: SDF: Because representative democracy gives everyone (not just those with money) a vote and thus a LIMITED say in the affairs of government, and because government-as-it-is is sworn to protect everybody, again not just those with money. I am glad you recognise that one vote in a hundred million is indeed a limited say, limited to the point of utter impotence I would suggest. Made especially impotent by the fact that the choice is terribly limited. If you think consumer choice is bad then political choice is incredibly poor. In the US the two largest parties are just different shades of statism - the democrats wanting to run your life and the republicans promising the same but boasting they can do it cheaper. The various other parties being minute and prone to 'whats the point' lethargy among the understandibly dissilusioned populace. Each politician and each party represents a package deal of policies of which some might seem welcome and others awful to each different voter. And all the time the voter knows that his impact on the final outcome is so minimal that it suprises me when people moan that people are apathetic - its rational for them to be apathetic!
: SDF: The key phrase is effective demand.
Absolutely. There would be little point in countering this, but as you are often pointing out - uneven education in matters of policy and government also effect the 'effective demand' amongst registered voters.
(skipping)
: SDF: Anarcho-capitalism is even less likely to happen, not merely because it's out of reach, it's furthermore illogical, since its ontology is static and thus wilfully ignorant of how people become or don't become "sovereign individuals," and undesirable, being too filled with the tough luck factor.
I dont see some global 'lets all get along and compromise' stateless socialism as any more likely, infact goven that it requires at its base a huge paradigm shift in terms perceptions of people and property I would say its even further away.
: He ought to admit that the present 'agency' in charge of the US and supposedly in receipt of direction from 'the people' is remarkebly adept at doing the above.
: SDF: I'm glad we agree that Free-archy is no improvement on the above.
I understand why proponents of a given system paint a rosy picture of how it would work (just like stateless socialists do). I would suggest that a centralised national agency can do more damage in its absolute position.
: SDF: No, actually the stateless socialists have a solution for crime, integrating the "criminal" into society as a whole,
How, exactly.
