So your argument is what, Ukraine should be absorbed because the majority of the Ukraine-Russia say so since the majority of the people in that land mass say they're the same country and the majority also agree that country is Russia?
I don't want to live in your dystopia. Your thesis is that if you just submit to the mob, violence could be less. I don't find life to be an optimization for the least amount of confrontation. I have never asserted my view of the world guarantees no violence. What you have to offer is basically well the same thing could happen to you as happened to a fraction of these other people unless of course you just submit to the mob.
>I do wonder where you imagine all these disenfranchised minorities are expected to flee to in order to establish their independent nations or whatever. There’s literally no unclaimed land on the Earth aside from Antarctica. Are they going to flee to extremely undesirable areas of their existing country and hope the originating country just doesn’t care enough to stop them? Are they going to break away and take valuable land with them? It’s pretty rare for part of a nation to successfully cleave itself away. Even more rare without a massive war.
This applies to any form of human organization. If every country were feudal you could argue democracy was broken because there is no place where it could be practiced. It's not an argument that's able to contrast the two. No matter what form of governance or organization people lived under, their option is either to wait for a vacuum to emerge, to engage in war, to negotiate, or to simply ignore those in power and wait to see what happens -- the same would apply in forming monopolistic democracy where it doesn't exist.
No. My argument there was that your “we can just live like a bunch of independent tribes and no one will interfere if we can get rid of that pesky central government” idea is not based in reality. We have seen that underpowered minority groups get frequently trampled.
I certainly did not say minorities should submit to the mob. You keep inventing imaginary things for me to have said.
> you could argue democracy was broken because there is no place where it could be practiced
No. You literally said “the minority can run away and work under their own system of law” and I am asking you where in your hypothetical system they could run to.
At the end of the day, you’re falling for a variant of the politician’s fallacy. You see the flaws in the current systems of government and say, okay, here’s a different system. We should do that. But the fact that your system is different does not mean it is better.
Indeed your system is basically just the existing system scaled down with all the same exact issues that arise because humans are flawed, just without the benefit of the centuries of work that have been put into trying to make our current governmental bodies manageable.
You don’t actually get to live your own rules just because you hypothetically run away to live with roughly like-minded folks. The first thing any community does is establish rules. They establish rules that everyone in the community has to follow because the alternative is that bad actors prey on the group from the inside. They restrict your freedoms to protect the group. And sometimes their rules go too far for one person and not far enough for another. Welcome to government. And sure, you can hypothetically go find unclaimed land and start a one man nation with only your rules. Good luck with that.
Your “minorities banding together” to counter the majority is also just more centralized government. Welcome to the European Union. Welcome to these United States. Again, you’ve discovered an existing (reasonably) successful form of government.
Bluntly, you confuse your naïveté with insight. Just because ideas are new to you or you do not recognize them in the existent world does not mean they are actually new.
Could we hypothetically dissolve the USA and create a bunch of feudal territories that operate independently but trade with each other and establish a set of rules for interacting and courts that manage disputes? Sure. We call those things states.
Post-Trump, I’ve been noting accounts with unhinged and hateful opinions, auto-flagging and downvoting whenever I see them around, and getting on with my life. (Or aspiring to, anyway.) Yelling at people who are aggressively wrong on the internet is hardly worth my time: there’s too many of them and they never change their mind. But perhaps I can make them feel unwelcome and cause them to leave.
I try really hard to assume good intentions and take the most charitable interpretation which leads me at times to engage with people like this. I need to recalibrate.
The most charitable interpretation sometimes is that the person is trolling rather than crazy and willfully misinformed.
OK so you're simply in bad faith lying about the consequences of what you're arguing for. You argument is the one for Taiwan to be absorbed by China and for Ukraine to be absorbed by Russia.
>I certainly did not say minorities should submit to the mob. You keep inventing imaginary things for me to have said.
Yes that is what you have said. That's what democracy is, if the majority say the minority have to do something they must submit. Otherwise the means of government are used against them, usually that's violence, and usually if that is resisted it ends up being escalated until the most violent forms of violence are used. Of course this can still happen under other forms of law, but in democracy it's actually considered legitimate and the populace is actually conned into thinking that's true and they've collectively done it to themselves. Under monopolistic democracy, if you can't make the minority submit to the vote of the majority you simply have a failed democracy.
>>“we can just live like a bunch of independent tribes and no one will interfere if we can get rid of that pesky central government” idea is not based in reality. We have seen that underpowered minority groups get frequently trampled.
Strawman. And under any form of governance, interference still ends up happening.
>No. You literally said “the minority can run away and work under their own system of law” and I am asking you where in your hypothetical system they could run to.
Under polycentric law you don't physically run away. You run away into a new system of law.
>Bluntly, you confuse your naïveté with insight. Just because ideas are new to you or you do not recognize them in the existent world does not mean they are actually new.
I'm naïve but apparently up until now you still haven't figured out that you don't need to claim a new territory to adopt a new system of law in a polycentric law society. The fact you don't understand you didn't have to physically run away means you had no idea what you were even arguing against. And your naïveté about the application of democracy means you have no idea what you were even arguing for. You are stuck in the notion of a geographic monopoly of government, which is why you assumed if not democracy the only other option is a dictatorship while ignoring historically that hasn't even been universally true let alone in theory.
> You’re just a white supremacist. You want a white dictator
I want to close with these thoughts here. You're not arguing in good faith. You have, before any of this, publicly declared I'm a white supremacist who wants a white dictator. Maybe because I disagreed with your politics or maybe because I disagreed with an innocent wife with a child in her arms being sniped by an agent of the state after we the people thought the husband cut a barrel 1/4" shorter than what the glorious people think the right to bear arms includes and he didn't show up on time for the thing he was actually found innocent of (tellingly, you were very concerned about Weaver's possibility of being a racist but not at all about the state murdering a wife). I've been incredibly, incredibly kind and understanding despite the vitriol you've said about me. So please understand when I won't entertain this bad faith further.
I don't want to live in your dystopia. Your thesis is that if you just submit to the mob, violence could be less. I don't find life to be an optimization for the least amount of confrontation. I have never asserted my view of the world guarantees no violence. What you have to offer is basically well the same thing could happen to you as happened to a fraction of these other people unless of course you just submit to the mob.
>I do wonder where you imagine all these disenfranchised minorities are expected to flee to in order to establish their independent nations or whatever. There’s literally no unclaimed land on the Earth aside from Antarctica. Are they going to flee to extremely undesirable areas of their existing country and hope the originating country just doesn’t care enough to stop them? Are they going to break away and take valuable land with them? It’s pretty rare for part of a nation to successfully cleave itself away. Even more rare without a massive war.
This applies to any form of human organization. If every country were feudal you could argue democracy was broken because there is no place where it could be practiced. It's not an argument that's able to contrast the two. No matter what form of governance or organization people lived under, their option is either to wait for a vacuum to emerge, to engage in war, to negotiate, or to simply ignore those in power and wait to see what happens -- the same would apply in forming monopolistic democracy where it doesn't exist.