Democracy Is for the Gods – Humans Cannot Sustain It | Hacker News Reader

Democracy Is for the Gods – Humans Cannot Sustain It

nytimes.com

48 pointspseudolus93 comments

I'm glad the NYT has with a single op-ed answered the fundamental question of the American Experiment.

Snark aside, there are entire great works of Western thought on the question of whether men are capable of governing themselves. It is literally the the opening question of "The Federalist Papers," for Christ's sake. A breezy survey of a smattering of social science is bringing a knife to an intellectual gun fight, and comes up well short of making a meaningful contribution.

Well said. Though given the evidence of this column (and the fact that such a lamentably trite piece was so prominently published) someone might want to have a crack at 'Education Is for the Gods'. If education connotes at least a basic familiarity with the major intellectual strands in our history, it clearly has failed us.

Agreed. Ah, the New York Times with its paywall—- bastion of modern democracy! Loved the line about how this is the best example of democracy on offer, sheesh.

Today they have also concluded that selling organs is beyond a doubt a Bad Thing™ and that we should base digital privacy on the idea of banning for-profit organ transplants. I used to subscribe to The NY Times for their smart commentary. But lately the op-ed section seems to be a bunch of poorly premised arguments.

BTW I’m happy to read opinions I disagree with, but I need sound arguments. That’s why I read the Wall Street Journal’s op-eds instead of ones from Fox News.

What exactly didn't you like in the article? Granted, it doesn't link to science papers -- something HN seems to be very obsessed with -- but every single commentary on human nature in it is something I've seen plenty of times in my life, both in the political scene and in my neighbours.

So what exactly did you dislike?

NYT 1980-1992: Democracy has failed!

NYT 1992-2000: Democracy is the greatest system in the world!

NYT 2000-2008: Democracy has failed!

NYT 2008-2016: Democracy is the greatest system in the world!

NTY 2019: Democracy has failed!

I'm used to seeing them together--it's failing but we don't know of a better alternative.

Agreed. I also don’t understand why the times seems to accept contributions that present 6th grade level argumentation?

> “Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically. One can even make the point that democracy is “unnatural” because it goes against our vital instincts and impulses. What’s most natural to us, just as to any living creature, is to seek to survive and reproduce. And for that purpose, we assert ourselves — relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely — against others: We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary. Behind the smiling facade of human civilization, there is at work the same blind drive toward self-assertion that we find in the animal realm.“

Seriously, the above passage sounds like something anyone could come up with in about three seconds (with a touch of stylistic flourish). The assertion has absolutely no philosophical nuance, no careful appeal to scientific research, no sophisticated anticipation of counterpoints or caveats. It’s a very basic form of argumentation, and I think that many readers of the times are more than capable of digesting more significant arguments that bring the tradition of political philosophy to bear on the subject more seriously than through a couple of passing references.

I know part of the mission of this column is to make philsophy more accessible, but I think the times better carefully consider whether adhering too strongly to that mission is also making modern philosophy seem shallow and childish (which it isn’t).

Shame too, I’m sure the author’s other original work is probably interesting and more apropos of a professor. My sense is that the editorial work here perhaps harmed this submission more than it helped.

Obviously, the NY Times does carefully select their material, and this is the kind of drivel they prefer, because in modern times most newspapers seem to live and die based on a very specific agenda.

If I've read any of the federalist papers before I don't remember it. But I checked out the first article [1] after your comment and now the play 'Hamilton' makes a lot more sense. What a lyrical style.

I'm half afraid to read more. Something tells me there's going to be insight to contemporary issues laid bare to the extent that I just lose faith in humanity.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Feder...

That's exactly why you should read it, and other great works. "Those who don't learn from history" and all that. I just recently read "On the Shortness of Life" by Seneca and I'll be damned if it couldn't have been written yesterday.

The article is not trying to make a new intellectual contribution to the existent thinking on the subject. It's to serve as an introduction for the benefit of people who may lean far too much in the direction of taking our democracy for granted–as a God-given right that can never disappear. I would guess that the Times felt like such an introduction could be useful, given the current political climate.

It's an easy and compelling introduction, rather than a rigorous intellectual treatise, in order to increase the probability that people will actually read it and thereby have something added to their perspective.

For instance, for those (such as myself) who are unaware of the Dostoevsky quote, it may be useful to see it: "There is no more ceaseless or tormenting care for man, as long as he remains free, than to find someone to bow down to as soon as possible." It may not be strictly true. But it is useful to consider that such a perspective on human behavior is, perhaps, not to be immediately dismissed as useless and ridiculous.

