Challenge to Ajax and Subgenius

[ajax18]

You're right. Democracy isn't freedom and never has been in an absolute sense. Little "d" democracy is instead about equality of opportunity, nothing more and nothing less. Your vote, my vote are just two relatively equal votes. Your access to public goods and my access to public goods are ideally means for us to rise above the class-based oppression and subjugation that shackled and still shackles most of humanity to a destiny written in stone at their birth into a given class. And through that realize our potential. Our contribution to ensuring those public goods is an expression of civic belief in the hope that is democracy. The return on that investment is in the society it enables.

Democracy has never been a guarantee of unrestrained behavior and will. In fact, democracy is fragile. It depends on each generation to recommit to it for it to survive.

Democracy can easily turn to mob rule. Conversely, entitlement can easily lead to disgust with the results of democratic actions. We saw Democrats in 2016 be disgusted with the institutions of our republic and we see violence and attempts at sedition to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to thwart those same democratic institutions this last week by some supporters of Donald Trump. Neither represents an understanding of what our system of government requires. Nor do such responses acknowledge the fragility of democracy.

Democracy isn't freedom because unfettered freedom isn't democratic. Anarchy isn't democratic. Left unrestrained by something greater, there are always those in power and those subjected to the powerful. Democracy is an attempt to create space for humanity through higher principles and institutuonal strength to break that paradigm of tyranny and somehow rise above it. And it is a covenant of sorts rather than a right.

Honorentheos would you say that if the majority chooses communism that this is democracy. To me this is democracy but it's not liberty.

[honorentheos]

You're right. Democracy isn't freedom and never has been in an absolute sense. Little "d" democracy is instead about equality of opportunity, nothing more and nothing less. Your vote, my vote are just two relatively equal votes. Your access to public goods and my access to public goods are ideally means for us to rise above the class-based oppression and subjugation that shackled and still shackles most of humanity to a destiny written in stone at their birth into a given class. And through that realize our potential. Our contribution to ensuring those public goods is an expression of civic belief in the hope that is democracy. The return on that investment is in the society it enables.

Democracy has never been a guarantee of unrestrained behavior and will. In fact, democracy is fragile. It depends on each generation to recommit to it for it to survive.

Democracy can easily turn to mob rule. Conversely, entitlement can easily lead to disgust with the results of democratic actions. We saw Democrats in 2016 be disgusted with the institutions of our republic and we see violence and attempts at sedition to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to thwart those same democratic institutions this last week by some supporters of Donald Trump. Neither represents an understanding of what our system of government requires. Nor do such responses acknowledge the fragility of democracy.

Democracy isn't freedom because unfettered freedom isn't democratic. Anarchy isn't democratic. Left unrestrained by something greater, there are always those in power and those subjected to the powerful. Democracy is an attempt to create space for humanity through higher principles and institutuonal strength to break that paradigm of tyranny and somehow rise above it. And it is a covenant of sorts rather than a right.

Honorentheos would you say that if the majority chooses communism that this is democracy. To me this is democracy but it's not liberty.

Ajax you can answer that yourself by just reading and understanding what I said. Please.

I assume you just wanted to skip what I said and go to the belief the majority of Americans voted for communism but it's very disrespectful to simply ignore the point as presented. It's the message board equivalent of waiting for someone who is taking to finish so you can start talking.

[ajax18]

Democracy is an attempt to create space for humanity through higher principles and institutuonal strength to break that paradigm of tyranny and somehow rise above it.

What are those higher principles to you exactly?

And it is a covenant of sorts rather than a right.

Meaning that if you're a convicted felon you can't vote? I guess we don't have to go to war or even work and pay taxes to vote now so to me those covenants are gone. I understand that there are safeguards that slow down the law to hold back a tyrannical from oppressing it's fellow citizens immediately. But that only lasts for so long. Ultimately democracy is still just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner and nothing morally better.

[honorentheos]

Democracy is an attempt to create space for humanity through higher principles and institutuonal strength to break that paradigm of tyranny and somehow rise above it.

What are those higher principles to you exactly?

And it is a covenant of sorts rather than a right.

