https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12878457

Capitalism solves this problem with bankruptcy & business failure. People whose beliefs are shown to be false lose their businesses and are forced to work for other people whose decisions turned out well. Conversely, capitalism introduces problems with inequality and forced servitude that democracy solves. Democratic government serves as a check on the ability of the economic winners to pull the ladder up after them and use their economic power to impose their will on the people.

This is behind much of the tension between big business vs. big government. You have two power structures (five, actually - the press, the military, and the academy form the other pillars) that work in opposition to each other, each according to different rules. I'd argue that the biggest problem facing America today is that business and government have gotten too cozy with each other while the press and the academy are getting eviscerated, which is letting them manipulate the voter through control of information.

And how often does this work in real life?

Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. Democracy allows us to make decisions that influence our own life, however we must obviously respect the fact that we live in a society with other people, and they must be respected. Beyond living in a vacuum, we have no real way to ensure absolute individual freedom, however a completely democratic society is one way of reconciling the thirst for individual freedom with the necessity of cooperation with others.

>The ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

This is absolutely a valid concern, which is why I believe in a rigid groundset of rules on which all laws and rules must comply (consitutions/bill of rights) which respect the rights and liberties of individuals to ensure they have maximum freedom with respect to other individuals in society. This isn't a groundbreaking idea, but I do believe we need to re-evaluate these approaches in a modern context, as most countries were established in a time before progressivism was dominant.

I want to preserve the culture I grew up in. I want everyone to contribute to society. I want a culture where what you get is what you worked for. I don't want "diversity" or a bunch of people from other countries to move to the town I grew up in.

Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity) above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.

In my mind, it would be an absolute travesty to allow the distant majority to vote for the destruction of the culture I grew up in.

Yet you have moved to California? Can you hear the irony?

>> It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.

You don't have. You just have to accept other people think differently and want different things to you.

How is diversity diametrically opposed to equal opportunity and hard work? From what I can see you can have all of the above without any issues.

>Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity) above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.

Can you phrase your political philosophy in terms of real proposals rather than thought-terminating cliches? When I hear the term "value" or "values", I reach for my gun.

Consider what might happen if Clinton win and more corruption scandals appear about her, or if Brexit is halted somehow. Things are getting less stable over time.

I am however not saying that a purely democratic society would eliminate all of societies ills, I'm saying it would make many of the constructs which perpetuate these sorts of problems would become non-viable.

These are hardly the only alternatives. In case you haven't noticed, the other people here aren't implicitly contrasting democracy with e.g. monarchy; they're implicitly contrasting it with anarchy (probably anarcho-capitalism).

Again, there's lots of possibilities out there. Personally I like the idea of futarchy, though it's untried. But that's not the point; the point is, there's a lot of degrees of freeom here.

In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.

Remember, "capitalism" is an overloaded term. Sometimes it means what you describe, and sometimes it means the free market. Make sure you know what sense it's being used in in a given context, or you can't have a meaningful discussion! In the case of anarcho-capitalism, it refers to the free market. (But even though that works out in this case, you really should be wary of reasoning based on names.)

There's also a reason all anarchists want to be differentiated from ancaps ;)

Yep, but you have exact same right to control life of others, so things are balanced.

> the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

Constitution and court protects us from abuse, so don't worry about minorities in Constitutional Democracy.

Centralisation of power is the issue, it doesn't matter if that centralised power is held by governments or by large corporations, the end result is a tilting of the playing field in favour of those with the most power.

That's probably because you're thinking in terms of how things actually are, rather than in terms of vague emotions tacked onto political buzzwords. A classic mistake.

Why stubbornly claim capitalism is a failure when America is not capitalist? It is not laissez faire capitalism, like Chomsky says, it is a nanny state, where government bails out failed business. That is not capitalism.

Classical liberals and libertarians of course run with a different -- IMHO utopian -- definition of capitalism which puts the emphasis on the act of individuals trading goods with each other. From my perspective it's an ideological smoke screen which papers over the reality of the asymmetrical distribution of power that arises naturally out of the particular 'natural rights' of property that classical liberalism embraces. And they were embraced historically precisely because of that distribution of power -- during an era of expanding colonialism, imperialism, and enclosure.

To put it another way -- the US may not look like a textbook laissez-faire capitalist society that a Friedman, Hayek or Randian would advocate -- but the unjust power structure of the US and societies like it are what actual-existing capitalism _creates_. It is capitalists who rule, and capitalists who made it that way.

What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.

Democracy is about balancing individual freedom with the demands of living in society. There is no other system of decision making which even attempts to reconcile these two adversarial relationships (individual vs. society).

>What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.

I fail to see how you could have an undemocratic voluntary society. I'd argue democracy is the backbone of a voluntary society.

No it's not. Democracy does not inherently balance individual liberty with societal necessity. In fact, democracy says absolutely nothing about individual liberty or societal necessity at all. Democracy is a form of government that holds regular public elections. It is not anything else. It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one.

Democracy is a group of people co-operating in a system through equal representation. This does not require a state apparatus or government.

>It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one.

Solely sufficient? Absolutely not, that's what I'm saying, but yes it is a necessary condition. It's is the sustinence on which liberty grows.

I think that's too strong. Some dictatorships have more liberty than some democracies. Democracy increases the odds of liberty immensely, but is neither necessary nor sufficient.

A voluntary system is basically the opposite. Every who wants to participate in something, can choose to do so. Or choose not too. You don't vote on what should be done, and then force everyone to go along with it.

Majority rules is force. You go along with the decision of the group or else. Whereas voluntaryism is zero force. No matter what the group decides, how many people vote for it, you never ever use force on anyone to make them go along with the group.

