Hugo

I've actually provided an answer in another thread. You can't morally beat me up and steal my property because such a position means that you would have to be better and superior to me in order to have any moral justification for so doing, and such a position is not objectively defensible. If you think you can make such a position, by all means, try. Just realise before you start that you are doing exactly the same thing as the Nazis, and the philosophers who fell in with and inspired them, did.

So once again, you tell me that might makes right, and you see this as ethically acceptable. Otherwise you are very confused. I would say that superior force gives one an ability to expropriate, but not the moral right. What you have have given me is apologia for the Holocaust, the Great Terror, the Cultural Revolution and so forth. I don't think that's where you stand - is it? Appeasement. How do you justify your self-contradiction, now? I would like an answer, and not another dodge, please. That is a bad example. You are deliberately obfuscating the issue by talking about the expropriation of previously expropriated property, which is not what we are discussing at all. We are talking about the expropriation of rightfully obtained property. So let's take a non-obfuscatory example. Let us say you go into unclaimed wildnerness, say, Antarctica. You dig in the ground and find some gold. Then a man turns up with a gun, shoots you and takes that gold. What you have said to me is that this man has committed no crime, and that the gold is now rightfully his.

What says I don't? I want to hear your alternative theory. You can read my all-too-brief summary of Lockean-Rothbardian natural rights theory below. Which cases does it not include? You still have not addressed the massive failing of your definition which, according to you, makes the following paragraph perfectly correct: "I went down to the state early today and played cards. Then I went to the state, confessed and was absolved. Then I went home and my state served me lunch. Then I went to the state office and paid my taxes. Afterward I went to the state and bought an MP3 player." You still have not replied to that post. Seller of what? I am the only possible seller of everything I own, including my labour. In fact, everything on the planet is exclusively owned, so that means everything on the planet is monopolised, and everybody alive is a monopolist. Another completely useless definition from The Terrible Sweal (so-called). Demonstrate why. I notice plenty of nit-picking from you and a complete lack of coherent counter-argument. To be honest, I'm getting tired of your sniping from the sidelines and would like you to make your position known - if you have one. Clearly I'm going to have to run over the entire property-rights theory for you since you haven't been bothered to read about this subject before you shot your mouth off. Let's start with the Lockean theory. Basically, it goes like this. The universe is made up of many separate entities with various properties. With inanimate things, plants and particularly the lower animals, physical properties and instincts guide their actions exclusively. Human action and thought is not governed by physical properties and instincts. In discovering what we should think and do we have no instincts to guide us, and our physical properties do not force us into any of the myriad alternatives of action and thought open to us. There is no "right" way to think and act since no human is innately superior to another and no superhuman solution has been revealed. Therefore, a human being should be allowed to think and act with the fullest freedom that can be accorded to him, because anything else is antihuman and would mean that some people must be innately superior (they who get to restrict freedom), which cannot be objectively supported. This is self-ownership. It therefore follows that when a man takes natural resources and mixes his labour with them they become his. By working with something he extends his own self into them and he has a claim over them. A person who has not mixed his labour with a natural resource cannot claim ownership. There are two alternatives to this. Firstly, that some people have the right of ownership over things that others, not they, have mixed their labour with: the right of expropriation. If this is the alternative you support I would like to hear your moral argument for this. The second is that we all equally share everything, and that every person alive owns a six-billionth share of everything. The main problem with this is that it is impossible to meaningfully exert ownership over a part of everything, which means that such ownership basically becomes the first alternative again: ownership by a privileged group with the right of expropriation. If this is the alternative you support, I would like to hear how you propose to make a workable system out of equal, one-six-billionth ownership of everything on and in the planet. So, I would like you to tell me which of the alternatives to natural-rights property theory you espouse and why.

Let me get this straight: working for an employer of your choosing or for yourself is enslavement. Working for the state on pain of imprisonment, torture and execution is freedom. That's your position? Freedom is slavery, peace is war, ignorance is strength, etc? Ignorance certainly seems to be your "strength".

