Democracy, the myth of freedom . . .

Drumpot

Democracy is about as real as the Santa.

Like santa its an ideal of goodwill thats used by the rich (or in santas case by the marketers) to keep the minions under the thumb.

I dont think anybody can make a remotely decent arguement that we live in a democracy in any way or form. Truth of the matter is that the more money your have the more democratic your world is. If I have billions I can literally do what I want. I can kill, rape, pillage . . . You name it I can do it and get away with it. I can create, corrupt or mould political opinion and agendas to my needs.

Im not necessarily saying everybody goes into politics for money or that things havent improved since 1900 or before. What I am saying is that the only democracy in the world is money. The more you have the more freedom you have to do whatever you want.

This world is arguably more corrupt then it was supposedly when we were more uncivilized. At least then you could fight your corner on a more even ground. With money, marketing, easier channels of distribution (among other things) the balance of power is always favoring those with strength in their pocket.

To assume that always having a "government" controlling our interest is to assume that they always have the general interests at heart. Im not supporting anarchy per say, but its sometimes needed to rebalance an already ridiculously unbalanced equilibrium of wealth and power.

We are all slaves to the system. Either work or be an outcast. If you eventuallydo get into a position of power the only motivation on front of you will be to get more power or more money.

I would say that capitalism is the anti christ of progressive society. It promotes more negative aspects of human traits. Problem is that its extremist at its core. Make money at all costs, cut all corners, break the laws (or at least flaunt with them) and once regulation is weak the rich will nearly always prevail.

I used to think that "fight club" was an awesome movie simply because it was just a great movie. Just thinking about the idea behind it is superb. Start us all at zero and see how we do . .

The world we are in today is just full of self interested financial parties who own or influence our leaders. Only way to change things are a revolution of epic proportions. Moaning and sticking head in sand is not a trait thats needed.

Could go on but knackered . .

Sofa_King Good

I don't think democracy or capitalism are the problems in themselves, more endemic corruption, like it really pisses me off that my tax is going to bail out banks to in turn lend that back to me at interest.

Having said that if our nearest neighbours east and west weren't democracies I think we'd have a lot more to worry about to be honest.

amacachi

No matter what, you have to remember that most people are idiots. What percentage of people said they would still vote for Bertie after he stepped down from the Dáil and after all his "I don't remember" bull****?

Mahatma coat

Well Bertie has My cote :D:D:D

Democracy is GangRape with a nicer name. well the system in place at the moment purporting to be Democracy is anyway

Caoimhín

Democracy is not perfect but it is the best we have.

Oh oh, there is a book called "Liberty" which is a collection of essays by Isaiah Berlin, it contains his essay on the "two concepts of liberty".

Well worth a read.

James T Kirk

THX1138

bonkey

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

it really pisses me off that my tax is going to bail out banks to in turn lend that back to me at interest.

Its possible that Ireland has come up with a different solution to the rest of the Western world, but everywhere that I've seen a government bailout, your tax is being loaned to the banks at interest in order to bail them out.

meglome

Drumpot wrote: »

I would say that capitalism is the anti christ of progressive society. It promotes more negative aspects of human traits. Problem is that its extremist at its core. Make money at all costs, cut all corners, break the laws (or at least flaunt with them) and once regulation is weak the rich will nearly always prevail.

The problem is that every other form of government that has been tried has been shown to be worse than capitalism. People are greedy, this isn't something that capitalism created. Some countries especially the US didn't put enough checks in place to stop things getting out of control.

nyarlothothep

I entirely agree OP. You are bang on the money. The 8 hour wage slavery routine is designed to exhaust people, to divert their attention away from whats going on in plain view. Job security is decreased so that all you worry about is your job, such that you're less likely to question the way society is structured. We don't need 90% of the jobs that are out there, we don't need sales and marketing jobs. Massive student debt is hiked up to incentivize graduates to work for multi nationals, to become co-opted by the system as tools to further reinforce the institutions that constitute it. There is no democracy, those with money and access to the media can influence people to behave in certain ways.

The public relations industry was set up in the US to "control the public mind," because the elite couldn't wield a baton over their heads, so they resorted to brain washing. People are indoctrinated to become consumers obsessed with their own little "me" world. Greed and pathological disregard are traits that are actively encouraged under the capitalist system. Why do we need politicians? Why do we need people to manage people? I see no reason for it, people should determine their own destinies, their own futures. The state is a meaningless institution. Anarchism ftw.

