a fun little morsel.
 

- Hobbes, Leviathan

I concur. This is exactly what survivalists are preparing for. :(

Hobbes had a comma addiction. My friend was a philosophy minor and mentioned this. I happened to look at Leviathan on Friday night and opened it to a few random pages. Commas are everywhere!

but surely a democratic system itself is an ongoing war, a battle of ideologies, no?

Yes. But look at the origination of such ideologies. Surely the vast majority are only the result of a taught thema (or schema). This can only have resulted from direct or learnt experience of other societies - religions, paradigms, ideologies. If democracy naturally occured, i.e. if it was humanity's default social structure, there may well be no conflict. Hegemony may exist without control.

I think the point is that you can't actually have a democracy without some form of conflict. It doesn't have to be armed, violent struggle, or people martyring themselves; but a society in which people are free to voice their opinions and seek the enfranchisement of their choice of rules and regulations is, by definition, one in which some people will be disappointed, some of the time.

And if some people want something, and some people don't, that's a conflict.

You can't have a democracy in which everyone gets to do what they want, and even the most harmonious society must contain some element of conflict however genteel.

Kev

Yes, but from a wider philosophical perspective - taking democracy as a stand-alone entity - I am saying that devoid of opinion, there needn't be conflict. The 'opinion' with which to conflict must come from somewhere - comparison, relativity. If only democracy existed, there would be nothing to compare it to. Therefore democracy - hypothetically - could exist without conflict. In its current form, it does not.

Not really, if I want firewood and you want apples, a conflict is naturally occuring. Then it becomes a matter of possession/ownership of the apple tree. :)

I see where you're going, but I'm not convinced.

Democracy implies plural, in my mind. That is, more than one person. The will of the people, plural. Unless all those people agree on all points, your argument doesn't hold water - and if they do agree on all points, I'd argue that that's not in fact a democracy at all. In fact, it's pretty much a totalitarian ideal; the autocratic existence of a society with no dissenting bodies.

I think a democracy can only exist where there's some form of conflict; it is by its very nature a means of compromise, rather than an entity which may independently exist.

However... I'd also contend that an actual democracy is impossible. In the UK, we have an oligarchy elected by the people. In the US, they don't even have that - they've got an elected body which then elects an oligarchy. A system where a body of people is elected by the populace and is then free to do whatever it likes for 4 years is not, to my mind, a government of the people. And, for the record, I think the 2nd Amendment had its metaphoric teeth removed about the time the US Government formed an set of armed forces large enough to overthrow the majority of the rest of the world, let alone "a well regulated militia" swaggering around with shotguns and bibles :)

Kev

Democracy by it's very nature is conflict.

Evan, you might not be a large fan of representative democracy but that it is, calling it an oligarchy is an insult to all the good oligarchies in the world, like the US government ;) Hell with a bit of luck the lib dems will condemn the tories to the garbage bin of history come next year, one can only hope(and vote).

There are other options, how well they scale and what they requirements they have is another question. Switzerland is small but we have a referendum on every major bill - as close as you can get to participatory democracy and some would say as close as you can get to athenian democracy as you can get in the modern world.

I understand your point, but that is a survival (evolutionary) issue, not an ideological one.

I understand your point. Practiceable democracy (demos being Greek for people) requires people for its very existence, and therefore cannot stand alone. But the philosophy of democracy is nevertheless not inextricable from conflict. The foundation of Hobbes' argument is that man is perpetually at war - that conflicting ideologies exist whatever form the government (or governance) takes. With no structure there is fighting, therefore it is necessary for a 'common power' to keep them pacified. Marx only built on this by noting who had that power. A state of hegemony which is not enforced, at least for the purpose of this argument, is possible. Unlikely maybe, but certainly possible. If that is the case, democracy is not rooted in conflict, but agreement. Two very different things.

but are they not sides of the same coin?

I'd rather see the Lib Dems condemn Labour to the bin... but it's unlikely to happen. At least the Tories have the decency to run under their own banner, unlike Labour who've decided to be the Tories (only worse) and run under the banner of Labour.

A tory/lib dem parliament would suit me just fine - right-of-centre capitalism tories, tempered by the socially responsible Lib Dems. I'm damned if I can think of a single thing I like about Labour...