The way the article writer describes The Triumph of the Will is accurate (I've seen it a couple times); most people haven't seen it, or even heard of it. The reference to the "collective ecstasy" well-depicted in the film does, after all, reveal a human phenomenon that goes beyond Nazis and which it would be good for more people to understand, as a warning.

The Athenian process for protecting their democracy against populism is useful to think about, because we, in taking democracy for granted, tend not to see any risk that such a system would be useful for addressing: "When one of the citizens was becoming a bit too popular — too much of a charmer — Athenians would vote him out of the city for ten years by inscribing his name on bits of pottery. It was not punishment for something the charmer may have done, but a pre-emptive measure against what he might do if left unchecked. Athenians knew that they were too vulnerable and too flawed to resist political seduction (their complicated affair with Alcibiades gave them ample proof of that), and promptly denied themselves the pleasure. Man-made as it is, democracy is fragile and of a weak constitution — better not to put it to the test."

Again, it's useful to present such ideas to people who may not have been exposed to them before. I had already known these details about Athens. But a year ago, I hadn't, even though I studied and loved Plato in college. And I'm 62 now.

I find it curious that the author brings up populism as opposition to democracy. I think it should be the other way around: populism can show the danger of democracy. A tyranny of the majority is not a good thing. I think a constitutional republic is the best at keeping the danger of democracy away and it also keeps the country democratic. That is, as long as people care for the rule of law and follow the (likely reasonable) constitution.

>For instance, much of today’s American democracy (one of the best versions on the market right now) would by Athenian standards be judged “oligarchic.”

I fail to see how it would genuinely be called oligarchic. The current president is someone that wasn't much in politics before running. Yes, he's rich, but it still shows that even outsiders can come in and attain political power.

On another note, I don't think people would call the democracy ancient Athenians had as democracy either. Too few people had a say in politics.

> but it still shows that even outsiders can come in and attain political power.

Only if you have money.

Obama didn’t have money. Bill Clinton didn’t have money. Carter didn’t have money.

Parent was talking about outsiders, insiders raise money through their parties.

None were "insiders" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. (Unless you deem everyone an "insider" unless they jump directly into the presidency without any prior political involvement.)

Obama did have Warren Buffet's backing. The Democrat billionaire who actually got his candidate into the White House, but for some peculiar reason nobody gives two shits about, for those of you out there who love spooky bedtime stories about George Soros.

By Athenian standards voting for a representative to whom you delegate lawmaking powers is oligarchic. “Democracy,” in their view would have involved staffing political positions by drawing a lottery of qualified citizens.

Elections are an oligarchic feature in the Ancient Greek context since they presume governance is a specialized function that needs a career professional to undertake rather than an obligation of citizenship. Jury duty, in contrast, is an example of a democratic impulse.

Populism is ochlocracy, rather than democracy though. One defining feature of democracy is that it is 'supposed' to take some account of minority views and rights when legislating for the majority. People claiming winning mandates to steamroller policies from knife edge splits, inflict some of the severest damage on democracies.

So you get to define it?

As Wikipedia suggests, 'There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various different things'.

Included in these is a non-perjorative one as in 'a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite or The movement organized around this philosophy.' (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English)

A personal agenda will decide which one to pick.

>A personal agenda will decide which one to pick.

My personal agenda was to go with the usage in context. You can introduce other uses of the term, for sure.

My point is that populism, in the context of "populism can show the danger of democracy. A tyranny of the majority is not a good thing." is rule of the mob and so is actually ochlocracy, not democracy, as the demos is all of the people.

A good example is wealth redistribution. A democracy might decide that it is good for society as a whole to tax and spend its way to a more even society, an ochlocracy is more apt to sieze that which is owned by whoever is currently most unpopular.

Not all populist movements are ochlocratic, but all ochlocratic movements are in some way populist. Is hard to form a public mob without being populist.

Is Trump an outsider? He comes from a wealthy family, obtained an elite education, spent most of his adult life hobnobbing with powerful people in the nation’s wealthiest and most populous city, and was a fixture of celebrity and popular culture since the 1980s.

His only outsider bonafides are that he hadn’t been elected to political office before running. But he started with money, connections, and name recognition.

He really isn't, but he managed to campaign and win as an outsider more or less simply because he didn't act (or speak) like a politician, didn't have political experience and was self-funded.

And for some reason the people who were upset at the globalists and elites and the failures of crony capitalism ate it up.

