.

Straight up Democracy is problematic too due to the time it would take for everyone to vote on every issue.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by loremar

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

No. In fact, I'm almost *certain* it wouldn't work. Anarchism is another one of those ideas that I would put in the category of 'great idea, wrong species'. Firstly, I do not trust direct democracy. There are 187 million whites in America. There's 300 million people in America. In a direct democracy the majority could impose an *absolute* tyranny on the minority with no restraints. Secondly, you have to have laws. Have to. Unless you are going to get rid of property (good luck) and get people to not prefer their kin and friends over random strangers (not happening) you will have conflicts of interests. Without laws there's no way to adjudicate those conflicts and they *will* happen.

Get rid of capitalism and replace it with what? There's a fantastic scene toward the end of the Terry Pratchett novel "Night Watch" which I'm going to share with you to illustrate the point about why getting rid of capitalism is a really bad idea. A revolution is starting, the hero--Sam Vimes--is a sergeant in the City Watch who is protecting the people against the army and the secret police. One person of true revolutionary fervor is having a conversation about how things will be once the revolution is complete with a shoe maker:

"Anyway, it says here in article seven on this here list--" Mr. Supple ploughed no. "--People's Declaration of the Glorious 24th of May," said Reg.

"Yeah, yeah, right...well, it says we'll seize hold of the means of production, sort of thing, so what I want to know is, how does that work out regarding my shoe shop? I mean, I'm in it anyway, right? It's not like there's room for more'n me and my lad Garbut and maybe one customer."

In the dark, Vimes smiled. But Reg could never see stuff coming.

"Ah, but after the revolution all property will be held in common by The People...err...that is, it'll belong to you but also to everyone else, you see?"

Comrade Supple looked puzzled.

"But I'll be the one making the shoes?"

"Of course. But everything will belong to The People."
"So...who's going to pay for the shoes?" said Mr. Supple.
"Everyone will pay a reasonable price for their shoes, and you won't be guilty of living off the sweat of teh common worker," said Reg shortly. "Now, if we--"
"You mean the cows?" said Supple.
"What?"
"Well, there's only the cows, and the lads at the tannery, and, frankly, all they do is stand in a field all day, well, not the tannery boys, obviously, but--"
"Look," said Reg. "Everything will belong to The People and everyone will be better off. Do you understand?"
The shoemaker's frown grew deeper. He wasn't certain if he was part of The People.

Elsewhere in the book, Vimes reflects on 'The People'

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people."

Both passages illustrate what I think is wrong with the idea of throwing out capitalism and democracy. Let's say we did. What would you replace it with? Would you get rid of money as well? At which point how would we do trade? Barter? I can't build a laptop computer--well, I probably could but I can't build the *components*. Where are the components going to come from? If I'm not getting paid, why on Earth would I get up at 4:45 in the morning to be to work at 7:30? Love of my employer? Not hardly. I do it because I get paid to do so, as it turns out I happen to rather enjoy my work but I wouldn't do it for free. So what would you replace capitalism with?

Now, back to democracy. Constitutional democracies are not perfect systems but they are the least bad system devised so far. But let's say we did everything through direct democracy. How would you go about protecting minority rights? How would you go about *preventing* people from, say, selling goods or services on the black market?

What would happen in an anarchy is that it would last about two weeks. Then the person who could convince the most people with guns to side with him would become Supreme Leader for Life. If you want to know what a nation without either capitalism or democracy looks like, you can do no better than either North Korea or Somalia. At least North Korea has a government. Somalia doesn't even really have that. There's no capitalism or democracy in Somalia, instead he who has the guns is he who makes the rules.

Governments are what Thomas Hobbes called a Leviathan. One purpose of having governments is to have an entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In an anarchy, no single entity has a monopoly on the use of force and so people will be *hyper-sensitive* to Hobbesian traps. Hobbes said that in the absence of a state (he didn't say what kind of state) things would degenerate into a war of all against all. A Hobbesian trap, then, is when you think I'm going to come over the wall and take your tomatoes and so you put up defenses to prevent me from doing so. Seeing that you are arming up, I start to arm up. A *perfect* example of a Hobbesian trap, and one civilization escaped by the skin of our teeth, was the nuclear build-up of the Cold War. Once the United States detonated a nuke, the other great powers *had* to get one however they could. The Soviets developed their own and missiles to deliver them. So we developed our own missiles. We put missiles in Turkey, they put missiles in Cuba and so on.

