Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Do you like democracy?
Thread: Do you like democracy? This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 14, 2014 10:24 PM

Fauch said:
xerox said:
Lately, I've come to the conclusion that I'm morally opposed to democracy.

aren't you member of a party and interested in a political career? that would be enough to explain why you are opposed to democracy.

Quote:
Strictly spoken, politics is just one power aspect of society, the other is economics. Now, the economically powerful have of course an interest in decentralizing POLITICAL power.
That's why democracy is the governing system of capitalism. It's ideally suited, because it combines a couple of factors.


I think we have a different vision of things, I'm under the impression on the contrary, that the economically powerful want a centralized political power, and it's even better if it's dominated by only one or a few parties, because that makes it much easier to influence or bribe them into getting what you want. think of all the gifts that big companies receive from governments, apparently with few counterparts.

why would they want to risk a real democracy, where everyone holds the same power and they would have to convince a majority to go their way instead of only the oligarchy?
where people in position of responsibility would be under control, so it would be hard to bribe them?
where there are no parties, which can be easily targetted and manipulated?

moreover, I doubt it's possible to have economically powerful people and democracy at the same time. the wealth gap would turn any democracy into a plutocracy. you can not say that the guy who works 10h a day to be able to eat, and the one who makes billions because others work for him have an equal political power.
No, no, you misunderstand that. ECONOMIC power is ever more centralized, that's the "law" of capitalism. However - political centralization, say, a dictatorship, may trump that.
So consequentially, a democracy, where political power basically dissipates between a very short term of "administration" - not GOVERNMENT or even RULERSHIP - and the fact that elections basically look good and not more.

You'd think, for example, that in a democracy, if a majority of the people would want a certain something, it should be done, but that's obviously not the case, since "Democracy" is basically fraudulent labeling - or maybe just touting more than it is, because you cannot vote for anything you want, but only for a "bundle". Modern Democracy works like business - you need money to tout your ideas, and guess who has that money?

So, basically there IS NO democracy - we already HAVE that: look at the internet: we could ask everyone for everything, but we would just get the same idiotic mediocricy we have now, including all mechanissms working in economics and advertisement. Or, more correctly, a democracy can only be so good as their members and voters are clever.
Which is the tric: Dissipation of political power into powerlessness to change the game rules for the really important stuff.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 14, 2014 10:25 PM

lol @ people still trying to slap names on specific political affiliations/ideals. yeah. keep everything categorized and seperated.

as soon as you name something, you can discredit it. just like any "conspiracy".

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 14, 2014 10:27 PM

JJ, do you have a fundamentally different alternative?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aron
Aron


Known Hero
posted April 14, 2014 10:28 PM

JollyJoker said:
Fauch said:
xerox said:
Lately, I've come to the conclusion that I'm morally opposed to democracy.

aren't you member of a party and interested in a political career? that would be enough to explain why you are opposed to democracy.

Quote:
Strictly spoken, politics is just one power aspect of society, the other is economics. Now, the economically powerful have of course an interest in decentralizing POLITICAL power.
That's why democracy is the governing system of capitalism. It's ideally suited, because it combines a couple of factors.


I think we have a different vision of things, I'm under the impression on the contrary, that the economically powerful want a centralized political power, and it's even better if it's dominated by only one or a few parties, because that makes it much easier to influence or bribe them into getting what you want. think of all the gifts that big companies receive from governments, apparently with few counterparts.

why would they want to risk a real democracy, where everyone holds the same power and they would have to convince a majority to go their way instead of only the oligarchy?
where people in position of responsibility would be under control, so it would be hard to bribe them?
where there are no parties, which can be easily targetted and manipulated?

moreover, I doubt it's possible to have economically powerful people and democracy at the same time. the wealth gap would turn any democracy into a plutocracy. you can not say that the guy who works 10h a day to be able to eat, and the one who makes billions because others work for him have an equal political power.
No, no, you misunderstand that. ECONOMIC power is ever more centralized, that's the "law" of capitalism. However - political centralization, say, a dictatorship, may trump that.
So consequentially, a democracy, where political power basically dissipates between a very short term of "administration" - not GOVERNMENT or even RULERSHIP - and the fact that elections basically look good and not more.

You'd think, for example, that in a democracy, if a majority of the people would want a certain something, it should be done, but that's obviously not the case, since "Democracy" is basically fraudulent labeling - or maybe just touting more than it is, because you cannot vote for anything you want, but only for a "bundle". Modern Democracy works like business - you need money to tout your ideas, and guess who has that money?