But alas, I'm just one man and have just one vote, and that's not a lot compared to the staunch Labour voter who just won't accept that Neil Kinnock isn't pulling the strings of the party anymore.

Ah well.

At least a lib dem opposition would force the government to do something, innovative policies in opposition might force them to take a position more advanced than 'well we don't suck as much as the tories, even if we do lie and deepthroat bush'.

Not when we're talking about roots. To be rooted in conflict is to agree on a perpetual state of war. To originate from consensus is to assume all conflict can be and will be resolved - a true democracy.

evan where in england are you from? I agree that Labor-y has lost its way but anythings got to be better than the tories. A PR government would address all these concerns.

We don't have innovative policies in opposition, as a matter of policy.

For as long as I can remember (which isn't, admittedly, that long) our opposition appears to have been duty-bound to say "Nay, nay" a lot and oppose everything. But helpfulness appears to be outside of their remit.

Our political system sucks almost as much as our weather.

The lib dems have some good policies, if they do become opposition it'll be a breath of fresh air. I'm about to move over to London on a permanant basis so I'm taking more of an interest in British politics.

I think i'm simply more cynical than you on the nature of democracy.

Why are you moving to London? I only live an hour away. We should meet for cocktails, darling.

The trouble with PR Catwoman is that it would allow the 6 - 7 % fascist vote to gain a foothold in the parliamentary system. You only have to look at France and then consider our own BNP to see that PR would be ultimately potentially dangerous. .....It would also allow the far left a voice and likewise the greens, but I would willingly do without that benefit in order to prevent the BNP / NF getting a voice in national government. Bad enough that they keep getting council seats.

And not only why are you moving to London, but how on earth did you manage to slip past our border protection undetected? You're european - you could have rabies or anything! :)

Doesn't everyone? :)

It's worse than that Ev - dude is stralian!

London College Of Communication (was the college of Printing when I started filling out forms, which I much preferred), so I can become a certified opinionated tosser rather than just a freelancing amatur.

Evan, I'm Swiss and British, with Aussie to boot so it's rabid and bad teeth, mate.

Catwoman: diabolus fecit, ut id facerem! I'm up for cocktails, hell we've almost got enough people here for a decent sized get-together.

Hey, no name calling! I never use that kind of language about you!

interfice te cum cochleare

Swiss, Australian and British. Wow. What a combination.

Toblerone on the barbie and a warm beer, anyone?

Jag - stultus est licut stultus facit! :)

Evan - er, no. They don't.

Dana - I suppose it's better to mute any marginalist vote, far left or far right. How else do you please the majority?

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris

Well, I guess technically there's the Scots. And the Welsh. And the various Cornish peoples. And anyone that lives around Heathrow and is unfortunate enough to commute to work in the City in a car.

But there's certainly a LOT of people who do, especially depending on how you draw the line at what constitutes "London", and the rest really just aren't trying hard enough.

And please, call me Kev. If I'd given it a moment's thought when I signed up, I wouldn't have used an old university login based on surname + first initial + number and would've instead picked something that didn't result in me gaining a welsh-sounding nickname.

:)

Anyone that lives around heathrow is unfortunate full stop.

sorry Kev. :)

jag, estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?

Visne saltare? Viam Latam Fungosam scio

And what's wrong with Welsh, if you please? I am a typical American mutt, 1/4 Welsh, 1/4 Cherokee, and 1/2 Swiss. Maybe I should come over there and starting counting coup with my Toblerone bars, and make everyone eat leeks for breakfast! :D

PS I have a Cardigan Welsh Corgi and he has a gun!

People that work for a living are only concerned with survival. Ideologies are bullshit from ivory towers, that corrupt students into forgetting the basics of family survival. That's what gets countries into such horrific conflicts. :yelsick:

Lets get raptus regaliter ;)

With that, Brutus, I agree.

that one made me actually dig up old latin :P

Illiud Latine dici non potest.

infortunatum est

uere latine loqui potes? aut ab Google tractasne dicta?

Ok ok, people will think there's something going on... ;)

Yes very clever. Stop it or I'll start talking Creole.

*laughs, truce.

Gwo. Plis etranj post(s).