![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/11 01:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/4/11 03:16 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/11 09:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/11 01:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/11 02:06 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 8/4/11 03:47 (UTC);)
(no subject)
Date: 8/4/11 04:01 (UTC)I disagree. That's one possible meaning, but not necessarily the only option. Democracy just means that the voice of the people is heard.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 8/4/11 05:32 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/11 01:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/4/11 19:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/4/11 19:56 (UTC)