So, basically there IS NO democracy - we already HAVE that: look at the internet: we could ask everyone for everything, but we would just get the same idiotic mediocricy we have now, including all mechanissms working in economics and advertisement. Or, more correctly, a democracy can only be so good as their members and voters are clever.
Which is the tric: Dissipation of political power into powerlessness to change the game rules for the really important stuff.



Gotta say that what I think you are talking about here is not the system of politics or its degree of centralization but the strength of political power.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aron
Aron


Known Hero
posted April 14, 2014 10:32 PM

fred79 said:
lol @ people still trying to slap names on specific political affiliations/ideals. yeah. keep everything categorized and seperated.

as soon as you name something, you can discredit it. just like any "conspiracy".


That's the strength of todays bland short-term democracy. There is nothing to discredit, there is no vision, there is no goal. If I would label it anything I would label it ultra-reactionary.

Various systems in place such as direct contact and exchange with citizens and institutions such as the House of Lords create some sort of  fluidity and stability from a progressive and conservative perspective but having the entire debate centered on how to deal with a crisis, with a crime problem, with percentages of taxes and the complete unreability of political platforms today creates a ghost no sword can stab.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 14, 2014 10:38 PM

JollyJoker said:

No, no, you misunderstand that. ECONOMIC power is ever more centralized, that's the "law" of capitalism. However - political centralization, say, a dictatorship, may trump that.
So consequentially, a democracy, where political power basically dissipates between a very short term of "administration" - not GOVERNMENT or even RULERSHIP - and the fact that elections basically look good and not more.

You'd think, for example, that in a democracy, if a majority of the people would want a certain something, it should be done, but that's obviously not the case, since "Democracy" is basically fraudulent labeling - or maybe just touting more than it is, because you cannot vote for anything you want, but only for a "bundle". Modern Democracy works like business - you need money to tout your ideas, and guess who has that money?

So, basically there IS NO democracy - we already HAVE that: look at the internet: we could ask everyone for everything, but we would just get the same idiotic mediocricy we have now, including all mechanissms working in economics and advertisement. Or, more correctly, a democracy can only be so good as their members and voters are clever.
Which is the tric: Dissipation of political power into powerlessness to change the game rules for the really important stuff.


oh, you actually meant fake democracy?
isn't the dictatorship exactly what they want? as long as they get to choose the dictator of course. it is known that in EU, voting is near useless. national leaders barely have any power anymore, everything is decided by the european commission, who are people designed by powerful companies, but that actually makes power even more centralized. and it's much easier to bribe, manipulate and control one commission, than multiple governments.

yeah, voting for a program isn't democracy. it's like subprimes, shiny on the exterior and rotten inside. a way to trick people in accepting things they would normally never accept.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bloodsucker
bloodsucker


Legendary Hero
posted April 15, 2014 01:36 AM
Edited by bloodsucker at 01:42, 15 Apr 2014.

I don't like democracy that much but is better then to be ruled by someone else based on his divine rights.
Now, if it was for all of you to be ruled by me based on My Divine Right, then my opinion could change.

That is one of the reasons I like Heroes so much. I the end I get my legitimacy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted April 15, 2014 02:24 AM
Edited by Baklava at 02:26, 15 Apr 2014.

As my new good friend Aron has focused on a lot of what would traditionally fall to me to argue for, I can concentrate on another thing I find interesting.

mvassilev said:
Then what does "right" even mean, if the strongest is permitted to do what he wants?
...
Something being seen as legitimate doesn't mean it's actually legitimate. People thought slavery was okay. They were wrong.

Doesn't "permitted" necessitate someone or something strong enough to allow or disallow you to do it? Doesn't something being legitimate require something to legitimize it?

I never quite understood your concepts of said ethical permittance, legitimacy or right and wrong, taking into account the level of materialism you subscribe to, mate. It always seemed too... well, distant from the basic strong/weak or larger/smaller scale of - well - nature. Physics. In a non-spiritual, atheist world, the only rights you have are those that you can protect. Other people, such as the police, helping you to protect these rights simply denote a measure of force that outshines that of criminals. This is because of the social contract we used to talk about, yeah, but the social contract's there as a protective alliance that's still a matter of force. If cows or corn could protect their right to live, either through force (on their own) or enough mental advancement to accept the obligations of sentient social contracts (where someone would protect them), they wouldn't be eaten. There is no intrinsic right and wrong here. If someone is stronger than the social contract, he rewrites it so that it suits him, unless someone can successfully take him down. I understand the social contract evolving throughout history, but what makes it inherently wrong for it to "devolve" - back towards slavery, for example? Actually, it arguably can't devolve, but simply evolve in a different direction, right?