Btw Fight Club was an amazing movie and I was thinking just yesterday how cool it would be if the Tyler Durden philosophy was put into practice.

meglome

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I entirely agree OP. You are bang on the money. The 8 hour wage slavery routine is designed to exhaust people, to divert their attention away from whats going on in plain view. Job security is decreased so that all you worry about is your job, such that you're less likely to question the way society is structured. We don't need 90% of the jobs that are out there, we don't need sales and marketing jobs. Massive student debt is hiked up to incentivize graduates to work for multi nationals, to become co-opted by the system as tools to further reinforce the institutions that constitute it. There is no democracy, those with money and access to the media can influence people to behave in certain ways.

The public relations industry was set up in the US to "control the public mind," because the elite couldn't wield a baton over their heads, so they resorted to brain washing. People are indoctrinated to become consumers obsessed with their own little "me" world. Greed and pathological disregard are traits that are actively encouraged under the capitalist system. Why do we need politicians? Why do we need people to manage people? I see no reason for it, people should determine their own destinies, their own futures. The state is a meaningless institution. Anarchism ftw.

Btw Fight Club was an amazing movie and I was thinking just yesterday how cool it would be if the Tyler Durden philosophy was put into practice.

So when in history did people have it better?

Drumpot

meglome wrote: »

The problem is that every other form of government that has been tried has been shown to be worse than capitalism. People are greedy, this isn't something that capitalism created. Some countries especially the US didn't put enough checks in place to stop things getting out of control.

Just because its the best of a bad bunch of ideals doesnt make it in anyway good.

And it harnesses the human trait "greed" , theres few other ideals that would really have such emphasis on rewarding greed on such a grand scale. In truth if you arent greedy you are only ever going to be a sucker in Capitalistic society.

And somebody mentioned that in history we have never been better off!! WTF, how did you work that out. Im sure they will argue the point on slavery or how the rich were even further above the minions ! When you strip down all the "goods" we all have in our possesion it still amounts to the same as it was in previous centuries. The rich get rich, if they lose some or all of their money, the poor somehow ending up footing the bill. Call it whatever ideal you want but very few things have changed since slavery except mind control techniques to keep us in check. Revolutions change the landscape of economies and countries, but in the end some greedy party always ends up at the top of the food chain, until another revolution evens up the playing fields.!!

bonkey

This has nothing to do with Conspiracy Theories. I propose moving this to Politics or Political Theory.

Drumpot

bonkey wrote: »

This has nothing to do with Conspiracy Theories. I propose moving this to Politics or Political Theory.

I agree and disagree.

There is a hint of conspiracy that "the man" just uses progressive concessions to keep the minions working in the mines for his benefit.

That in itself is a debate (on whether or not its really a conspiracy or just a fact of life!)

Crash

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I entirely agree OP. You are bang on the money. The 8 hour wage slavery routine is designed to exhaust people, to divert their attention away from whats going on in plain view. Job security is decreased so that all you worry about is your job, such that you're less likely to question the way society is structured. We don't need 90% of the jobs that are out there, we don't need sales and marketing jobs. Massive student debt is hiked up to incentivize graduates to work for multi nationals, to become co-opted by the system as tools to further reinforce the institutions that constitute it. There is no democracy, those with money and access to the media can influence people to behave in certain ways.

The public relations industry was set up in the US to "control the public mind," because the elite couldn't wield a baton over their heads, so they resorted to brain washing. People are indoctrinated to become consumers obsessed with their own little "me" world. Greed and pathological disregard are traits that are actively encouraged under the capitalist system. Why do we need politicians? Why do we need people to manage people? I see no reason for it, people should determine their own destinies, their own futures. The state is a meaningless institution. Anarchism ftw.

Btw Fight Club was an amazing movie and I was thinking just yesterday how cool it would be if the Tyler Durden philosophy was put into practice.

Yeah totally, that film made by the Zionist/NWO controlled Hollywood picture houses is TOTALLY the best example ever there.

:pac:

Capt'n Midnight

The Greeks were right , a benovelant dictatorship is best, but until aliens arrive that would mean corruptable humans in control. And a bad dictator is worse than a bad democracy.

Drumpot

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Greeks were right , a benovelant dictatorship is best, but until aliens arrive that would mean corruptable humans in control. And a bad dictator is worse than a bad democracy.