This is, logically, nonsense. Violence is a transgression of property rights, i.e. the right to self-ownership and the right to property ownership. One cannot claim that one has been a victim of violence if one's own person or property has not been aggressed against, and one cannot claim that such aggression is wrong unless one has a better claim to the object of aggression than the aggressor. What you are saying, therefore, is that property is violence against property, the old Proudhonian fallacy. How can something be a transgression of itself? That isn't pragmatism, that's resignation. It is not that you believe it is the best and most practical way, it is that you believe it is unjust but are unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

It would be ironic if I said that, but I did not. What I say is that you can do whatever you please, so long as it doesn't interfere with my doing whatever I please - and vice versa. The difference is that to the libertarian, any action that involves only the actor, or any consensual multi-party action, is no grounds for intervention or objection. The statist argues that it is. Libertarians mind their own business, statists meddle in other people's affairs. Which are you? Consider that there is no fundamental difference in telling somebody he can't take cocaine from telling him that he may not worship God, or between telling him he can't sell a certain product and telling him that he can't have gay sex, or between telling him he must pay for the food of the poor or for the food of the King, or between telling him he cannot hire certain people as employees and telling him he must march into a gas chamber and be exterminated. Basically, "You do what we tell you, and your interests and desires be damned."

Irrelevant. What I may gain from property or whether or not I transfer it has no bearing on whether or not I own it, which is the question here. No, that's not what you said at all! This is your original contention: If they were the sole base factors, how could they not be present every time? No. I own my TV until I willingly trade its title. The theft of the TV does not stop me owning it, just possessing it. If this were not true, the police would never investigate robberies, nor would we regard robbery as a crime, because it would just be thieves justly acquiring property, and once robbed, the victim would no longer have a moral claim on his goods. Right? Regardless, what you are basically saying is "might makes right", that it is natural and perhaps even just in society for the strong to prey upon the weak, enslave and expropriate them, and this should be the foundation of moral codes. This, certainly, would be a justification for the state, since there is no bigger practitioner of violence and expropriation than the state, and as they are the most violent and strong group in our society, certainly everything we own is basically bequeathed to them. Where we differ is that I think this is morally wrong, whereas you don't appear to.

That's basically the creed of statism, yes. "You can do whatever you want so long as I approve of it first."

Not you particularly, just people like you, who trot out tired, old ideas that have not held any water in the last two centuries, and propose to strip men of their liberty and dignity with a smile on your face, telling people as you enslave them that it is for their own good.

How can it be? Once one man becomes Prime Minister, the office is closed to all other candidates. Sure, it will be open again at some point in the future, but the same could be said of Stalin's government too. So your contention rests upon the possibility that the physical world does not exist? But all those things can also be called a state, according to your definition. I can say, and be perfectly correct: "I went down to the state early today and played cards. Then I went to the state, confessed and was absolved. Then I went home and my state served me lunch. Then I went to the state office and paid my taxes. Afterward I went to the state and bought an MP3 player."

It does not matter. Thelonius has proposed that violence is behind all ownership, not some ownership. How insightful. Is it that you don't know what it is, or just that you aren't willing to discuss it at this time? My ownership of the nugget. Yes, that's right. Until you find an insurmountable problem with it, or you provide a better definition, it's the one I'll go with. Since forever. The definition of monopoly is the control of a good, service or commodity held by force (against the customers, against potential competitors). Why? If I possess something, do I not have a de facto right of disposal? And if you say that no violence was committed up until this point, does that not contradict your point that violence is the sole factor in deciding ownership? After all, by your own admission, I can possess something and (if no other human attempts to intervene) dispose of it as I please without violence. If another human does attempt to intervene, then the violence is on his part, not mine, and pertains not to ownership but to the attempt to usurp ownership. How does that affect my right of ownership? I may have a large plasma TV, too, which doubtless others in this city would covet and seek to liberate from my possession. Do I not own my TV, then? Actually, the biggest criminal element in history and society is government. It has committed more murders than any other individual or group, stolen more money and property, kidnapped, tortured and raped more people, and so forth. Find me a crime and I'll show you that some government somewhere was its biggest perpetrator. Now, if you're talking about petty criminals, it certainly is not the case. Private law enforcement would be more efficient, results-oriented, and due to competitive pressures far less vulnerable to bribery and corruption. The government monopoly over justice has given us a broken system, with massive prison populations, prevalent recidivism, failed deterrence, corruption and bribery, and many justice agents being little better than the criminals they supposedly protect us from. Government is not synonymous with social order. The best theory for the rise of government is that during the agricultural revolution, pastoral nomads would raid agricultural settlements during hard times to steal their grain. After a while, they realised it would be better to just make the agriculturalists work for them and protect them against other pastoralist raiders, taking a tribute of grain which they could obtain with a lot less effort. In effect, they made the agriculturalists their wards like their herds. And hey presto, you have a government: a body of armed men that expropriate by force in exchange for monopolised services.

