Not really possible to give you a citation, it's an opinion, or a philosophy. If you have a different idea of an ideal society, we're not going to cite our way to an agreement.

Perhaps.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. I'm a firm believer in continuing to innovate and improve governance. I don't think it's just an abstract philosophical argument. These things can be modeled with game theory (cite: The Dictator's Handbook).

There are opinions and philosophies about evolution, vaccines, and lots of other things, but at the end of the day, those can be resolved through rational discourse.

I'd like my government to look out for my interests. I'd like it to be competent and not corrupt. There are lots of ideas for how to get there, and I'm really not comfortable with the imperialism of democracy.

China had good ideas with civil service exams, which select for competence. Aristotle and Confucius had good ideas around moral philosophy of rulers. Marx had some nice ideas too. They didn't play out as well in practice as capitalist democracy, but that doesn't mean we should toss up our hands, give up, and quit trying. Especially now that we have tools for corrupting democracy like never before, and conversely, ways to model governance like never before.

A discussion about vaccines can be resolved through rational discourse only if everyone agrees that diseases are bad for you. If I think disease is good, you can't convince me that vaccines are good for society, even if we agree on their effects.

That's a contrived example, but this kind of disagreement is very common in discussions about government and society. If you believe that individual choice is important and all humans are born with equal rights, and I believe that individual choice is unimportant and some humans are born superior to others, we are never going to agree on an ideal form of government. We can have full agreement on the facts and full disagreement on what we consider to be a "good" outcome.

You mentioned game theory, but you can't design one model that will satisfy one person who wants to maximize outputs for all players, one person who wants to weight players in different castes differently, and one person who wants to set a hard cap on all players because too much material comfort leads us away from God.

The solution is to look at systems that have been proven to work. I brought up the Islamic Golden Age in this thread. It doesn't have the nonsense of putting a hard cap on anyone's wealth. It actually encourages people to work and gather wealth morally, and spend it correctly. The best of both worlds so to speak.

... and it comes with a built in wealth tax (zakat), which is just about the best economic idea EVER. And it prevents loans with interest. And there are versions which embody economic free trade (the whole debate about political borderds). And...

... it's almost as if Mohammed was an economist who foresaw all the economic problems of the 21st century, and built protections around them.

> ... it's almost as if Mohammed was an economist who foresaw all the economic problems of the 21st century, and built protections around them.

Peace be upon him. It's simply more evidence of his prophethood :)

That's not really my experience.

(1) Right now, virtually everyone agrees that individual choice is important and all humans are born with equal rights

(2) If they don't, it's often possible to come up with solutions which work for everyone. The problem is when people jump to solutions ("democracy") rather than problem-statements and first principles.

The early US is a good examples of -- actually quite exactly -- your contrived example. The South had slavery. The North didn't. There was an overarching federal government which dealt with military and foreign diplomacy. It worked for a bit over a half-century until it didn't, mostly for reasons unrelated to why it worked as long as it did (the expansion of northern culture west upset the design, as it had an upper hand in congress).

My claim is that there are systems of government which do a better job of protecting individual choice and equal rights than capitalist democracy. My claim is that if you articulated your value system completely (probably not on a web forum but over an hour-long coffee), we could probably design a better one around your values, which also did better for most people's values. My claim is also that if you've signed an NDA, you probably don't have all that much individual liberty.

If you're going to dictate an opinion over an entire social structure, then it better be proven to work. My idea of an ideal society has already been proven to work in the past (look at the Islamic Golden Age). However, many of those in power today won't allow it to happen since it is against their interests.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "proven to work". Give me any society in the history of the world, and I'll give you a moral framework that makes that society ideal. There is no right answer, there is no reference society we can use as a baseline.

Do you want me to cite some philosophers that try to justify the value of democracy?

> However, many of those in power today won't allow it to happen since it is against their interests.

Is this bad? Can you prove it? The idea that the few shouldn't rule over the many without their consent is a political opinion.

The modern West thinks that their version of democracy is the only way to success or prosperity, conveniently ignoring what it took them to get there. I read an interesting article that was making the argument that it's because the modern West is already prosperous that they have the luxury to run their nations under their version of democracy, not that democracy caused them to become that way.

