Create account

replied 2264d
Of course I believe in competition in government. That is what representative democracy is based on.
1 / 22
replied 2264d
That's the majority imposing their will on the majority, not competition.
replied 2264d
Competing to have the public want you to represent them. How is that not competition? Competing to have a greater majority consider you a viable representative.
replied 2262d
This is competition between politicians within one government. Not competition between governments for citizens.
replied 2262d
True. For governments to compete for citizens requires freedom of movement. Living standards and job opportunities would be how they would compete then.
replied 2262d
agree, greater freedom of movement would force them to be more competitive & thus improve.
replied 2262d
That freedom of movement I figure would need to come from a global constitution restricting nations right to force people to stay, or come.
replied 2261d
An alternative would be smaller competing states. & because (actual) free trade allows open societies to out compete closed off societies the world would become more open.
replied 2261d
the risk is that “bad” people can be shut out of the entire system (blacklisted) with no where else to go. Much like billions are shut out of the banking system now.
replied 2261d
And bad is defined by the people in power. They may actually be bad people (eg murderers) or they may just be politically opposing those in power.
replied 2263d
With that definition of competition I suppose even a burglar is engaged in "competitive activity", "competing" against other burglars.
replied 2263d
Technically burglars compete against security.
replied 2262d
A majority enslaving the minority is not "competition" in any reasonable meaning of the word. Competition means A doing their thing, and B doing their thing.
replied 2262d
You say enslaving when there is no enslavement. A competition requires A andBto be doing something against one another. It isn't competing if the actions of each are not related.
replied 2262d
Majority rule (democracy) means enslavement if the majority says so. YouTube and Vimeo doesn't have to be at war to compete.
replied 2262d
YouTube and Vineo do compete. War is irrelevant.

Sure, in that absurd example people can force slavery. That doesn't mean democracy equals slavery. You are really stretching.
replied 2261d
What absurd example? Majority rule is majority rule, unless constrained by something else. It doesn't *always* result in slavery obviously.
replied 2261d
Saying that democracy is slavery is an absurd example. Yes a government can be constrained by a constitution.
replied 2260d
Then you need to outline exactly in what ways the constitution would constrain majority rule (or whatever you mean by "democracy").
replied 2260d
Look at the real world. Do you really need me to give you a lesson on constitutions? Judges shoot down laws that are unconstitutional. Judiciary over rules the government.
replied 2260d
You are the one introducing the concept of a global constitutional government. Do you know what you mean by that or not?
replied 2260d
Yes... I've been jumping back and forth between national and global discussions. That said it would be the same as in all western nations. A court would overturn unconstitutional laws.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2261d
Democracy is mob rule by definition. Two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner, as they say.


About Privacy Terms Stats