Whooosh

So is Putin33 saying State A can annex State B's land if a sufficient number of State B's inhabitants are of the same ethnicity as those in State A? Because that's... troubling.

It's not defeatism. You can't control a monopoly of violence democratically. Can't you see the inherent contradiction? You can however direct a plurality of violence in one direction democratically, if all parties agree to it.

It's like having equal votes if we should stop or go. You're in the passenger seat while I step on the gas asking, "shall we start moving?"

"So is Putin33 saying State A can annex State B's land if a sufficient number of State B's inhabitants are of the same ethnicity as those in State A? Because that's... troubling."

Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

Invictus - don't worry, California always belonged in Mexico. It's true.

"Can't you see the inherent contradiction?"

Not really no, probably because I'm not a defeatist. A global democratic monopoly on violence would be definition protect the human rights of the people. The only groups that would be subject to "oppression" would be those who are themselves attempting to oppress. Kind of like how in a tolerant society the only people who aren't tolerated are bigots.

"Your reading comprehension hasn't improved."

That sure seems like what you're saying, though. It's the underlying assumption of the invasion of Crimea being legitimate to you.

TigerBlood, I can apply your "contradiction" within any national democracy as well, since nations already maintain monopolies on violence. Yes, the government controls the military, but the people control the government. If you think this is impossible, I guess you'd better get used to be a passive cynic who lives under tyranny

I dare say you can't see straight. And how would this monopoly of power be controlled? Concentrating power/violence always leads to abuses of power. You are really some believer in Platos Republic. Who presses the go button? Because whoever has the biggest share will move the whole machine. It's sort of what happened in Iraq. And let's be honest. NATO supposedly never was in IRAQ. NATO was in Iraq. Because the biggest shareholder went in first, and forced others into it. Nearly at gunpoint.

If you had states with equal militaries. With citizens (not politicians) deciding when to go to war. You would have a plurality of violence which would be much more peaceful.

How would this be different, Putin33. The United States has treaty rights to have bases in Germany. The largest ethnic group in the Unites States are Germans. Can we annex Bavaria, Hesse, etc.?

Again, I can apply that contradiction to national democracies. Do you believe democracy itself is impossible and contradictory?

"With citizens (not politicians) deciding when to go to war."

What are you talking about? This is subject to your contradiction. How can you posit it?

Military stalemate is not the mind of world peace I'm a fan of. No thanks

Well maybe I am. I believe one day we will have a system of direct democracy, with citizen militias, no national borders, a modular structure to society and business which would eliminate corporations, a way of calculating non-monetary impact of investments in terms of "profit/loss" and a completely democratized means of production.

What would you call me?

A hypocrite, because this is all subject to the same contradiction you accuse me of. Democracy is either possible , and everyone can drive the car, or it isn't, and only the driver decides

@ Invictus: "The largest ethnic group in the Unites States are Germans"

Really?

Source?

No. Direct democracy is putting everyone in the drivers seat and deciding on where to build the roads by REAL common consensus not by means of representation.

If there could be a poll on which everyone votes - not on people but on specific decisions- that would be direct democracy. If people didn't elect Tony Blair with his connections, interests etc. but were asked "should we go to war?" possibly the answer would have been "no". That's direct democracy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg

Among white people, still a majority and set to be the largest group for a long time, Germans are the largest ethnicity. Perhaps Latinos of all sorts have surpassed the total number of "Germans" in America, but can't you just run with my ridiculous hypothetical for a bit?

Ah. Right. Well direct democracy isn't possible, sorry to say. It didn't even work at Occupy Wall Street.

The reason of course is that people have other shit to do besides govern

do besides govern *others*

I govern my personal life great, and so do most people.

Sure they do, but there are collective actions that need to be taken that we don't all have time to participate in, or learn about.

Direct democracy is the same thing as anarchy, which doesn't work on a broad scale, over long distances or long periods.

Authority can be legitimate. *can* be

If you don't have the time or willingness to learn about or participate in a decision, then you shouldn't influence it.

But seriously, what happened to Ebola in this thread.

"If you don't have the time or willingness to learn about or participate in a decision, then you shouldn't influence it."

Dangerous way of thinking. The decision has to be in everyone's best interests, regardless of who has time to speak up.

It is not in everyones best interest! And saying things like "direct democracy doesn't work" = "occupy wallstreet proves it". Come on.

If we had a computerized system, where you could come home, switch on the NEWS and the it would be a summary of points of an issue to be voted and at the end you issue your vote.

I'm sorry. But you keep saying "anarchy this, anarchy that". We have the technology to make anarchy work. We can trust all our savings, power etc to computers but not use technology in governance? Why? The stock exchange is a remote-decision-making system.

Lmao I would trust the stock exchange further than I can afford to invest in it

Wouldn't* Lol