‘Some people adhere to the belief society should be organized by a central authoritative figure (imagined or otherwise).’
No, not really. They don’t adhere to that belief. They live by that instinct. If you could poll people discretely-all would take for granted the central authority. Everyone would. They may have problems with the central authority. But the over arching idea of a central authority wouldn’t come into question. Ideas on who should be the central authority or how it could be improved would come into play. Read that again please. It’s very important.
Familiarize yourself with basic anarchist, or anti-statist political philosophy. It’s entire premise is that the any organization that is not based on voluntary exchange is aggression by definition. Maybe that definition of ‘authority’ wasn’t clear, but to assume everyone takes for granted the legitimacy of some central authority is false.
‘Some people believe democracy is just and best reflects the will of “the people”.’
Yeah. Why wouldn’t they? As a sidenote I get your critique of our(or yours-in your country) democratic process. I’m not a fan of the obvious imbalances of “democracy” either. Of course what I perceive as imbalances might be different from your perceptions of imbalances.
If you’re actually interested in the topic, an easy read is Beyond Democracy (Beckman, Karel, Karsten, Frank).
In essence, you lose a fundamental right to some decision in your life for 0.0001% say. Democracy isn’t the will of the people, its the will of the people who won. Much worse, in practise the vast majority of laws passed you never even see, much less vote for, and obviously cannot opt out of. And of course the vast majority of laws are created by priveleged few. To call it mob rule, would be a huge achievement it will never reach.
..Population defines what rights are. Usually by majority. If the majority doesn’t like it…revolution usually occurs.
No, population defines what averages are. For the record, I’m not a proponent of ‘rights’ as some inalienable construct either.
Some are much more self-consistent than others.
Ahhnn…need more data. Examples. On the surface I must take this as your opinion.
Just off the top of my head.
Objectivism for example (which I find flawed), attempts to derive behaviour as ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ based on whether or not it intrudes on a rational individual’s ability to act in their self interest in a consisent manner with other rational individuals.
Libertarians believe in the role of government as law makers and protection of contracts.
Anti-statists argue any agency that assumes for itself a monopoly on the initiation of force is aggressive.
Democracy is a popularity contest, which even allows for the dismantling of itself.
Oh believe me I love discussing political theory. But I will get irrational and use ad hominem again. That’s why I like to stay on the human behavioral level. If we can agree on why we have differing views of philosophy and political values than we can begin to see that it doesn’t really matter.It all boils down to economics, police and armies.
To say views on politics doesnt really matter, means views on morality and ethics doesn’t really matter.
Sure, nothing matters when we’re all dead a trillion years from now, but again, Im not sure what youre arguing here?
Right above is the 2nd time I’ve seen raibos used the term “whim” to describe political machinations. This shows to me that he is either not wanting to admit subjectivity in his political theory, or he is just woefully inadequate in comprehending politics in general. raibos said to me pointing out subjectivity was not helpful in discussing political theory. Yes it is!
And that in itself is just “a subjective” opinion, so your position is self defeating by your own standards?
It’s not helpful pointing out subjectivity to the person when they want to point out their opinion on what they feels is wrong with politics. It’s like listening to old people complain about food.
There’s a difference between complaining about food, and dismissing the warnings about salt content in your diet as just ‘subjective’.