BL> Capitalism and democracy are like Rod and Rex the Wonder Dog; they
BL> coexist but they're different. Capitalism is the natural consequence
BL> of freedom which is also not the same as democracy. It is possible to
BL> have very restrictive democracy but not very restrictive capitalism.

BL> However, my point is correct: democracy *can* be
BL> quite large as long as the people are homogenous.

There are plenty of examples of non homogeneous viable democracys.
Some of those that have worked for over 100 years are.

BL> In fact, a pure democracy would have to be fairly large to work.

Nope, in fact they work better when not that large.

BL> Small groups go towards anarchy, communism or totalitarianism.

Like hell they do.

BL> Democracy takes too much time in a small group.

Thats just silly, it take a lot LESS time in a small group.

KR> it works as long as everybody accepts the results,
KR> and cooperate. i think that the current gun debate is
KR> an excellent example of why it wont work here and now.

Its not accepting the results and cooperating, its actually about the
majority NOT ramming their ideas down the throats of the very significant
minority unless thats absolutely unavoidable like say in time of war.

Its all about a live and let live attitude, not getting all
excited about people not choosing to all do things the same way.

It comes unstuck when a particular group attempts to ram their silly
ideas down the throats of a very significant percentage of 'the people',
most obvious with attempts at prohibition, soft drugs like cannabis etc.

What really brings a decent democracy unstuck at the edges is those
who think they know far better what others people should do than they do
themselves and are quite prepared to attempt to impose that by legislation.

Compounded by the problem that mainstream religion is essentially all
about trying to get people to behave in ways they otherwise would not.

BL> It only works if the people are willing to delegate authority.

Nope, that aint necessary, the Swiss do it fine by NOT delegating,
and in fact voting at a rather finer level on policy than most.

BL> Communism has to be imposed. It ignores human greed, and
BL> the universal belief that we are better than everyone else.

KR> so does democracy. if this were a democracy, we could vote on what
KR> kerry packer does, but i dont like your chances in this society.

Thats not what democracy is about. It isnt just the majority getting
to issue its orders to everyone. Its ACTUALLY about only doing that stuff
when its essential, not mindlessly interfering in everything under the sun.

KR> communism runs ok in small communities where everybody
KR> has concern for the welfare of all, the abbos seemed
KR> to get along ok like that until we civilised them.

BL> Abo society is very strict with behaviour imposed on the
BL> tribe by elders, as with the kibutz. Freedom is sacrificed
BL> for the common good imposed from above, defined from above,
BL> and development is stifled. A democracy is impossible to run
BL> in small groups, but it facilitates change... as does anarchy.

KR> order is always imposed in any sort of organised society,

Nope, you are forgetting about a live and let live approach.
It really does work. The problem arises with those who feel
they have the right to tell others what they should do.

KR> the only one where no order is imposed is anarchy.

Oh crap. Particularly in small groups, peoples natural tendency
is to cooperate, NOT shaft everyone else when they can.

KR> i'd say that democracy is **only** possible in small groups,
KR> it has only been successful in small groups of like minded souls.

Crap, the tiny number of the great democracys that have lasted
for 100 year class times HAVENT actually been small groups of like
minded souls on the whole. In fact there is a VERY long history of
attempts at those small groups of like minded souls that have lasted
for a surprisingly short time whenever they have been attempted.

The Israeli Kibbutz lasted longer than most, but they really dont
work all that well and have largely faded away into oblivion.

Even the religious monasterys which have lasted for very long
times are more examples of sheltered workshops for some damned
weird people than being an example of what can work for society
as a whole, and they were never anything remotely like a democracy.

They were in a real sense an early form of
social safetynet we dont need anymore too.

BL> To me, the system is unimportant as long as freedom is maximised.
BL> In small grpoups anarchy does this best, and in large groups
BL> democracy does it best... as long as the society is homogenous
BL> (without large minorities). Democracy leads to a splintering
BL> of disparate nations, as we see in the USSR and the Balkans.

KR> maximising freedom can only lead to anarchy,

Nope. Maximising the freedom to do what you like while it doesnt
do more than indirectly affect others is NOTHING like anarchy.

KR> then the freedom of the strong is maximised at the expense of the weak.

Only if that freedom includes the freedom to shaft anyone
you like. If its freedom to do whatever you like while
it doesnt directly affect others, its nothing like that.

KR> the problem that the chinese leadership has now is the rise of the middle
KR> class, and that historically has been the downfall of despotic systems.

BL> Only if the bureaucracy is small. Under communism,
BL> the middle class *is* the bureaucracy.

KR> i should have said an independent middle class, coz that is what is
KR> growing up in china, not completely beholden to the party, and, as
KR> time goes by they will become even more independent, and demanding.

BL> Classic theory measures society by the middle class (*independent*

BL> middle class means what? Free?), but in my opinion the
BL> middle class is just a symptom of overall freedom. Communism
BL> got around this by creating a middle-class bureaucracy
BL> to stifle freedom and spread the wealth to some extent.

KR> the middle class is what makes a society work, they take the direction
KR> of the upper class and guide the lower class in carrying them out.

What a load of...

There is a real sense in which the middle class just does what it does,
nothing remotely like 'take the direction of the upper class'. No 'upper
class' has directed anyone for a fucking long time in the first world.

And they dont 'guide the lower class in carrying them out' either.

(Continued to next message)
@EOT:

---