Plato and aristotle both seemed wary of the mob, and they'd probably concider this "oligarchy" a good thing. But Wealth is probably a bad choice of criterion here

On a related note, Kant and Plato both argue that an enlightened despot or philosopher king is probably the best person to rule...so they more likely would accept a “sophogarchy” or leadership by the wisest, not the wealthiest. Unfortunately, as other thinkers have pointed out, such individuals are also the least likely persons to desire rule or power

Kant and Plato both probably thought that it should be them however, and I wouldn't trust either of them with control of a state.

OTOH, if someone comes out in defense of someone other than themselves to rule, you can most likely write them of as shills.

> today’s American democracy (one of the best versions on the market right now)

Having a choice of two whole parties sure doesn't sound as 'one of the best'. Countless countries have have ten or more parties in their parliaments, meaning there's a much greater chance you can vote for someone decent.

The word "democracy" has apparently changed its meaning in the last few hundred years. A few sources (whose titles I can't recall) state that at the time of the founding of the US, "democracy" meant something more akin to "mob rule."

In other words, not something to embrace, but something to fear. Not a constitutionally-organized experiment in self-determination, but the French Revolution (something that many founders saw as a cautionary tale).

The deep mistrust in direct democracy is on full display in the Constitution itself. Only 1/3 of the Senate is ever up for election at one time. The framers were deeply worried about a "throw the bums out" revolt.

The Electoral College is another example. The framers didn't want a popularity contest that elected a lowbrow pandering to the the crowd's most base instincts. They wanted someone who could appeal to the elite members of the College and who shared their values.

> In other words, not something to embrace, but something to fear

Those were times where strong Kings ruled, of course they would bad-mouth any dangerous idea, and most people went along with that.

Also, in modern times Democracy=Majorito-cracy, while they are not the same thing.

> Ancient Athenian democracy devised two institutions that fleshed out this vision. First, sortition: the appointment of public officials by lot. Given the fundamental equality of rights that all Athenian citizens — that is, free male adults — enjoyed, the most logical means of access to positions of leadership was random selection.

There's an interesting unstated implication here: that all members of Athenian democracy were willing to shoulder their responsibilities to the state and, more importantly, all possessed the knowledge and qualifications to conduct the management of the state. Contrast this with modern democracies where both the wise and the foolish each get one vote on any issue, regardless of whether they possess sufficient understanding to have a valid opinion. It does sound like madness, doesn't it?

It does sound like madness, but any alternative effectively tells the foolish that if they don’t like how things are going then their only choice is to get out the torches and pitchforks.

Many would say that inaction on environmental issues and climate change, to pick an example, by the foolish is already driving the populace toward annihilation. I'm not sure that's really any different a result than the torches and pitchforks.

Action on climate change would impoverish already poor. So the rich liberals can feel better.

I think you are right. It seems to me that the strength of representative democracy doesn't come from be able to choose who will be the leader, but from the possibility of removing that leader from power in a peaceful way.

Looking to history we can see how extraordinary that is.

Right, this is the weird thing about it. A democracy that has been captured by a few powerful groups is still 90% as good as one that hasn’t, as long as the people still believe that peaceful change is possible.

I'm sure many athenians were pretty bad at them and foolish, yet they were not excluded (they did have moral character exclusion laws). That's actually the beauty of sortition in democracy: you need state institutions so well built, that the foolishness of a number of people cannot break it.

Great observation, I cannot recall where I read it at the moment, but I remember reading someone arguing precisely a difference in the individuals relationship to the state is why Athenian democracy seemed to succeed in areas that modern democracy seems to fail. From what I understand, to be an Athenian participating in statecraft meant you’d be willing to go so far as to more or less die for the polis and would always put the needs of the polis before your own. There are a couple of anecdotes about prominent Athenians sacrificing their own gain for the sake of the betterment of Athens. Contrarily, our times are so staunchly individualist I expect that the majority of politicians are not willing to sacrifice much and see their role as little more than a professional occupation—not as an existential gamble for the sake of their constituents.

Democracy in Athens failed because the polis votes to much for themselves. The politicians kept in power by pleasing their constituencies with free stuff. And neglected to maintain an army and navy.

But we can still try. Ideals are not meant to be achieved. We should use them as a compass. If we give up entirely we give free reign to a minority of bullies.

This is a good article. Democracy seems to work well over periods of a relative sense of unity, like after WW2, when the world's nations realized that this is their final borders and these are the final people they 'll live with. I think sortition is a great way to bring to the test any democracy: If you know that your neighbor might be the Judge of you next week, you adjust your life, and demand adjustments of his life, in a way that ends up being more fair for both of you. Unfortunately today's democracy is being used as a tool for one mob to spite another.