Thats fine if you think that using force is necessary for the greater good of making society better.

There are lots of good arguments for why the government threatening people with guns, in order to get them to pay taxes, for example, is needed in order to get anything done at all in society.

But don't dress it up in pretty words and call it "voluntary". Voluntary is the absence of force. It is the idea that no matter what I do, as long as I don't directly harm another people, noone should use force against me.

Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong?

> a democratic workforce

"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!"

> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.

That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy.

Based on the fact that you're using a very new account, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is some sort of incoherent troll bait. If not, this is a strong contender for the dumbest comment I've ever seen on HN; just slap the word "democratic" on random topics and pitch it as an alternative economic system, no further details required.

The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? If you think the people decided on these two I'd say you misunderstand the process by which these two reached the forefront. A very small minority selected Clinton and stacked the odds in her favor for selection, as to the rise of Trump, I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system. Remember the individuals Trump was running against? Trumps a protest vote, and a terribly dangerous one at that. Choosing between three different people put on your plate by people you don't trust isn't a failing of democracy, it's a failing of the underlying system.

>"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!"

You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point.

>That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy.

I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.

This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better response would be to explain.

(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".)

One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".

Common trusts and co-ops are both "capitalist institutions". They both rely on private ownership and voluntary transactions. Not sure what you mean by "democratic confederations of localities".

But I do think that despite the above your underlying point is fundamentally correct here; both commons trusts and co-ops work perfectly well under existing rules. It sounds like, aside from the democratic confederations thing, what eli_gottlieb wants is not a different system of rules, but rather to kick the existing system into a different equlibrium. (It really seems like these socialist types tend not to distinguish between these...)

Well, I'd love to know where you draw the conceptual boundaries between systems. Lemme guess: it's only not-capitalism when the state controls everything?

Co-ops, probably.

First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories.

Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton and rallied extremely hard against Trump. I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something.

> I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system

You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!

> I'm not proposing elected slavery,

Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".

> I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.

Besides this statement being more or less incoherent, it also doesn't have anything to do with your earlier statement that

> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.

There is no connection between the decisions I make for myself and the decisions imposed on me by the whims of a political majority.

Not at all what I'm trying to say, I don't think there's a shady room where rich people come to smoke cigars and plan out the election, in fact you actually agree with what I'm saying in the very next sentence:

    "Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton"

I agree, which is why I said Trump was a protest vote, a naive attempt at hitting back at the system whilst still completely supporting it. I don't know how you think I'm sitting here talking about illumaniti when you demonstrably agree with me about capitalist influence on the election?

>You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!

I don't think you know enough about a democratic economy to be attacking the idea, evidently since you're still believing that I think a democratic economy can exist in a capitalist system.

>Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".

Then I think you're very poor at reasoning, can I suggest "The Conquest of Bread" it's a great book that might help you on your journey to understand what I'm saying.

False premise. This is simply not true in any way, shape, or form. The bottom 90% of people have drastically more control over production than the top 10%. That's why the single richest company in the world, Apple, is a consumer products company.

> it's the workers directing the production

There's a very obvious conflict of interest there, because the workers aren't the only ones who have things that need to be produced. "You know, Ivan, making bread is really tedious; let's go back to making AK-47s instead." This is why if you go on Ebay and type "soviet surplus", you can still buy crates of Mosin Nagants and Nixie Tubes to this very day.

Planned economies are terrible at producing what needs to be produced, and excellent at overproducing things that don't. Whether you think market economies are impersonal or not, they are undoubtedly extremely efficient at meeting people's needs; no more, no less. Deviating from optimum production levels costs companies money.

> Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion.

The problem is not minority. The problem is overreaching government. Keep government specific and small.

But your vindictive like attitude is what makes government overly powerful. Your "union-infested economy" solution is worse than what we are facing.

Participatory Economics: https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Alterna...

What is Mutualism? : https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/what-is-mutualis...

Anarcho-Syndicalism https://libcom.org/files/Rocker%20-%20Anarcho-Syndicalism%20...

The Conquest of Bread (Anarcho-Communism): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-c...

The countries with the highest quality of life are Social Democracies. Places like the nordic countries and the 'new world' anglo countries excluding the US.

It's bizarre just how much the US has demonised the concept of socialism in its political dialogue.

It really isn't an either/or proposition; you're only taking the absolute extremes of the concepts. If it was such a proposition, where does the switch take place? At what point would a nation 'flip' from being 'socialist' to being 'capitalist'?

Canada (20% foreign-born) and New Zealand (25% foreign-born) are in similar boats. However, your statement is also pretty offensive to kiwis, of whom 15% are of Maori stock - indeed, the relatively harmonious relations are rightfully a source of pride to the kiwis. Both of these countries also deal in bilingual politics (Australia does not).

I'm less knowledgable on the makeup of the Nordic countries, but it's worth pointing out that only two western democracies have a higher rate of immigration than Australia (excluding the year of Syria crisis migration). These countries are Spain and Norway. As for Sweden (usually the go-to country for these discussions), looking now, and excluding the Syria crisis, 14% of Swedes were of foreign birth, equivalent to the US, and two-thirds of these were born outside the EU. While, yes, Sweden doesn't have the latino or black analogues in their national background like the US does, they're not as culturally homogenous as most people think.

In short, I think you're talking about the stereotypes in your head rather than the actual nations. Handwaving it away with "meh, they're all the same in those countries" is an egregious error - after all, if what you're suggesting was true, then Portugal and Ireland (95%+ local-born, single culture) would be powerhouses.