Sure, it's useful. Nerve gas is useful. Nuclear weapons are useful. The usefulness of a thing really depends on what your objectives are. Sure they do. They just don't realise it, because prices don't have to be in money. Families generally give things to one another, like trades, and the fact that family members will sometimes estrange themselves or disown other members is an indication that a trade was expected to take place, and the estranging or disowning party felt that they were bilked. No, and oil futures are not sold on ebay either. I suppose that means there's no market for oil futures, right? After all, oil futures are analogous to your example - they are the right to use property not currently in your possession at some future time. Then your point is null and void, because institutions are not the same as mechanisms. You have said that people use several institutions to cooperate, but one of those things was not an institution at all! No, because as my definition of government shows quite clearly, the sole qualification to be a government is not the use or threat of force. No, actually it is a response to violence. The breach of contract was the initiation of violence against property. If ostracism is a form of violence, then I should be locked up, because I've never shopped at Price Club. My ostracism of Price Club is an act of violence against them. Now you are falling into the Chicagoite trap of comparing the real world to "perfect competition", forgetting that perfection is subjective and that perfect competition is unobtainable. The argument is akin to criticising healthcare services because they have failed to achieve immortality. If that was the easiest way, what makes you think such a method would not arise naturally without the need to enforce it with violence? If you believe that humans are fallible enough to ignore the best possible solution in favour of a lesser one if they are not coerced, then you are an even bigger fool to give these fallible humans the power of coercive government and legitimised violence! Similarly, the fact is that we will never know if there is a better alternative, because this is the outcome of monopoly. We replaced torches with oil lights, then gas lights, and now electric lights. Doubtless something better awaits us in the future, but if government mandated that we all use electric light and forbade development of anything better, we'd never get there. No, you cannot, because the transaction costs of private traffic lights are entirely unknown, having not been tried. What are you basing these forecasts on? If you believe that it would be chaos because there would be no unity in rules of the road, I hate to break it to you, but the free market actually produces conformity wherever it is needed. There is no law stating that all credit and debit cards must be the same size, but they are, because the market has found it expedient to do so.

Explain how. Just because you say it does not make it so. For instance, I go out into the unclaimed wilderness and find a nugget of gold. I pick it up and take it home. What violence was committed? The definition of a government or state is an institution which monopolizes at least the services of law enforcement/provision and justice within a given geographical area. Since monopoly can only be held using violence or the threat thereof, governments are therefore inherently violent. That is the essence of government. The coincidence of price and product does not necessarily signal a cartel, however. With gasoline, it just so happens that gasoline is a commodity and as such is pretty much identical between providers, and the prices are very close because (after the distortions applied by various governments are applied) that is the natural market-clearing price. Minor variations are the products of minor differences within the individual providers and supplies. In government, we have much the same thing. Very little choice, no discernable cartel. It is just the nature of government to expand, as "Cato" said almost three centuries ago, as Ibn Khaldun said about three centuries before that, and so on. So the choice being offered the electorate is basically, "By what road shall we proceed towards becoming a totalitarian, Communist welfare-warfare state?" That is where all states are destined to end up, just as in a market all prices are ultimately destined to drop towards zero.