If rights are there to ensure the basic means for every man to pursue his own life and happiness, that's a deal inside a social contract. What is there that is intrinsically evil about me absolutely infringing on anyone's happiness to increase my own if there's no one that can stop me from doing so?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted April 15, 2014 02:36 AM

Yes, "devolve" presumes a quality or value judgment, where "evolve", doesn't (in a biological context anyway).
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 15, 2014 03:18 AM
Edited by artu at 03:22, 15 Apr 2014.

That's a very flawed argument Bak, since it assumes when you put in God (or any other kind of super natural entity) in the mix, everything is fixed. But since your God never comes down and does the dirty work himself, all of the things you mentioned above also counts for theistic claims of value also. Only this time, the argument becomes who interprets God's values correctly and when, which is no different than all the issues you presented. So the argument is not more sophisticated than the argument of "how did things begin to exist from nothing/then how about God/oh, that question doesn't apply to God, he always existed" Which is absolutely saying nothing, since if the issue everything must have a beginning makes sense, it's because it applies to everything and therefore must also apply to God. The rest is just theological eye-candy to avoid the question. (We can even say assuming a personality existed out of nothing is much more presumptuous than assuming a simple, yet undiscovered natural law caused the first simpler elements to form by themselves.)

Anyway, I can simply say if cows had achieved the abstraction level we did, they would invent a cow god that presents them with innate rights and values, which of course strictly forbids them being eaten, so to speak. And we have quite the track of how moral values developed and changed during history according to conditions and infrastructure of peoples, so this is not a matter of if, it's basically plain observation. So, how can we base our morality on a solid, never-changing ground without God, has a simple answer: You can't. And when you compare even a frame of 500 years of humans, you see that you literally can't. But as mentioned before many times by both mvass and me in various threads, socially constructed does not mean completely arbitrary or random, it does not make anything less valuable either.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted April 15, 2014 03:25 AM
Edited by Baklava at 03:28, 15 Apr 2014.

Regardless of what I might reply to that, Arch (can I call you Arch? I'll call you Arch), God is not what I'm focusing here and my question stands without any mention of him or any other opposite of non-spiritual atheism. This isn't a discussion about theism, but the MVass (and Arch as well, if you will) school of materialist philosophy. I'm simply interested in where all the seemingly immaterial notions incorporated therein come from.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 15, 2014 03:29 AM

Arch means something bad in Serbian, doesn't it

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted April 15, 2014 03:37 AM

Just short for Archibald.
Honest.
It makes it easier for me to visualize you as an intelligent dog-shaped robot accompanying me as I travel across the stars and bang superhot alien chicks.

You would be surprised at the depictions of you people I have in my head while talking to you.

You don't think I'd be spending all this time in the OSM without some way of spicing it up, do you.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 15, 2014 03:46 AM

Btw, one last thing, yes, you didn't directly mentioned God but saying
Quote:
In a non-spiritual, atheist world, the only rights you have are those that you can protect.

indicates that theistic people live in another kind of world, and they all agree on what is right in full detail so no one has to protect anything, which is, of course, not the case. So, I didn't just drop God out of nowhere, in my reply.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 15, 2014 03:46 AM

Baklava said:

You would be surprised at the depictions of you people I have in my head while talking to you.


you should create a thread for that. so everyone can chip in.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 15, 2014 03:54 AM
Edited by xerox at 03:59, 15 Apr 2014.

Baklava said:
Regardless of what I might reply to that, Arch (can I call you Arch? I'll call you Arch), God is not what I'm focusing here and my question stands without any mention of him or any other opposite of non-spiritual atheism. This isn't a discussion about theism, but the MVass (and Arch as well, if you will) school of materialist philosophy. I'm simply interested in where all the seemingly immaterial notions incorporated therein come from.


Well, John Locke thought natural rights came from God, so there's that. I personally do not subscribe to the idea of natural rights, I find the concept to be theological and thus ridiculous. Instead, I recognize that yes, the belief in humans having individual rights that can not be sold for a vote is a social construct, but unlike say extreme nationalism, which is also constructed, it's a good social construct. Why is it good? For me, the highest value is happiness but since I can not possibly not what makes everyone happy, I support the idea of each individual being free to pursue his or her goals. That's liberty, and liberty requires people having rights.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
seraphim
seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted April 15, 2014 04:53 AM

mvassilev said:
seraphim said:
The same question, what does legitimacy even mean?
For an act to be legitimate, the agent performing it has to have the right to do it. Rights are determined by morality.