Cheers
Aj

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by loremar

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

Not even a little bit. It sounds nice to refer to this sort of governance as "direct democracy". "Mob rule" just sounds so icky, you know? But that's what it is. I'm endlessly amazed whenever a person who is any sort of minority is in favor of this sort of system. I know several people who are, and every one of them is a straight, white, man.

In this sort of system, if the majority decides they don't want queer people getting married, well, tough shit, queer people! The majority has spoken! In fact, the majority has just voted that it's totally legal to kill queer people. I hope you're good at hiding!

Personally, I'm very much in favor of the checks and balances that are supposed to exist in our current system. As a queer woman, mob rule doesn't go well for me.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I'm endlessly amazed whenever a person who is any sort of minority is in favor of this sort of system.

That's what people say about being conservative or republican.

Not that I think anarchy is the way to go. Just noticed the similar argument.

[Apocalipstic]

It allllll sounds good on paper.

The answer is somewhere in the middle.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

NO,

I want water and electricity and trash PU and schools and infrastructure and am more than willing to pay takes for these luxuries!

Communism and Capitalism both look good on paper. Add people and its a disaster.

Straight up Democracy is problematic too due to the time it would take for everyone to vote on every issue.

My opposition to direct democracy is that there is no way to protect minority rights. Direct democracy would, I suspect, be one-man, one-vote, one-time. Imagine if very large swaths of the Southern states, along with the mid-Western states had the power, in one fell swoop, to make the United States an officially Christian nation where homosexuality was outlawed? Do you think they would? I do. Do you think someone could design a campaign that would make it sound like that would be a great idea? I do. Do you think people would believe it? I *know* they would. How do I know? Because in February of 2003 a decisive majority of the American people believed--against ALL logic--that Jerry Falwell (Usama bin Laden) was the largest contributor and booster of the ACLU (Saddam Hussein's Iraq) and had *direct* involvement in attacking the United States. Half-an-hour on Google, would have given any of my fellow citizens all the information they needed in order to know that they were being sold a bill of goods and *why* it was a bill of goods. So forget the time it takes to vote, I'm concerned about the *consequences* of the vote!

Btw. in case there's anyone lingering that thinks it would be a good idea to have direct democracy consider that every single time an anti-gay marriage measure has been on the *ballot* (instead of in the legislature) it has been passed. Every. Single. Time.

Originally Posted by betenoire

The funny thing about anarchy is this:

For you to honestly believe it would work you'd have to have a pretty altruistic view of human nature. You know, the doctor will be very happy to care for your sick mother because she is very excited that you tend the chickens. The dude next door would never rape you because he is a good person and knows you are a good person who would never steal his car. Blah blah social contract blah blah.

The thing is, social contracts don't *work* in anarchies because there's no enforcement mechanism. Unless we're going to all go back to HGF lifestyle (thank you, no!) living in groups of no more than about 150 we can't *have* a social contract without enforcement mechanisms. Cheating is just too easy a strategy. You're absolutely correct, the doctor isn't going to care for your sick mother because you tend the chickens. It's not happening.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

That's what people say about being conservative or republican.

Not that I think anarchy is the way to go. Just noticed the similar argument.

There are a number of things that would recommend conservatism (real conservatism not right-wing radicalism) or even the Republican party (not the current electoral coalition but an older Republican party, ask your grandparents) to various minority populations. There is simply *nothing* in anarchy to recommend itself to a minority population because they simply do not have the numbers to protect themselves should the majority decide that the minority is the problem. Couldn't happen? Tell that to *any* group of emigres living in populations where they have become middle-men merchants and are starting to accumulate a bit of wealth for their troubles. Tell it to Indians in South Africa, or the Chinese in Indonesia, or Jews pretty much anywhere, anytime in the last 1500 years or so. I think they probably have some *very* definite ideas about the desirability of the rule of law, specifically those parts that protect minority rights.

Cheers
Aj

[Corkey]

I don't get it, if I'm not an American than what am I? There are so many descriptors of what an American is that I don't see how my being one is any different that some one from Latin America. We're still Americans. Personally I'm from Turtle Island but thats another thread.

[betenoire]

Wait. Aren't North America and South America two different continents? That's what I was taught in elementary school - has something changed in the last 30 years that I'm unaware of?