No. The potential for entry into the ranks of rulers does not make one a ruler, just a potential one. You seem to understand the difference between the potential and the actual perfectly well when it comes to abortion, so I find your sudden pretended ignorance here rather amusing. Wrong again. Consider a scenario in which the entry of one candidate into an institution necessarily excludes the other candidates. For instance, when sperm are fertilizing an ovum, all have the potential to fuse with the ovum, yet when one sperm actually does, all the others are excluded. In this case, we can say "any sperm can fuse with the ovum." We cannot say, "all sperm can fuse with the ovum." No, it does not. If you accept that there is a physical world which exists independently of human perceptions of it, then there is a "correct" version of events in which one party was the first to use violence. For instance, my sons come to me and say, "He hit me!" "Well, he hit me first!" "No, he hit me first!" and so on. Both are claiming that they are the victims of coercion, but only one actually is. Rights are rules for human interaction. Without more than one human there cannot be human interaction, and without human interaction there cannot be rights. Human individuals come up with rights but they do so because they are not alone. There might be ten people in the universe and each might have a unique rights theory. They only develop them, though, because there are other people with whom they have to interact. So what? Yet again, Sweal, your definition of "state" cannot distinguish between the Federal Government of Canada, and a private company, or a gentleman's club, or a casino, or a family, or pretty much any other method of human interaction for that matter. So your definition of "state" is useless and derelict, because it cannot describe a state as the term is understood in the English language. You have made your argument first and then defined your terms, which is backwards, and why you are stuck in a terrible self-contradiction. You have said that a state is necessary for rights and society, and when asked what a state is, you basically say, "everything." I'll give you an analogy. "Motor oil is necessary for human life. Why? Because I call air 'motor oil'." Do you mean that collectivism is essential to the enforcement of rights, or that rights can only exist in collectives?

Sure we do! We have voluntary, noncoercive methods to do the same. We just don't exercise them (because if we did, we'd get beaten with the stick). First off, family operates like a market (see Becker - again). Secondly, markets are not an institution. Institutions are monolithic and have goals. Markets are not monolithic and have no goals. Thirdly, government is apart from the others because it alone uses violence as its sole means of obtaining cooperation.

Where did I say that democracy made everybody a ruler? Quote, please. But that someone has already applied force to obtain an end from someone otherwise unwilling who did not first use force against them. Therefore, violence in response to coercion is not coercion. This is the difference between shooting a man in the street and shooting an armed intruder in your home. We've been over this before and you were unable to defend this definition, because it makes marriage counsellors 'states', and professional arbiters "states", and priests, and schoolteachers, and notary publics, and so on and so forth. Ultimately it makes everybody a state and the planet into 6 billion states of one, because we are all the legitimisers of our own actions. We justify what we do to ourselves. Ultimately this is the difference between self-government and imposed government. Self-government is part of being human, and perfectly compatible with anarchy. Imposed government, however, is not. This is like economic planning. Self-economic-planning is perfectly compatible with the free market, this is what people do when the save for their retirement, invest, make a budget and so forth. Imposed economic planning is not. No, he does not have rights, and he does not need rights because he is alone. Rights theory depends upon there being a universe with many different objects and acting agents. I advise you to prove that they are false. I already made my case. No, it is not. Voluntary collective action is not at all the same thing as imposed collective action. Ten man can band together to form a company, that is voluntary collective action. The state can tax ten men on pain of imprisonment or death to fund a state enterprise, that is imposed collective action. Explain how. I have already made my case for the opposite (i.e. that the very existence of the state requires the violation of the rights it 'upholds'). In order to have an argument you have to actually say something besides "no it isn't", you know.

Well, as Locke had proposed, unclaimed natural resources are not owned by anyone, and homesteading is simply the process by which a person mixes his labour - his property - with those resources, thus giving him a far better claim to it than any other person, making it his. Consider that English Common Law holds ownership as being relative rather than absolute. The question in that law is not "who owns this?" but "who owns this most?" or "whose claim is the strongest?" In this case, the case of the man who has mixed his labour with natural resources is far stronger than that of the man who has not. Ownership is simply the claim or title to do as you please with something (bound, obviously, by the laws of physics and so forth). I can do as I please with my own body, I control it. Even allowing for slavery, I cannot really even give up my control of my own body. I can work for another but I cannot grant control of my body to him in the same way that I control my body (even if I could, it wouldn't change anything). Therefore, since naturally and without the intervention of any other human it is only I who controls my body, I therefore own my body. If I combine my labour with two others then it follows that we have cooperated, in which case we would have figured out the division of the fruits of our labour as part of the compact by which we laboured, or we would figure it out afterward, which is fully in accordance with property rights theory. If we can't agree, we can seek arbitration, or we can go to war over it, in which case whoever first violates the right not to be harmed of another has violated the property-rights code.