Meaning that if you're a convicted felon you can't vote? I guess we don't have to go to war or even work and pay taxes to vote now so to me those covenants are gone. I understand that there are safeguards that slow down the law to hold back a tyrannical from oppressing it's fellow citizens immediately. But that only lasts for so long. Ultimately democracy is still just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner and nothing morally better.

Right now I think you see American politics sitting on a single axis. One side is the side you occupy, the other side contains the opposition. And most of us recognize this same axis exists. We can use whatever terms one wishes to define them - left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. You may see it being shifted and only include those who support Donald Trump and those who don't. You're not the only one who does this, and I've made the case on this board multiple times there is a problem with some who identify as occupying the other side from you as focusing on the single axis of political identity.

But what I comment on above requires seeing things with at least a second axis that makes quadrants rather than sides. This other axis I would describe as democratic and undemocratic, with a small "d". And there are people who identify as being on the same side of the left/right line you might identify yourself as occupying that you recognize don't share your position and even seem opposed to it. People like Mitt Romney for example, or the Governor and AG of Georgia, or the many conservative judges who ruled against the claims Trump's campaign filed in an attempt to undermine the results of a democratic election and install the losing incumbent as President.

And that's where I think you are not seeing this as it really is because to assume only one axis is a bit like trying to comprehend a 3D world from a 2D only perspective.

Some of the most heroic people the last few months were on the conservative/right side of that particular axis. It takes courage, and a commitment to democracy, to the principles on which our nation was founded to stand up in defense of those principles when one's party loyalty is being harshly questioned. And just because a person is on the right side of seeing what Trump did as being a threat to our democracy doesn't mean they are on the pro-democracy side of the other axis. Being on that side includes principled beliefs such as a belief in due process, in the sanctity of democratic institutions, in the idea that the results of an election ought to be honored even when one doesn't like those results.

[ajax18]

in the idea that the results of an election ought to be honored even when one doesn't like those results.

I agree that the results of an election should be honored even when your candidate doesn't win. And from what I am allowed to see, the Trump legal team did not present sufficient proof of voter fraud.

But it's not a lie to say that partisan poll watchers were kicked out or pushed so far away they couldn't possibly observe what was really happening.

Either way, democracy is not freedom. As Gadianton pointed out, you don't really own your house or your paycheck. The government owns that. If your fellow citizens decide they want strip you of your property and send you to Siberia, that's still democracy. And I don't really see anything noble or worthy of preservation in that.

[Res Ipsa]

Democracy is not intended to mean freedom. It’s a method of establishing the rules of society. Unless Ajax is an anarchist, his mythical land of Ajaxland will require rules. Although he’s fixated on theoretically possible but hyper extreme outcomes in a democracy, he’s never told us how the rules are determined in Ajaxland.

Let’s take the case of houses. What is it that makes Ajax’s house “his?” Why can’t a mob of his fellow Ajaxlanders just beat the crap out of him and throw him out?

Rules. But who makes the rules in Ajaxland?

Is Ajax more free or less free if there are no rules? How about the moon. Are they more free or less free?

Wouldn’t a rule that says “everyone gets to live wherever they want” maximize freedom for all? So, isn’t private property tyranny? In Ajaxland, will there be private property and what bundle of rights will come along with property ownership. And who gets to decide?

Ajax is not making a principled argument against democracy. He’s being a toddler throwing a fit because he’s not getting his way.

[Gunnar]

Ajax is not making a principled argument against democracy. He’s being a toddler throwing a fit because he’s not getting his way.

Exactly! That is the most apt description I have seen of both Ajax and his idol, Trump.

[Moksha]

If only the Trump supporters could be raptured. They would-be ecstatic floating around with Trump in the hereafter, listening to his stories of being the best, the brightest, and the most desired being in the known galaxies.

Back on earth, the survivors would feel the collective IQ being raised with the absence of the raptured, and the vanished threat of right-wing violence.

[honorentheos]

Right now I think you see American politics sitting on a single axis. One side is the side you occupy, the other side contains the opposition. And most of us recognize this same axis exists. We can use whatever terms one wishes to define them - left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. You may see it being shifted and only include those who support Donald Trump and those who don't. You're not the only one who does this, and I've made the case on this board multiple times there is a problem with some who identify as occupying the other side from you as focusing on the single axis of political identity.