Wouldnt disagree with your last comment, but it always seems to be the whole "this is as good as it gets" arguement which really isnt good enough for the vast majority of people in the world.

At the end of the day, there is an elite privaleged in the world and then theres just the rest of us eating scraps off their table . If we every make some noise collectively (which seldom happens) they throw us the preverbiable bone in the form of more democractic rights and legal protection. One could argue that what they lose on the swings they gain on the roundabouts. . .

bonkey

Move to Political Theory.

Mods of PT....if you disagree (or if it goes off the rails) move back to CT.

oscarBravo

No problem with it staying here, as long as everyone understands that Politics rules apply from here on. If you're not sure what those are, go look them up.

Capt'n Midnight

Drumpot wrote: »

Wouldnt disagree with your last comment, but it always seems to be the whole "this is as good as it gets" arguement which really isnt good enough for the vast majority of people in the world.

"Democracy is the worst possible form of government, apart from all the other possible forms of government" Winston Churchill

many expirements in new forms of government are disasterous

then again the fact that people ignore democracy is a good sign ,low electral turnout mean the people aren't all that upset with the system

Drumpot

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"Democracy is the worst possible form of government, apart from all the other possible forms of government" Winston Churchill

many expirements in new forms of government are disasterous

then again the fact that people ignore democracy is a good sign ,low electral turnout mean the people aren't all that upset with the system

True. It could be argued that a majority of people will accept the world that they are born into. To suggest that they are programmed into just going along with establishment, wouldnt be beyond the realms of possibility.

And many people who dont vote dont see too many good alternatives to lead their country. Goes back to the whole "this is as good as it gets" theory whereby the average joe doesnt feel they can "change the world" they live in.

And I think every country is ruled by an overlord dictator . . . Money . .

Nodin

Nothing wrong with democracy, as long as the correct checks and balances are in place to protect minorities, and to stop knee-jerk or vote-chasing legislation.

Capt'n Midnight

Drumpot wrote:

And I think every country is ruled by an overlord dictator . . . Money . .

This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy

monosharp

meglome wrote: »

The problem is that every other form of government that has been tried has been shown to be worse than capitalism.

It constantly surprises me how many people will say things like this.

Capitalism = democracy and communism = facism/totalitarism.
Complete total rubbish.

Capitalism has nothing to do with government, its an economic system, not a political one.

Look at all the 'capitalist' countries that were and are dictatorships/totalitarian states.

Capitalism is basically feudal in nature. Capitalism is to economics as the feudal system was to democracy. There is nothing democratic about Capitalism.

Communism has never been tried, not real communism.

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state with a mostly communist economic system. A true communist state is where the power and wealth is with the people, i.e > Its never happened, not even close.

I find it absolutely amazing that people can actually think that a state like North Korea is communist when the people, the workers have no power whatsoever and you have Kim's elite few controlling the government and the wealth.

People are greedy, this isn't something that capitalism created.

No, but Capitalism makes it easy for people to be greedy and continue to take advantage of each other for their own greed.

Some countries especially the US didn't put enough checks in place to stop things getting out of control.

Yes they did.

The problem is this;

In a capitalist system of economics, when you put safeguards into the system and the same elite keep getting richer, they also get more influencial. The more influence and money they get the more power they have, the more power they have the easier it is for them to get rid or find ways around those safeguards.

The US had checks in place, the elite got richer and more powerful and got rid of the checks or found ways around them and that will always be the case.

Acacia

Going Waterforward wrote: »

Yeah totally, that film made by the Zionist/NWO controlled Hollywood picture houses is TOTALLY the best example ever there.

:pac:

But the book on which it was written was by an 'ordinary joe', Chuck Palahniuk, who has nothing to do with Hollywood, other than having his novels adapted into movies, and who doesn't really seem to have an 'agenda'.

Drumpot

monosharp wrote: »

In a capitalist system of economics, when you put safeguards into the system and the same elite keep getting richer, they also get more influencial. The more influence and money they get the more power they have, the more power they have the easier it is for them to get rid or find ways around those safeguards.
.

Perfect. I was looking for a sentance that could properly articulate how I feel about capitalism.

The Corinthian

Drumpot wrote: »

Either work or be an outcast.

I hate to mention it, but no matter what system you live in, unless there is a very, very good reason you cannot contribute, you will have to contribute and in general this involves work. How it works varies from model to model, but ultimately someone's got to dig ditches. Otherwise you're a parasite.