I would say that government is useful but dangerous like a stick. You can poke somebody's eye out with a stick, but you can also use a stick as a tool. For every use of a stick, however, there is a better and more efficient tool available. The reason we have the stick is because the owner of the stick keeps beating us with it to make us accept it, not because it is inherently better.

What difference? Both, for instance, conscripted their nation's youth against their will and sent them off to fight and die in far-away lands for causes they did not necessarily believe in (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia). The democratic process in the USA did not prevent this and could not have before over 58,000 Americans were killed. The principal difference is that the group who allowed Brezhnev to remain in power was much smaller, but more powerful. The main result was that Nixon could expect a shorter but more guaranteed reign. Brezhnev stood to reign for longer if only he could hold on to power. In any case, the power to remove both rested in the hands not of the whole nation, but in a much smaller group within that nation. It is also the case that with both the Brezhnev and the Nixon governments, most of the nation never consented to be governed by them. Additionally, consider Hoppe's theory that democratic governments tend to be more irresponsible than autocratic governments, especially hereditary ones, since the time-preference for government is drastically shortened i.e. the democratic government only has to worry about the results of its policies within the next few years, whereas the autocracy has to think decades into the future. You assume, of course, that the democratic government won't set about assuring its own supremacy after it is elected. The Nazis came to power constitutionally and afterward set about putting the machinery of the state to work in their favour. The Federal Liberals in Canada have done much the same thing, albeit on less grand a scale (appointing Liberal-friendly senators and judges, campaign funding rules, Adscam, the CBC etc). The same thing also happens in the US: favourable judges are picked, the Federal Reserve is packed with friendly officials, and so forth. Ostensibly independent bodies become anything but. The Fed is, on paper, independent of government, but ever since FDR it has always done exactly what the President wants. Since 1865 the Federal government in the US has also progressively stripped power from the states and granted it to itself, resulting in a far more centralised government than was initially allowed for in 1789. As Hayek pointed out, democracy where the government has control or the potential to control the economy won't last long, because such a democracy is all about raw, naked power, and the people who are attracted to stand for the leadership of such a government will tend overwhelmingly to be those interested in power. Consider the US. For the last 140 years, the government has been steadily accumulating power and influence until now, the US is more socialist than "Communist" China. No party or candidate wants to change or reverse this, the only debates that occur are about the direction in which government power should grow.

It does not. Not all in a democracy are in the ruling class. You aren't, I am not, nobody in this forum is. None of us can make law. Therefore we are ruled, not rulers. Define "extreme individualism." To me, individualism does not exclude the potential for and the natural tendency towards voluntary collectivism. But you have not explained why. Ergo you have no point. Why do we need a state to provide a legitimisation structure or to be an arbiter? The source of rights is the human individual. The right to be and to be left alone is a right which recognises that humans are not inherently superior to one another in any objective way. Of course, the very nature of the concept of rights implies human action and judgement, so the source of rights is human beings. Essentially we own ourselves, our bodies. So therefore we also own what our body produces, our labour. Everything else stems from that. Still trolling and barking out insults as usual, Sweal. Grow up. Besides, this is just a lie. I have clarified my position. The means by which men prevent others from impinging upon their rights is by their own action, individual or collective. The state is absolutely unnecessary for protecting rights, and worse, it is the main source for the violation of rights. By its very nature, the state must violate the rights it purports to uphold. Taxation is a violation of the right of self-ownership and labour-ownership. Now that is just a recitation of my position. But your failure to understand my last post is to blame.