But what I comment on above requires seeing things with at least a second axis that makes quadrants rather than sides. This other axis I would describe as democratic and undemocratic, with a small "d". And there are people who identify as being on the same side of the left/right line you might identify yourself as occupying that you recognize don't share your position and even seem opposed to it. People like Mitt Romney for example, or the Governor and AG of Georgia, or the many conservative judges who ruled against the claims Trump's campaign filed in an attempt to undermine the results of a democratic election and install the losing incumbent as President.

And that's where I think you are not seeing this as it really is because to assume only one axis is a bit like trying to comprehend a 3D world from a 2D only perspective.

Some of the most heroic people the last few months were on the conservative/right side of that particular axis. It takes courage, and a commitment to democracy, to the principles on which our nation was founded to stand up in defense of those principles when one's party loyalty is being harshly questioned. And just because a person is on the right side of seeing what Trump did as being a threat to our democracy doesn't mean they are on the pro-democracy side of the other axis. Being on that side includes principled beliefs such as a belief in due process, in the sanctity of democratic institutions, in the idea that the results of an election ought to be honored even when one doesn't like those results.

Leading up to the 6th, I had spent more time on social media discussing the fraud claims with others than I had spent in years. The claims of fraud seemed pernicious enough to require taking a public stand as well as engaging others in discussion who disagreed. I really appreciated the efforts of Res Ipsa and others in compiling information as it either helped make it easily accessible or, at a min, made it clear it was out there to be found so I had good ideas of where to find court cases or other filings if needed. Admittedly, most of that effort didn't result in changed minds, but it was interesting to see people want to engage, to show that their belief in the fraud claims was supported, and then have to react to additional information that called that into question. I don't think that happened often for most people with whom I was engaging.

During that time, I found that people usually started with aggressive but largely vacuous assertions. And then as the discussions advanced, the aggressive tone would soften as the focus shifted to the content and evidence. I took from it that being assertive with a detached tone with a focus on evidence helped move the discussion.

After the seditious assault on the Capital Building, I shifted my behavior and made a point to respond directly to every single friend or contact who posted something dismissive of the sedition or attempted to argue it was no different from what others had done on the left. It was time consuming, but it felt necessary to engage the escalation in behavior to make it clear excusing it wasn't going to slide unnoticed. And again, the reactions were often initially aggressive or defensively aggressive.

But the point I made to ajax above is one I made elsewhere and you know what? It mattered. Turns out that this narrowing focus on a single axis of right/left, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, Trump Supporter/Trump Opponent was difficult if not impossible to get past and effectively discuss evidence in compelling ways that usually led to people ghosting the conversation at some point. But adding a second axis and pointing out that if one looked at this from the perspective of a non-partisan commitment to democratic values then I saw friends and family who were conservative acknowledging the harm in what happened, that they weren't taking sides with liberals per se if they occupied their own quadrant whereby the lies that claimed fraud along with the resulting seditious attack could be put in a category that allowed them to examine it without feeling attacked as well.

I think values and principles not only matter, but that by acknowledging partisanship is it's own thing, separate from and unrelated to values that aren't conservative or progressive but American...there's hope in that.

[canpakes]

Democracy is not intended to mean freedom. It’s a method of establishing the rules of society. Unless Ajax is an anarchist, his mythical land of Ajaxland will require rules. Although he’s fixated on theoretically possible but hyper extreme outcomes in a democracy, he’s never told us how the rules are determined in Ajaxland.

Let’s take the case of houses. What is it that makes Ajax’s house “his?” Why can’t a mob of his fellow Ajaxlanders just beat the crap out of him and throw him out?

Rules. But who makes the rules in Ajaxland?

Is Ajax more free or less free if there are no rules? How about the moon. Are they more free or less free?

Wouldn’t a rule that says “everyone gets to live wherever they want” maximize freedom for all? So, isn’t private property tyranny? In Ajaxland, will there be private property and what bundle of rights will come along with property ownership. And who gets to decide?

Ajax is not making a principled argument against democracy. He’s being a toddler throwing a fit because he’s not getting his way.

Well put.

It’s always much easier to for some folks to ignore the reality that American ‘government’ is largely composed of rules made by people, many of whom are ajax’s physical and/or ideological neighbors, and instead paint ‘government’ as a physical, monolithic bogeyman that they believe is trying to enslave them.