Drumpot

The Corinthian wrote: »

I hate to mention it, but no matter what system you live in, unless there is a very, very good reason you cannot contribute, you will have to contribute and in general this involves work. How it works varies from model to model, but ultimately someone's got to dig ditches. Otherwise you're a parasite.

I was using the word "work" in the modern term, particularly in capitalistic society.

I believe in the concept of working to live, rather then the opposite. Capitalism does not support that concept. Inflation, interest rates coupled with poor regulation and corrupt individuals, force me to work harder for less. This is undeniable that the working class of society are usually the ones who carry the can for mistakes of the rich or powerful.

You can be "working" and still be a parasite on society. With that in mind its not nessesarily correct to say that your a parasite if you dont work (does anybody think the world would be better place if the vested interest groups that have screwed us all, didnt work)! !:D

The Corinthian

Drumpot wrote: »

I believe in the concept of working to live, rather then the opposite. Capitalism does not support that concept.

I don't know about that, many actually are happy in their chosen careers and do live to work and work to live. Many are not and change to what makes them happy.

Inflation, interest rates coupled with poor regulation and corrupt individuals, force me to work harder for less. This is undeniable that the working class of society are usually the ones who carry the can for mistakes of the rich or powerful.

You're kind of mixing up a few economic terms with political ideology.

Inflation, for example, does not disappear even if you get rid of money. Ultimately it is the inevitable result of where demand outstrips demand and the marginal value of a good increases accordingly because of its scarcity.

Corruption is, in itself, not a creation of Capitalism or Western democracy either, only of lack of accountability, and this is a problem common with all systems.

You can be "working" and still be a parasite on society.

Of course you can, which is why I said "contribute" and only that this tends to mean "work". You can contribute in other ways that are valid, but these too are essentially "work" (non-commercial art and charity being two potential spheres), just as one can be "employed" but not actually contribute.

With that in mind its not nessesarily correct to say that your a parasite if you dont work (does anybody think the world would be better place if the vested interest groups that have screwed us all, didnt work)! !:D

If you don't contribute in a meaningful way you are. If you don't 'work' then you have to contribute in another fashion, and the value of that is often debatable.

DadaKopf

Capitalism has nothing to do with government, its an economic system, not a political one.

Well, that depends on perspective. I'd consider capitalism to be a particular social structure which governs how human beings relate to each other. Marx called the labour processes of capitalism a 'social relation', not a monolithic theory as such. Central to it, however, are (1) a particular arrangement of the ownership of property and (2) the profit motive. Because capitalism is a social relation, it isn't just economic, it's political, too. It implies a certain form of the distribution of power.

But around the time this system developed, so, too did modern notions of civic republican democracy. It never advanced that far, becoming in most countries a form of narrow 'competitive elitism' in which elites traded power positions through the process of popular elections. Increasingly, industrial-style bureaucracies became more influential in the continuation of government. But there remained a significant though highly restricted check on that power: the elected representative-cum-minister.

I'm a great believer in democracy, but I don't fool myself into thinking we really have it. My point is that states and elected governments in a capitalist market economy find themselves in a very contradictory situation. States need cash to do what they want, so they need taxes. It's more difficult to just take workers' money these days, and companies don't like taxation because it reduces profits, which undermines the state's ability to do what it wants. So the state must choose a Faustian bargain and make a merry dance between the demands of voters and capital (and the points at which both overlap). It's a contradictory situation because in a democracy, where the decisions are supposed to be made in citizens' interests, they are increasingly made in capital's interests.

Notice how, in Ireland, successive governments increasingly gave into the demands of the private sectors, especially the construction and financial sectors in recent years. Policy decisions succeeded in satisfying some of citizens' demands, but at the expense of making citizens more vulnerable and at the expense of a badly planned and regulated country. This is just one example of this process.

I don't have any answers for how this could have been prevented in our emasculated political system. There were voices of warning alright, but they were ignored. As J.S. Mill, the famous liberal utilitarian philosopher warned, watch the media. The left makes the same warnings. The media is the paramilitary wing of any dominant ideology.

thebman

OP you should read 1984 if you like Fight Club IMO.

Also look up Antiflag - The Press Corpse (punk song), Turncoat, Got the Numbers and Welcome to 1984. The lyrics are good IMO but the music is a bit hate filled if your used to main stream stuff.