North America, South America, Africa, Australia, Europe, Asia, Antarctica. Right? So all people from Canada, the US, Mexico, all the countries in Central America, and the Caribbean countries are all North Americans. Not Americans. If the continent is called NORTH America - why not North Americans?

Unless of course North and South America are the same continent now and I didn't get the memo. Which is possible. I hate georgraphy. I don't even know where Mississippi is.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Wait. Aren't North America and South America two different continents? That's what I was taught in elementary school - has something changed in the last 30 years that I'm unaware of?

North America, South America, Africa, Australia, Europe, Asia, Antarctica. Right? So all people from Canada, the US, Mexico, all the countries in Central America, and the Caribbean countries are all North Americans. Not Americans. If the continent is called NORTH America - why not North Americans?

Unless of course North and South America are the same continent now and I didn't get the memo. Which is possible. I hate georgraphy. I don't even know where Mississippi is.

That's okay, 40% of American college graduates put Hawaii in the North Atlantic because, you know, NOTHING says tropical like icebergs.

cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

That's okay, 40% of American college graduates put Hawaii in the North Atlantic because, you know, NOTHING says tropical like icebergs.

cheers
Aj

In my defense, I know where everything in -Canada- is. And I'm good at the New England states, because I like New England. And I know where Washington and Oregon are. And California. And pretty much any state that touches Canada.

But still - how many continents are there these days?

ETA - so when all of North America merges into one country...what are we going to do about that whole "The US doesn't like Cuba" thing? If we're all one country, how can we best prevent (former) USians from vacationing in (former) Cuba? I suggest wristbands. So then (former) USians can be like underage people at a concert.

[Artdecogoddess]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Btw. in case there's anyone lingering that thinks it would be a good idea to have direct democracy consider that every single time an anti-gay marriage measure has been on the *ballot* (instead of in the legislature) it has been passed. Every. Single. Time.



Cheers
Aj

Aj,
Hello - I snipped the above quote out. I lived in Maine in 2006. There was a ballot initative to include LGBT folks in civil rights protections for housing, education, accomidations and banking. This ballot initiative passed. It took literally 20 years of work - and it was denied at least 2x, but it passed in the end via a ballot. I think its super important to include the few times LGBT folks and allies have succeeded in winning protections.

ADG

[Kat]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

Not even a little bit. It sounds nice to refer to this sort of governance as "direct democracy". "Mob rule" just sounds so icky, you know? But that's what it is....

Never mind that this is a common misrepresentation of anarchic theory, which primarily involves elimination of the State, with a shift to essentially communal living -- how is "mob rule" any different from "democracy"?

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

In this sort of system, if the majority decides they don't want queer people getting married, well, tough shit, queer people! The majority has spoken! In fact, the majority has just voted that it's totally legal to kill queer people. I hope you're good at hiding!

But you've just described democracy in the U.S. right now! If a simple majority wants to ban gay marriage, it's banned (which is exactly what happened in Oregon seven years ago when a few counties legalized it for about 6 weeks.) Ditto any "freedom" that we may currently believe is a given, but probably won't be much longer (abortion, anyone...?) If enough ignorant fools vote for or against something in this country, it becomes law. That is the very definition of mob rule...

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I'm endlessly amazed whenever a person who is any sort of minority is in favor of this sort of system. I know several people who are, and every one of them is a straight, white, man.

Well, I have long been what I like to call an "anarchic realist" -- I believe in anarchy as an ideal that can never possibly attained if human beings are involved.

Chipmunks, on the other hand...

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Can you actually declare war on inanimate objects?

And maybe I'm a skeptic but considering all the documented involvement that U.S. agencies have had in drug trafficking from heroin to cocaine it's hard to believe that their hearts are really in winning this war.

Well, the US Govt. is always declaring war on stuff like war and poverty...I agree its problematic.

I agree about not winning the war on drugs, but a lot of money and lives are wasted every day on it.

[Apocalipstic]

One of the things that really interests me here and in the OP is how continuing to have affirmative action but basing it on income would play?

I remember taking the ACT back in High School and noticing at the time how much easier the language part was for me since the only people I had heard speak English for large parts of my childhood were my parents who were very well educated in English and Speech. It did not seem fair that I only had to answer what sounded right to me, the English I heard at home.