View Single Post
  #17  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:41 PM
Helo's Avatar
Helo Helo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
Anarchy doesn't eliminate power imbalances, it just changed the criteria for having power. Ultimately, it results in weaker people being dominated by stronger people, with all kinds of definitions for strength (e.g. physical, charismatic.)
In the colloquial definition of anarchy, yes. That definition is also incorrect; anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of rules. Rules are enforced by the community and the emphasis is on freedom of choice, equality, and destruction of hierarchy. That's a somewhat overly-simplistic idea but you get the general idea.

Quote:
Ideally, that's the whole point of democracy: to put the power into the hands of the masses. Of course, in practice, it doesn't work out that way. I personally blame capitalism for that, but that's just my bias. Under capitalism, money is the ultimate power; it can purchase every other form (except a unified working class, fingers crossed.)
Democratic ideas are great, democracy not so much. A democracy is essentially an organized form of mob rule with no real mechanism to stop the masses from turning on whoever they please. And because we have so many people to worry about, direct democracy is not viable and thus we must turn to representative democracy.

I need not waste time outlining the problems with that particular system.
__________________
=DISCLAIMER=
I am as direct as a T-Rex with 'roid rage and about as subtle. It isn't intended to cause upset, I just prefer to talk plain. There are plenty of other people here who do the nice, polite thing much better than I can. I'm what you'd call a "problem dinner guest."
Reply With Quote