You might also watch Zeitgeist (free online) and Free Culture (free book online)

Anyway my take on the whole thing would be that Democracy is the best we have. Anarchy will never achieve what we have achieved as a society using Democracy and capitalism.

In saying that there is an increasing over dependency on Capitalist ideals rather than realising that in some cases, the state can do a better job as the state (at least in theory) will have the peoples best interests at heart.

As for people being slaves to 9-5, this is not really the case. I think it is possible to make money doing something everybody loves, its just that for some people this isn't enough. I have gone into an industry I love and although management have frustrated me at times, overall, the actual work I do leaves me satisfied and I enjoy doing it and I enjoy working in a team on the projects I have worked on.

A lot of jobs don't need to exist, you are right but they exist and generally jobs that aren't fun to do pay pretty well in a lot of cases so people that do them, do so to pursue their dream of owning stuff. That is really up to each person to decide IMO. The capitalist, democracy does not force people to do this. People choose to want what they see in ads, I would consider that I own everything I want and they are all tools that I use in one way or other for my personal enjoyment such as my mountain bike, laptop or games console. It is entertainment and this entertainment wouldn't exist IMO in a non-capitalist, non-democratic society (at least not to the same extent).

I think our and other nations employment laws need to be reformed, I would not allow political donations to parties as this makes them slaves to their invested interests IMO. However to bring about such reform, it would have to occur on a global scale as otherwise, multi-national corporations will just move to another country that does not have such laws and that is the only place where the slavery and problems exist in our current society IMO.

It is countries and peoples desires to get one up on each other that causes the problems, not the systems that we put in place. No matter what the system, it seems it is impossible to erradicate greed.

ChocolateSauce

It is the worst form of government, yes...except for all the others.

extragon

It's a fine form of government but, as the OP says, it's not "real."
A "real democracy" could never work. A scary thought: half the world's population has an IQ less than 100. So they rely on social ( ie. follow the leader ) intelligence. In public affairs they depend, directly or indirectly, on the simplicities pissed down on them by the plutocrat owners of popular medias.

Not ideal, but not all bad. Would the "people," left to themselves, have voted for free trade, or racial equality? How about the internet? ( 20 years ago hardly anyone saw the point.)
In an earlier age would people have voted for decolonisation, or against the power of the Church?
Would the cavemen have voted to leave the caves?

The Corinthian

extragon wrote: »

A scary thought: half the world's population has an IQ less than 100.

Actually, just under half.

nesf

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Greeks were right , a benovelant dictatorship is best, but until aliens arrive that would mean corruptable humans in control. And a bad dictator is worse than a bad democracy.

That's essentially the conclusion that Mancur Olson came to in his final book before his death (Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships). In theory a benevolent dictator is the best option. They can act with a view to the best long term option even when the short run of the strategy would be difficult to implement in a democracy because it's unpleasant. Think raising the age of retirement to preserve benefits for future retirees or drastic changes to expenditure to fix a gaping budget deficit like ours. Short term pain, long term gain. Exactly the opposite kind of polices that are easy to pass in democracies.

The problem is that there are huge incentives for the dictator to stop being 100% benevolent and start redirecting some of that wealth to him or his cronies. So generally the conclusion is that no matter how big the pay-offs a dictator might bring seem to be they're outweighed by the immense pain and suffering that is possible.

You run into similar problems with any form of non-term limited oligarchy. Though something like the American model (President appointing non-elected "experts" to key roles of Government) is a good compromise between democracy and oligarchy which can capture the advantages of both, though it does allow for some potentially nasty outcomes if the wrong kind of person becomes President. Though honestly, there's a similar amount of power vested in out own Taioseach office thanks to DeV.

Sand

You run into similar problems with any form of non-term limited oligarchy. Though something like the American model (President appointing non-elected "experts" to key roles of Government) is a good compromise between democracy and oligarchy which can capture the advantages of both, though it does allow for some potentially nasty outcomes if the wrong kind of person becomes President. Though honestly, there's a similar amount of power vested in out own Taioseach office thanks to DeV.

I think it might be worse in Ireland - arent Presidential appointees quizzed by a powerful legislature and need to be approved? Whereas the in Ireland the Taioseach can appoint cronies with no justification or oversight.

DadaKopf

Sand wrote: »

I think it might be worse in Ireland - arent Presidential appointees quizzed by a powerful legislature and need to be approved? Whereas the in Ireland the Taioseach can appoint cronies with no justification or oversight.

