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

[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.