The borders after WW2 were nowhere near being final, and it's unlikely that they're final even today.

Agreed, though I think that in everyone's mind, the perceived cost of reshuffling borders once again in Europe had become unbearable considering the devastation and horror of WW2

Yet it still happens - just right out of my head: Ukraine, at least according to some parties, has changed its borders recently and not exactly in a peaceful way; Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore and neither does the Serbia and Montenegro. And, of course, it's way more messy if you go outside of Europe.

It's an illusion not unlike religion. The world has never been really governed by the people, and never will be. Athenian voters were, like the article says, "free males", so about 15%.

Having kings putting most things to a vote of representatives of sub groups, as per the viking tradition, is actually the main lineage of modern state democracies, however.

Some times I even question the emotional values of democracy compared to monarchy. Monarchy .. is probably too easy to derail into half-dictature. But I'm ready to bet 10$ that in normal cases the people have a better sense of purpose.

> Monarchy .. is probably too easy to derail into half-dictature.

Monarchy, where the monarch has actual political power, is a form of dictatorship.

> But I'm ready to bet 10$ that in normal cases the people have a better sense of purpose.

Well, yes, such people do have a "better sense of purpose," in that they lack the freedom to choose a purpose other than serving the aristocracy. Peasants during the French Revolution doubtless knew what their purpose was in no uncertain terms.

The big problem is a democracy relies upon the political process to counter partisanship, which sounds good in theory—people working out their problems together; in practice the political process algorithm has not proved a sufficient immune system to sustain a democracy against the constant stream of forces subverting it for their own ends.

In the US we’ve tried giving more power to the legal system in the hopes it might be enough to save democracy, but that strategy is essentially conservative. It’s not adaptive. A legalistic system can not rise to meet the problems of the present or the challenges of the future.

A democracy, unless exceptional people lead it, can’t seem to overcome its own greed and self-interest. What we need are more exceptional people.

What a weird article. At scale, democracy has never been healthier in the history of the world. More of the world lives in a functioning democracy than ever has. Even in the west, the hold on politics of entities like organized crime is near historic lows.

Democracy fails, like any other system of government, with the centralization of power. If you centralize power then people inherently have to fight over it because it's the only way to have any. If people in California want free public colleges and people in Wyoming want lower taxes, it's possible for them to both have what they want, but not if they can't make different choices from each other. If the same choice has to be made for everyone then you require everyone to fight over which one to make. If you allow different communities to make different choices, and then allow citizens to move freely to the community they want to live in, that's really about the best we can do.

The inherent difficulty is that you need something strong enough to prevent someone else from accumulating centralized power, without that entity itself becoming corrupted and used to impose the will of whoever controls it uniformly on everyone else.

We tried that in the US and failed. The federal government was supposed to be small. "Promote the general welfare" was meant as a restriction on the use of government revenue for private use, not an enumerated power to spend money on anything alleged to be of public benefit. "Interstate commerce" was never intended to be equivalent to all commerce.

But the words on paper failed to resist the combination of a depression and a strongman promising to fix it if only it weren't for all these silly restrictions on centralized power. And they never give the power back even after the crisis is over.

It remains to be seen whether a lock can be forged strong enough to keep central power contained, but the first step today has to be to get it back into its cage to begin with.

This says that democracies never last and they almost never exist in their perfect form. So what forms of government last in their perfect form?

right wing authoritarianism

The problem with Athenian democracy was that there was not enough principles limiting the instant power of the people. Socrates was trying to get Athenians to accept some sense of justice and principles and that seems to be part of the reasons behind his death sentence.

Athenian style democracy, sortition democracy, could work better with the framework of principles in liberal democracy. In small local communities sortition could work with no modification. It has never been tested in very large scale (larger than city state) but I don't see reason why it would not work. Some elected politicians seem to represent the low IQ lobby today.

Socrates was a fascist who hated democracy. His students imposed a noted tyranny on the state of Athens, and his collaboration with that state is why he was sentenced to death later. The only reason we think Socrates is so great is that literally the only surviving texts are from his supporters. Meanwhile texts from the Stoics or Democritus are lost. Its like if the only record of our time was the writing of Henry Kissinger.

Most of what we know about Socrates came from the writings of his student Plato. What is you opinion on why Plato writes that Socrates did not support tyranny?