That's definitely the case as it stands.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Primal Nut

Meh, I'm happy enough with my life.

As long as people have the opportunity to choose between getting educated and working a job they like or following a trade or whatever they want to do I don't see the problem. They should all have a certain amount of choice into how they contribute to society.

Thats why we should focus a lot more on improving other less fortunate countries. If we could give our system to all of Africa the world be a lot better place. Yeah, so some people will have more money and powers than others, so what? Some are lucky enough to be born into it others make it themselves, whatever. As long as I'm not been thrown into a concentration camp, etc,etc. Considering how most systems are we have it well. Of course we should still hold our politicians accountable a lot better than we do, but I don't see how a total overall of the system will change people's lives for the better. There might be ways of reducing an individuals power, corruption etc, but this is as good a system as there is for standards of living.

People seem to always emphasise America as having the worst system as if its the worst place to live in the world, you'd swear its hell on earth. But there are a lot worse places to live!! Standard of living is the most important thing.

And as for corporations shaping us into consumers, we have an individual choice whether we allow them too. It seems the op has rejected being turned into a consumer...everyone has that choice.

A Primal Nut

For the record I think a benevolant dictator would be a nice idea, but they are too rare and unlikely to say the least.

extragon

A "real democracy" might just work - in a distant future. Nearly everyone has the same basic insticts, about human rights, for example. It's just that they apply them inconsistently, selfishly, and using faulty information.

Imagine a country with no parliament, and citizens voting on issues using an interactive internet, filtered by a super computer, with totally transparent rules, only changeable by consensus - a kind of benevolent dictator which would ruthlessly eliminate inconsistency.

If you grant a "human right" in case A, you must grant it in case B, or agree to change your values, or you must provide a rational explanation based on generally accepted knowledge. If you reduce taxes you must reduce spending, and so on.

Tech3

thebman wrote: »

OP you should read 1984 if you like Fight Club IMO.

Anyway my take on the whole thing would be that Democracy is the best we have. Anarchy will never achieve what we have achieved as a society using Democracy and capitalism..

Multinationals have come earned a profit and left. Leaving us poor Irish people without a job. Unemployment is over 350,000 people. Capitalist ideals are the main front of what has happened over the last 2 years. Our country is in severe debt and taxes are likely going to be thrown on top of low earners making society even worse than it is.

As for people being slaves to 9-5, this is not really the case. I think it is possible to make money doing something everybody loves, its just that for some people this isn't enough. I have gone into an industry I love and although management have frustrated me at times, overall, the actual work I do leaves me satisfied and I enjoy doing it and I enjoy working in a team on the projects I have worked on.

Its okay for people on higher wages that have some kind of "democracy". We have to look at the lower paid who work just to get by while there is a huge gap to the wages of our bankers and politicians who have made a mess of the country. They get bailed out whereas the hard earning tax payer will be getting less in their pockets as a result of this.

A lot of jobs don't need to exist, you are right but they exist and generally jobs that aren't fun to do pay pretty well in a lot of cases so people that do them, do so to pursue their dream of owning stuff. That is really up to each person to decide IMO. The capitalist, democracy does not force people to do this. People choose to want what they see in ads, I would consider that I own everything I want and they are all tools that I use in one way or other for my personal enjoyment such as my mountain bike, laptop or games console. It is entertainment and this entertainment wouldn't exist IMO in a non-capitalist, non-democratic society (at least not to the same extent).

Why would they not exist? People would be still entitled to spend on what wages they have earned. The problem with this country is there is too many people that will contend with the corruption and greed seen with the fat cats. There is no such thing as equality when a capitalist government is in power.

Vichy

Democracy is a horrible idea to begin with. There is no way the requisite information required for a realistic evaluation of political consequences - with all their externalities, especially considering that it is literally impossible to engage in interpersonal comparisons of value - can be gained by anyone, much less hoards of people. This applies to the elites as much as the masses of voters. In substitution for such knowledge they adopt tropes, slogan-based reasoning and inhereted ideology. Given that opinion holds sway in democracies this means that the Press - as incapable of such evaluation as the rest of us poor human beings - more or less 'rules' the country, perpetuating an ideology that the intellectual elites tricked themselves into believing.

Democracy is, really, just a kind of slow-motion civil war where equally ignorant and self-righteous parties fight over control of the state to force everyone else into their herd.

Thank God democracy is as limited as it is.