The end goal is to have a functioning, stable, and just society. Unless we're willing to stick to rules that are proven to work, we're going to keep fumbling and wondering why things are the way they are. I bring up the Islamic Golden Age because Islam places a set of rules which dictate things like government and finance, basically red lines that should not be broken. However, everything within those lines are up to society to decide as it sees fit based on the times.

I don't want to say that Islam is "democractic" because that would give the wrong impression that it is fully in line with the West's current practices. It isn't. However, it has a concept known as "Shura", a form of consultation if you will, that allows society to determine how things are run within the boundaries I mentioned, even including the ruler (but not in the free for all manner how elections are run in the West). It's more nuanced, and it's been proven to work.

You can cite philosophers, and I can also cite philosophers that oppose democracy (again in the Western sense). It won't get anywhere, it's all hypothetical. What I did do is show you a system that has been historically proven to work. Today's system is a fumbling mess and we keep crying about it.

I guess I'm stuck on the phrase "just society". Your position, which is perfectly reasonable, is that a stable society that achieves economic, scientific, and cultural prosperity is a good society. Some people value having an equal voice in their government above all of those things. It is not just posturing, it is a genuine belief sincerely held by many people. They would consider the Islamic Golden Age to be an unjust society. Other people sincerely believe that the current system in America is working, by their metrics. They don't want anything to change. Some people would rather die than live in a society where they can't practice their religion, some people think any religion is incompatible with a just society, some people think society can't be considered just until everyone follows their religion. Since there is no such thing as objective justice, there is no way to "prove" that any of these positions work. They work if you think they work.

> Some people value having an equal voice in their government above all of those things.

You're going to have to elaborate more, because Islam definitely allows people to have their voices heard. Furthermore, it not only allows people of different faiths to live on its lands, their rights are heavily protected by the law:

http://qaalarasulallah.com/hadithView.php?ID=23053

Note that the word "contracting man" here refers to a non-Muslim.

If this isn't the manifestation of justice, I don't know what is.

I was just responding to your statement that Islam isn't exactly democratic in the modern sense, and there are some "boundaries". Presumably that means there are some issues where an average citizen doesn't get a vote? I am not making a value judgement, I am just trying to explain how it is possible for someone to believe differently than you.

> If this isn't the manifestation of justice, I don't know what is.

Now imagine somebody saying that exact sentence in response to, for example, a man being stripped of his possessions because his caste is not allowed to own property. Clearly that kind of law is not reconcilable with your idea of a good society, and yet you both consider these contradictory things to be perfect justice. Does that illustrate my point?

Or: the next verse says that certain taxes should only be leveled on non-Muslims. I don't care whether or not you agree with this, the point is that both views are possible. It's impossible to prove that religious discrimination is just or unjust. It's an opinion! A society could survive perfectly well with or without that rule. Different value systems will come to different conclusions about whether that rule is a good idea.

> Presumably that means there are some issues where an average citizen doesn't get a vote?

Look up Shura laws on how these things work. Topics are delegated to experts in their respective fields who have the obligation to act out of interest of the society, a form of "meritocracy" if you will. This doesn't mean that average citizens cannot be consulted.

> for example, a man being stripped of his possessions because his caste is not allowed to own property. Does that illustrate my point?

No it doesn't, because Islam does not prohibit non-Muslims from owning properties. You have not shown what issues you have with the Islamic system so far other than conjecture.

> the next verse says that certain taxes should only be leveled on non-Muslims

Because non-Muslims are not required to pay Zakat, Muslims are already "taxed".

I feel that the discussion went on a tangent. The fact of the matter is that it is perfectly not only possible to build a society without the dangerous practice of interest, but it is in the benefit of the entire society to do so (except a relative few who stand to benefit extremely from interest and other similar practices). We've known about it for a long time now.

I agree this is a tangent. The point that I am failing to make is that even if you and I agree that the Islamic Golden Age was the perfect society, we cannot "prove" that, and many people believe it was a terrible society by definition, because they have very different value systems than us.

Your username implies a gross bias.

> Now imagine somebody saying that exact sentence in response to, for example, a man being stripped of his possessions because his caste is not allowed to own property.

Is this in reference to an Islamic position? If so please provide a source.

Not it isn't, it was an example intended to be completely contradictory to the Islamic position, to illustrate how two people can both believe their completely irreconcilable systems are the pinnacle of justice.