And morality evoloves. A right is nothing more than a belief between members of a society enforced by the guys with the biggest guns.
If the guys with the biggest guns decide slavery is ok, despite popular belief being against that, then the guys with bigger guns can expect some protests or dissent.

All I am trying to say is the legitimacy or rights are just an apparent agreement or belief of the members of a society, enforced by laws.


In a a totally anarchic world, there would be no laws, except the unwritten law of the guys with the biggest guns.
Legitimacy, rights is just a belief of a bunch of people.

What you believe is illegitimate, is legitimate somewhere else. What you believe is a right, is not a right somewhere else.

As for the subject at hand, democracy is flawed just like communism is flawed, becaue it pretende that everybody is equal. Some people are more equal than others...
Democracy is not the rule of the majority, but the rule of the wealthy over the less wealthy.

I believe that it is human nature to respect or envy something above it, while disrespect something below its status. All govering systemss lead inevitably to inequality and corruption.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 15, 2014 05:46 AM
Edited by mvassilev at 06:23, 15 Apr 2014.

Bak, sure, there's no intrinsic right and wrong, but that's far from the same as no right and wrong altogether. I was unclear in my dismissal of "might makes right", so I should clarify. Rights are indeed a social construct, but that doesn't mean they're arbitrary or that anything that people agree to be rights are rights. It's true that cows don't have rights because we humans have no reason to restrict ourselves in our dealings with them - and that's an example of people agreeing to call something a "right" not making it an actual right. Why would people agree to restrict themselves in their dealings with cows? I can think of two reasons. First, they could be mistaken about the nature of interactions with cows - they could think that they have something to gain from restricting themselves in their dealings with them. This would be an empirical factual error that would lead to a moral error. The second and more likely reason would be that people would think that rights are not based on advantageous self-restriction, and thus not decide to restrict themselves purely on the grounds of whether it's beneficial for them. This would be a purely moral error. In short, not everything people agree are rights are actually rights, because they could be restricting themselves based on erroneous beliefs (whether moral or purely empirical). The ideal set of agreed-upon self-restrictions are called "rights". So, because it's agreed-upon*, it's socially constructed, but because they're ideal, there can be social constructions that are referred to as rights that aren't actually rights.

So, this is why animals don't have rights. What about people? While a hypothetical ultra-powerful person would find it in their interest not to restrict themselves in their dealings with people, this is not the case for actually existing people. People in general are capable of being a threat to each other. Thus, for them it is advantageous to restrict themselves in their dealings with each other, and to see others do the same - we're all more prosperous if we don't have to worry about getting shot or robbed.

I hope that answered your question. I'd be happy to elaborate.

*More precisely, it doesn't have to be actually agreed-upon, it only has to be the case that agreeing to them would be in the agent's self-interest.

Edit: "Permitted" in this context refers to permission by moral law, which is derived as described above.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aron
Aron


Known Hero
posted April 15, 2014 07:26 AM
Edited by Aron at 07:40, 15 Apr 2014.

It's funny cause I was making a more serious reply where I answered the general evolution of this discussion where I correctly guessed the various individuals replies and then the answers.

I didn't post it cause it's not worth it

edit: Why am I posting this? To show how much of a smartass I am?
No.
The debate is pointless insofar that people don't understand relativism and discuss from their perspective.

Legitimacy her becomes an excuse just like in the slavery example. You just don't understand that because you are now relative (wordplay) and your opinions the norm.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 15, 2014 07:43 AM

Aron said:

Gotta say that what I think you are talking about here is not the system of politics or its degree of centralization but the strength of political power.
Which is underlying it, because if politics is fundamentally powerless, it's also meaningless. Politics do have a purpose, and for that power is needed. A political system must be able to fulfill its purpose, otherwise it's just a plaything.

@ artu
I wasn't really joking about Colossus. Look, we depend on machines, processors, computers, the internet and software in general - these elements are ruling our lives. It's NOT humans who are behind the steering wheel any longer. A modern airliner? Human Captains? Micro surgery? Business predictions? Everything is basically about applied mathematics and let machines do the calculation work.
At this point I could imagine an ADMINISTRATION - keep in mind, that this is basically what we are talking about - largely run by computer (programs), which leads to two central questions:
1) Which programming
2) Security (the hacking problem)

Point 1) is pretty interesting as such. You can compare it with the task to write an AI for a complex game simulation. Which means, it's something like a manual for how to do public administrational work. Even as a project this would be not only a massive, but also a probably pretty enlightening thing to start, because in the course of it people would have to somehow define and formulate the tenets of political leadership in a very practical way.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0830 seconds