Totalitarianism vs. Democracy: Killing in the name of...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This month's topic is something that I have devoted a large (some would say unhealthy) amount of thought to.

Unlike others I believe that it is entirely possible to have a system of government that is both totalitarian and democratic. All that is required is oppression in the name of "the majority". The fact that a signifigant portion of southern voters were in favor of segregation did not somehow make the Jim Crow South less oppressive, or its treatment of minorities more moral.

Like meus_ovatio, I view totalitarianism as a continium, not a binary state. Thus the question becomes "how totalitarian are we willing to be?". A totalitarian state seeks to control all aspects of it's citizens lives, and recognizes no authority outside its own. This authority needs to be backed up by law enforcement, otherwise poeople would be free to ignore it.

When someone says “there ought to be a law”, they are really saying, “someone should shoot you, on my behalf, if you do not do as I say”.

Now there are instances (such as rape, murder, and theft) where I feel that such a response is appropriate, but there are numerous others where I do not.

Now some people will object that not all punishments involve death, and they would be correct. Afterall, there are always fines, incarceration, community service etc... But what happens if someone objects to thier prescribed punishment?

What happens when a not-really-criminal resists being taken off to jail for something that's not really a crime?

Violence. If he's lucky he'll just get roughed up a bit (thrown to the pavement and cuffed) if he's unlucky he might get tasered or beaten. If he continues to resist he will be shot. Due process and "your day in court" are entirely dependant on living long enough to collect.

People tell me that I'm being extreme or reactionary when I call no-smoking laws or the individual mandate "fascism light" but I am deadly serious. In my opinion, all government legislation is, on some level, backed up by the barrel of a gun and should be debated with this in mind.

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

What does the Democratic People's Republic of Korea not count??? :P



I think that you are right that a totalitarian democracy can exist, but I think its an unstable transitory state. That much power over a country is going to lead to consolidation of power and the democracy will not be a democracy for long, even if they still have "votes". Again, like the DPRK.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

At some level, isn't "majoritarianism" nothing but totalitarianism with a superficial appearance of democracy? If the definition of democracy ignores the right of minorities to be free to exist and do as they will when they will, then what you've arguably got is not so much democracy as the totalitarianism of the majority. On the other hand, the totalitarianism of the minority is also equally possible (totalitarian societies that depend on a paramilitary basis tend to fall into that category).

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's true because they address two separate things. Democracy is just rule by the people. How much or how little rule is not implied. How much or little rule is the realm of totalitarianism vs uh, not.

You could have a government that is on the opposite end of the totalitarian scale, i.e. the government doesn't really government much of anything, but it's despotic... its just nobody listens to the poor guy.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

it's despotic... its just nobody listens to the poor guy.

But if you have the option of ignoring it can you really call it totalitarian.

A despot that can be ignored is functionally equivelant to no despot at all.

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

I think we're seeing the concept of "libertarian dictatorship", here.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Its really a semantic argument, but if a despot is in total control of a government, yet that government doesn't really control very much, its still technically a despotic government.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No it is not. Because total control of a government that doesn't really control very much is in itself a virtually meaningless task. Unless it's something like being Emperor of Shogunate-era Japan nobody's going to do that kind of thing.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. Totalitarianism is a continuum to be sure, but minority rule is never democratic. Rule of the demos does not mean rule of "part of" the demos, no matter what Ancient Athens did with the concept. You also create an oxymoron here of a non-controlling despotism. You could say it doesn't control anything *in practice* but there's never been a despotism that has not *sought* to control everything.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's what I said. ;) Imagine the difference between a government who's only law is don't throw gum at cows and a government who has a rule for literally every thing you could do and how to do it. Both of those things could have been decided by democratic vote of the population, but one is totalitarian and one is very not.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's rather IMHO the wrong dichotomy to look at the differences between the two. In democracy the rules can be Byzantine, but in Totalitarianism the punishment is always the bullet to the back of the head. Democracies can change the rules, in totalitarianism the mere ability to propose or visualize such changes *without* being shot for sedition is a disqualifier for the term itself.

Absolutism recognizes a private sphere that includes thought, in totalitarianism merely thinking wrong is a capital offense. In short, if Voltaire had been in Stalinist Russia he would have wound up in the Gulag in short order. In Bourbon France his writings helped to undermine that very Ancien Regime he was a part of.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

totalitarianism doesn't automatically require death sentence of every crime.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

No it does not, but kind of the whole point of the OP was that even if the death penalty is not required it is always available/implied.