Plato was supporter of the thirty tyrants led by the first cousin of Plato's mother. Plato also clearly supported of the idea that philosopher kings should rule, so I find it strange that he says Socrates was not supporting tyrants.

Plato was a young man when Socrates died. Imagine a bitter fascist a generation later attempting to keep alive the cult of a noted collaborator put to death for his collaboration. Of course he will say Socrates did not support the tyranny.

I don't follow. Plato was big supporter of the idea of philosophy of philosopher tyranny, but he was so shamed of his own philosophy that did not want Socrates to be associated with it?

No. Plato wanted to present an idealised world ruled by philosophers like himself. He wanted to deny that this world was equivalent to the highly unpopular government that had been imposed on Athens by their nemesis Sparta. That is, he wished to deny that Critias, despite being educated in the manner Plato favored, was a true representative of that philosophy, since the result was so unpopular. This is a position taken by many ideologues, Marxist, capitalist or otherwise, who repudiate the failures of their system in practice - the system fails because it is not "real" Marxism, etc., which can remain forever perfect in theory. In reality it isn't difficult to see the outcome of Plato's philosophy (I am thinking mostly of The Republic) as playing out in real life exactly as the Thirty Tyrants did - a bunch of rich brats raised to think they were wise philosophers visiting their "wisdom" on a captive populace.

Its the old Human Nature argument. There is no definition on what this fabled Human Nature is and I find it incredibly boring to reduce the nature of our species to one aspect of us, most people are selfish from time to time. But if selfishness is what define us, most people would be raging assholes and that does not square with my experience of the world.

Further reading: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/20/human-...

My experience is not that most people are raging assholes. It is that most people are clueless assholes like elephants who aren't aware of the ants they step on until they become "enlightened". I didn't use to think like this. The older I get, the more confused and disappointed I get. At times, I find that I am the clueless asshole. But I still hope that we can and will do better.

People (demos) and power (kratos) tend to not go well together, which is why the US was founded as a democratic Republic with strictly limited power. Many of the founders viewed the state as a necessary evil.

Ben Franklin referred to the US as “A Republic, if you can keep it." I think it’s fair to say we haven’t. Power is no longer viewed as an evil to be restrained, but the solution to our problems.

We need to realize the state is force, and force is rarely the solution to our problems. In most cases it creates more problems than it solves.

Is democracy a form of distributed consensus system? Have philosophers and political scientists made checklists for what to do with various failure modes?

https://medium.com/s/story/lets-take-a-crack-at-understandin...

I dont think it is. Democracy does not rely on consensus, instead the majority rules over the minority. Bitcoin is a consensus. If 49% disagree, they can leave and create a second consensus among themselves, and this action does not somehow burden the 51% or vice-versa. If instead the 51% in a democracy decides to tax the rest, they can't really escape it.

It is a very American perspective assuming democracy is given. A democracy comes from the middle class, it requires a middle class. If that middle class is deteriorating, the democracy will change into something else.

Democracy works if there is an option for a secession, if the part that doesn't agree can branch off into its own thing without bloodshed. The majority would have to find a balance or risk losing that part.

The fundamental feature of democracy is that it gives people a way to address their grievances that doesn’t require violence. This, in turn, provides for peaceful transitions of power and overall political stability.

For democracy to accomplish this does not actually require that it represent the people. It only requires that the people believe that nonviolent change can occur.

Having a democracy that really is representative of the people and can accomplish good things is, of course, very nice to have. But it’s a secondary goal.

This is why I view Trump as much worse than W Bush even though W was objectively worse on most metrics (like people killed for no good reason). For all his faults, W respected the system. Trump’s hints that he wouldn’t accept the outcome of an election he lost are, in the long run, far more dangerous.

This article is moronic. We are supposed to learn about human nature from Leni Riefenstahl, a propagandist whose films were designed to make the Nazis look as good as possible?

You know what is unsustainable? Fascism. Literally. It had no economic program, and it flared out dramatically fighting conflicts with every other country. Its soldiers had to be fueled by methamphetamines to prosecute this war. And on both ends it was bookended by democracy.

>We are supposed to learn about human nature from Leni Riefenstahl, a propagandist whose films were designed to make the Nazis look as good as possible?

We can learn a great deal about human nature and the banality of evil from the Nazis and their propaganda - they weren't aliens or demons after all. Also, a lot of modern cinematography has been influenced by Leni Riefenstahl's techniques.

I agree with you about the unsustainable nature of fascism, but its constant need for plunder and spoil applies just as much to the imperialism of Europe and (to a lesser extent) the US.

