Sunday, August 01, 2010

The problem with anarchism and liberal democracy

Share |
The following forum discussion comes from a dialogue I am having at Political, which you can follow if you like at their website.

Royd Bogan;2771977: "Anarchism is what you described as, "libertarian state is desired with protection of Common law. No initiation of coercion, only as self-defense or restraint".

Anarchism repudiates organised govt. Therefore no recognition or repudiation of rights. There is no basis for objectivity with respect to repudiation of force. It is therefore a lynching by the most powerful interests. I am not suggesting that there cannot be more than one govt, I am suggesting there needs to be organisation to achieve objective justice..

Royd Bogan;2771977: "Liberal democracy is a compromise only in the sense that it attempts to minimise the fallout for the minority. I don't think that's particularly objectionable".

In fact it causes the fall-out for the minority. It is suffers from a more fundamental contradiction in epistemology. It holds that the arbitrary majority (i.e. democracy) can impose themselves upon the minority. Even if there are protections for them in law, as there is supposed to be with a Senate, arbitrary legislation will loophole any 'spirit of the law' provisions or protection. Thus Liberal democracy is a destined to fail.

Royd Bogan;2771977: "Common law is too simplistic for modern industrialised societies. It is the basis for statutory law to build on. In fact we'd be well rid of some of its aspects, at least in the criminal side of the calendar".

Common law is fundamentally a rough conception of objective law. It build a set of principles upon which the rights of people are recognised. You might not choose to recognise those fundamental principles, but there development in feudal times was the result of their practical application. The problem was of course no great legacy of logical thought, merely precedence. The epistemology of the time, and even contemporary epistemology, unfortunately does not support any fundamental validation of common law, but the argument is there to be made. I'll make it myself one day, when it becomes a priority.
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?