Simply do a search for "Shot while resisting arrest" and you'll see what I mean.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not automatically. Yet if the State is in all things, of all things, and the root of all things there's precious little independent thought that in one way or another does not become sedition.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

^ Bingo ^

[weswilson]

By the same token, Democracy is a continuum. And we move pretty well along it.

As society and democracy gets more complex, there is going to be refinement of policy. Using your examples (rape, murder and theft), we can see many clear examples where greater understanding gave us better law. We have had to adjust rape to include marital partners (It used to be you couldn't rape your wife), we've changed murder to allow for a wide range of different conditions (such as self defense), and we've changed theft to include new concepts like intellectual property. This is inevitable. As society grows to understand the complexity of human interaction, the dos and don'ts will get more complex as well.

That complexity is not inherently bad. Legislation to try and refine that social understanding is not inherently bad. The idea that more laws = worse laws is forgetting the fact that exploitation of lawless environments is often why those laws are penned in the first place. The variability of loose regulation and judicial subjectivity had few protections for individuals that weren't part of the good ole boy network. A lot of the kicking and screaming we see about many laws revolves less around their injustice and more around the inability to exploit them.

Support for law does not make one a totalitarian. Support for police to enforce that law does not make one a totalitarian. The idea that agents of the law are more likely to be abusive with more laws in place ignores centuries of corruption in American law enforcement.

The idea that we should recognize more authority outside of our local, state, and federal laws misses the obvious question, "whose authority must I recognize in order to function?" When I am walking on a crosswalk, I know my legal rights. If someone else had placed arbitrary authority over how and what I can do on that crosswalk, how am I to know what is and isn't my right?

And it's primarily the people who would put together other authorities who seem to be the people most likely to oppose any kind of governmental authority. I live in the south, and I see how these types of groups work. I'll stick with open government with strong checks, balances, and due process any day.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

By the same token, Democracy is a continuum.

An excellent point!

Please understand that am I not neccesarily trying to pass moral judgement, so much as explain why I tend to take the positions that I do. As you say, in many cases these added layers of complexity been for the better.

That said, the message I take from the "centuries of corruption in American law enforcement" is that any power has the potential to be abused. Thus we must be extreamly cautious in regards to how much we delegate and to whom.

[weswilson]

I can agree with many parts of that. My only comment is that there will be power, whether we legislate it or not. And while benevolent corporate sources do exist, I think we are often better with a power in place that is legally required to follow our instructions, legally required to document and expose its own action, and legally required to submit to the scrutiny of other agencies. But I do think those checks and balances are very important.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Once Again you make a fair point.

I guess I'm just more comfortable with corperate power than I am with government power. In therory (a dangerous assumption) corporate power will be answerable to the government, or at the very least it's customers/shareholders.

Government power on the other hand is answerable ony to those powers that it deigns to acknowledge. (Somewho I don't see Walmart sending armed thugs to my house because I shop at Target)

[weswilson]

I've read too much Gibson to think it beyond possible! lol!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If corporate "power" is greater than government "power", then corporate power will not be answerable to government.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Bingo. That's just explained with perfect clarify my main objection to a weak government.

If government does not maintain supreme power, then some other social agency will.

At least democratic government is (or can be) answerable to the people - the more answerable, the better.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Word!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

A corporation is orders of magnitude more democratic than any government can be. You're voting in favor of them every time you buy from them, and voting against them every time you buy from a competitor. It's much better than voting every 4 years for a person who doesn't actually do much because it's the bureaucracy that does it all.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I can see the mechanism you're talking about, but I don't see how you say it is "magnitudes more democratic" except in a deluded fantasy. Democratic implies a majority rule with an equal vote for each citizen.

The fact that the voting mechanism is money instantly grants an overwhelming vote to the top few percent of the most wealthiest citizens. The top 1-2% have more money (and thus more votes) than the rest combined. So they could buy the result they want in any given case, regardless of what the remaining 98-99% of people vote for.

How is that democratic?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Who do I vote fo0r to fire that bitch at the DMV?

;)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Democratic implies a majority rule with an equal vote for each citizen.

I disagree. That's one possible meaning, but not necessarily the only option. Democracy just means that the voice of the people is heard.

The top 1-2% have more money (and thus more votes) than the rest combined. So they could buy the result they want in any given case, regardless of what the remaining 98-99% of people vote for.

Money is not the only "currency", even in the case of extreme corporatism or mercantilism. If your morals are for sale, you only have yourself to blame.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I disagree. That's one possible meaning, but not necessarily the only option. Democracy just means that the voice of the people is heard.

Well a democracy where people do not have an equal vote (or similar) is not one that I care to participate in, nor, I wager, would many.

If your morals are for sale, you only have yourself to blame.