I agree we can learn from studying Riefenstahl, and also that the film is amazing, but i deny that we are learning about "human nature", a concept which I generally abhor and which is used to end sociological arguments at a desired point.

My koan about human nature comes from my child, who at 18 months, just barely after talking, was able to sustain the notion of video chat with no real instruction - that is, that the image in the wall that was speaking to him was a person he could interact with. Nothing in the evolutionary background prepared him for this. If there is a "human nature" it is to be pliant to an ever-changing circumstance.

I'm not sure that is exactly how I would describe the Manx.

On populism: "For in regimes of this kind, whenever power is used and displayed, the effect is profoundly erotic."

You bet. I'm off to bed to Google frenetically for "Trump sexy pics".

Update: PAYDIRT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY1kbCQP8Fc

Sure beats the "sexy" pics of the other party.

Democracy falls into the same boat as capitalism. It's a total mess and everyone hates the outcomes but it's by far the least bad system and always will be.

That still leaves a lot of rooms to tweak the details and make it as bearable as possible.

Tweaks like take money out of politics, make votes mandatory, maybe abandon the first-past-the-post system...

(If you can make those tweaks democratically, of course.)

"... and always will be."

Rather short-sighted I think.

In fact I feel we're quite likely to be part of the transition to capitalism's successor, just as feudalism transitioned to capitalism (IMHO, a compromise, still preserving most of the existing powers' unfair property privileges).

Collectivism/communism obviously failed, since it didn't account for individual's desire to be better than everyone else, so lacked individual incentives to innovate etc.

i think "success lifts every boat" policies have also totally failed, as the successful try to detach themselves from everyone else.

Any new system will have to sate arrogant desire and ambition, while still distributing general well-being, and especially, access to our common resources, air, water, land, somewhat equally.

Is for the demons. Democracy is not about freedom nor liberty but depriving minorities to the willingness of a major party. It's about imposing plunder and violence and has always been. You can't deny it. No Orwellian doublespeak should get in the way to hide what it is. Society should stop accepting it as a godsend and understand this is not ally to freedom or respect to private property but quite the opposite.

It's just an old travesty that empowers the worst kind of gang criminals that can force their desires upon us, plunder the poor, and assault innocent people meanwhile they brainwash us to believe it's legit just because the majority agrees with.

The Philosophy of Liberty: Plunder - Frédéric Bastiat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI

Emigration is an option.

Yes, an option for those who doesn't know how to live in peace respecting other people's property rights. They should do the right thing and emigrate to the middle of nowhere in order to not do evil against innocents.

Presenting Exit as the best option for anarchists is pretentious when coming from Democratic States. They have repeatedly attacked attempts to create a free state.

You have smeared me by embellishing my point and calling me pretentious.

You are not the "Democratic State" i was referring to

You should have been more specific as I live in a democratic state and identify with it.

Even if you are a state official and thus part of it, I don't see how it is a smear ? It is true that democratic states have repeatedly dismantled anarchist enclaves and attack anarchist institutions like bitcoin.

So you're an anarchist? What's the alternative under this view?

Yes, indeed. Or just... How about just someone honest who would not enslave another, I guess?

How about respecting people's private property rights? I don't need to be the designer of a whole country (I might even be, if it's something small and peaceful as Liechtenstein) and explain how everything should work. I'm a software engineer. I can work on software efficiently, not city planning or economics. There are lots of theories about "how things would be without democracy" but I don't pick any in particular is the "real deal". Dozen of thousands of small peaceful countries like Liechtenstein that might be formed within the next 500 years is one possibility I believe might happen.

> Yes, indeed. Or just... How about just someone honest who would not enslave another, I guess?

> How about respecting people's private property rights?

In an ideal society, we wouldn't need laws. What happens in your society when someone doesn't respect private property rights? Who enforces those rights? How are they selected?

So you're a libertarian, I am to understand?

Yes. Or just liberal (if you're not in the United States - left-wings "robbed" the liberal word there long ago - to sell itself as people that praises liberty just to hide their real communist intentions).

> Democracy is not about freedom nor liberty

Obviously. Democracy contains Kratos (=power to rule) so it's against unlimited liberty, but also it dilutes the power to a lot of people so it seems to be a stable way for people who are statist-minded to be ruled.

The author does not claim that Democracy is for freedom, quite the contrary:

> It doesn’t help matters that, once such an individual has been enthroned, others are only too eager to submit to him. It is as though, in his illustrious presence, they realize they have too much freedom on their hands, which they find suddenly oppressive

2edgy4me

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com