That was a good debate. I tend to lean on the side of Anarchy myself, but TJ, you did have some valid concerns about how people will behave if they are not, in some ways, coerced into behaving according to a given standard.
But there is also the idea that a lot of problematic behavior, greed at the cost of others, violence etc. are systemic in nature i.e. the system propagates conditions that again force certain behaviors and violence in groups of people who have a lack (from a socio-economic perspective),and are not able to use the lawful means of the system to help them with their disadvantage. Would one steal a loaf of bread, if all bread was public property to begin with? Does anyone steal water from public fountains? The 'necessity'of stealing something happens when one doesn't have, and not having is a problem of public/private property, which in turn is regulated by a governing authority that has decided who can have and who cant. In modern capitalist society, the governing authority has decided that someone who has more than he needs, has a right to acquire more, while someone who began with very little or nothing, does not find it easy to lawfully acquire.
Capitalism and democracy now are symbiotic entities. How would you win an election if you dont have funding, and who has more power to fund than capitalists? It's the military-industrial complex that handles the ruse of democracy.
Like Marx said, "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
Capitalism and democracy are NOT symbiotic. Democracy parasitizes the market, and does not benefit the market administratively or otherwise. Also, if an election is bought, it is neither capitalism nor democracy. Capitalism uses purchasing power on voluntary transactions (ie not elections), and democracy entails an opportunity for people to have an equal say (ie a vote not a dollar).
Thanks for replying :)
A democratic leader may benefit certain favored market players. So isn't democracy in a capitalist system sidestepping it's ideal and acting as a capital regulating force for said players, and hence the market? Aren't market policies often tailored to suit the elite capitalists?
If an election is bought, it is an oligarchy, a synthesis of the two (if you were to draw a Venn diagram). What I mean to say is that ideally, capitalism and democracy should not be crossing paths the way they do now. My statement was not what they are in an ideal world, but what they are in the real world. People in a democracy do have an equal vote, but we can't put aside variables that influence votes, such as campaigning.
Just my thoughts. I'd love to learn anything more on this!
Oh okay I see it's an "is vs. ought" sort of thing. I agree that both are corrupted by the trappings of one another, although I think government force is the real underlying problem--not capital inequality. Furthermore, I'm not sure symbiosis is the right team to describe a relationship that degrades both participants (capitalism + democracy)... Maybe toxic relationship? That sounds juvenile but hey.
If not seen from the viewpoint of those small elite groups benefiting from the arrangement (the shareholders of multi-billion dollar corporations, the bankers, the 'democratic' leaders), but instead from the general public's point of view, then you are absolutely right. It's a very toxic relationship.
It's that point in time now when a brother needs to step in between, push them apart and tell them to 'Get the f**k away from each other. You guys are SHIT together. Jesus!' :D
I think Democracy is shit on it's own, as well, though.