Which morals are you referring to?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Whichever ones you're compromising by taking the money from someone in order to do something they want that you ordinarily wouldn't do.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Despite my general sympathy for thier views, this is why i'll never be an Anarchists or Libertarian.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

and how does corporate achieve such power? is it when government fails to provide regulations?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Government power on the other hand is answerable ony to those powers that it deigns to acknowledge. (Somewho I don't see Walmart sending armed thugs to my house because I shop at Target)

What tends to happen however is that if corporate power can it replaces government and indeed becomes the government. This was the situation that Adam Smith railed against in his time. His opposition to government interference was because of institutions like the British/Dutch political and economic colonialism in India and Indonesia.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

re: the replacement of government

this is when it is most crucial for the populus to become active.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This is why I would argue that it is better to ensure that there are always competeing/opposing interests. No one group (not even the government) should be allowed to maintain a monopoly on power.

One of the reasons I think that the US government is so stable is that all the branches been arranged in opposition to each other. The courts can (and will) tell congress to fuck off, congress will tell the president to do the same, and in the end no one gets shot for sedition.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

But that was only able to happen with the collusion of government. Corporate power can't do it on its own.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Corporate power doesn't exist without governments, and governments always exist.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, although I'll quibble about the "always" part. :)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Well, it's either that or a warzone and in the latter that's just many small governments fighting for territory..

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

But , if Walmart wants to open the 'Company Store', or starts hiring 7 year old to stack the shelves on the grounds that they don't really need schooling, or fires the guy who is trying to start a union for the workers, who is going to stop Walmart doing this ?

A bunch of rich and plutocratic shareholders?
When did money ever act with a social conscience?
A customer boycott?
Any idea how many years I have been on the Nestle boycott?

The reason we don't have Company Stores in the UK is down to Government Legislation.

And that brings me to the next point. It only takes one person to behave irresponsibly to ruin it for the whole community, so the whole community comes together and says 'no'.

Sometimes, the community response is in appropriate - in America , we had prohibition, in the Uk, the CB Radio Laws. In both cases, the government found that people liked a drink and that people wanted to chat anonymously , even before they found the internet. Both laws were unworkable because they lacked popular support.

Now, you compare that with the UKs smoking ban and you see how a democratic system can work, whereas the more dictatorial system needs constant monitoring and pressure to make it work.

Therefore, on balance , I say that there ought to be governmentla powers, but these be open to review by the electorate.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This comes back to the definitions discussed in the other thread. Totalitarian leaders/governments don't recognize any authority outside thier own, and thus have a monopoly on "legitimate" power.

Minimum wages, Child labor laws, and worker safety regulations work because Walmart (to continue with the example) recognizes the authority of the government. Likewise in a republic the Government recognizes the individual authority of it's citizens. At least in theory no one group has a monopoly on power, and this is a good thing.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

But , if Walmart wants to open the 'Company Store', or starts hiring 7 year old to stack the shelves on the grounds that they don't really need schooling, or fires the guy who is trying to start a union for the workers, who is going to stop Walmart doing this ?

Everyone who decides to stop buying from them because of it. If people keep buying, it means they approve of the policy. That's direct democracy right there.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

What if they're the only store in town? There are many markets that tend towards monopoly, or at the very least, oligopoly.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Then it's likely too difficult for others to get stuff to that town to compete, or if it's not, and they raise their prices too high, then someone will open another store with lower prices, unless they get the government to stop them.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Markets really don't work that way.

Have a read on market structures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_structure) and tell me how many really fit your model of perfect competition. Where do you think the automotive industry fits? The oil industry? The mass consumption supermarkets? etc.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Not the right question. The question should be how many can fit the model of perfect competition, as the gov't currently interferes with how many do fit right now. And since I'm not an anarchist, I don't think any can actually get to true perfect competition, but it's what we should be striving for.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

When someone says “there ought to be a law”, they are really saying, “someone should shoot you, on my behalf, if you do not do as I say”.

This presumes shooting is the only way to enforce the law.


Now there are instances (such as rape, murder, and theft) where I feel that such a response is appropriate

Seriously? If someone steals an apple to feed their crying child, they should be shot?

I understand why Sharia catches on....

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Didn't read the whole post did you?

Now some people will object that not all punishments involve death, and they would be correct. Afterall, there are always fines, incarceration, community service etc... But what happens if someone objects to thier prescribed punishment?

What happens when a not-really-criminal resists being taken off to jail for something that's not really a crime?

Violence. If he's lucky he'll just get roughed up a bit (thrown to the pavement and cuffed) if he's unlucky he might get tasered or beaten. If he continues to resist he will be shot. Due process
and "your day in court" are entirely dependant on living long enough to collect.