Then all governments are tyrannical, since all require the imposition of arbitrary power. It can be seen as arbitrary because the government itself is able to break the laws of the land at will: its agents may steal, murder, kidnap, forcibly confine, trespass, and so forth under the protection of the same law that forbids such behaviour in citizens. Hugely costly in any terms. Both in terms of human life and in economic costs, the wars of the 20th Century have been incredibly destructive. No, they do not. What they do is give everybody a chip for a gaming table at which they play, "who gets to be the tyrant? (and therefore exercise all the power)?"

Indeed, the "state" is comprised of the people within the institution, i.e. the rulers. All democracy does is (in theory) allow the entry of any ruled person into the ranks of the rulers. So what? I would not call it coercion to respond to the initiation of coercion in like kind. My personal answer would be that rights are negative, that they must be assignable to the lowest common denominator of humanity, and basically amount to self-ownership and property rights, the right not to have violence or fraud committed against one's person or against one's property as an extension of the person. This right can apply equally to all. I would challenge most other "rights" because they generally favour some people over others, which makes them privileges, not rights. E.g. the right to financial security favours the recipient over he who is going to be forced to provide it. The right of the former to financial security violates the right of the latter to financial security, so it's just a privilege. I'll say to you what I said to Thelonius. Read Murray Rothbard, who has developed the best property-rights theory yet written. You can even get his works as e-books. No, it isn't. The Second Amendment is the means of enforcing this principle (or rather, the idea behind it). The state is the means for some to impose their ideas, vision, morals and goals on others. There is essentially no difference between the state and the mafia. Homesteading or free trade, generally. If I own my body and therefore my labour, that which my labour produces should also be mine. I can also sell or lease my labour and its products. Or are you going to challenge the assertion that I own my body?

No, and this is her self-contradiction. She also has far too many peculiar habits, such as the championing of "captains of industry" as superheroes, when anarcho-capitalists are aware that they are just men and as fallible as anyone else. No. The premises of anarchy can be summed up in two statements: 1) Keep your hands to yourself. 2) Mind your own business. Basically, anarchy depends upon full property rights that can only be alienated by the holder. The existence of a state depends upon a person being able to abrogate anothers rights, in the case of a monarchy, the king, in a democracy, the majority voters. Then give an example, and I will be happy to explain to you why it is that you are wrong. Thoreau's writing is beautiful and a pleasure to read. Rothbard is downright funny in places, but generally less poetic than Thoreau. I would, however, recommend both above Rand. If you want to read minarchist theory, I suggest von Mises, he is far easier to read and has a much more pleasant style. Rights to what - my body and my property? You are absolutely right! And what is more, it means that my rights to other peoples bodies and property are also immediately and totally revoked, too. If I want anything from anyone else, I will have to resort to persuasion, but never violence, as the state only can.

That's not what I wrote. Read it again. If the government monopolizes them they will quickly cease to be profitable. Profit comes from efficiency. And is food not more important than healthcare? Why don't we have the government provide food, like in the USSR, or China, or North Korea, where the famines in the 20th Century have killed about three times the population of Canada? Find me one year where the Soviet life expectancy exceeded American. Yes, you are. When corporations are successful they grow larger. You want to penalize large corporations, and size is synonymous with success. No, they inflict harm like the Mafia does. They violently assault people and property. How are you going to get more competition by shutting down the most competitive companies? Define "fair". Confused cause and effect. Interest rates are skewed by inflation. You want lower rates, print more money. You want higher ones, burn some. This is not an answer. "Why don't we make minimum wage $10,000 per hour?" is the question that I posed. Educated by whom? Hitler and Stalin were professional politicians. Very successful ones too. So important that the poor have to pay far more for them than the rich? I think you need to address your self-contradictions. How do they benefit most? Do they hide their money in mattresses? Or is it reinvested in the economy, resulting in cheaper and better consumer goods and more jobs created? Who is "society"? Based on what? 80% of American millionaires are first-generation rich. I don't think that "most" is defined as "20% of". Maybe we could help families by not forcing anyone trying to run a daycare through countless expensive government-held hoops, thus driving up the prices? Government "solutions" always create more problems. The daycare example is just another one. Everybody spends money - unless you think most millionaires burn their money or bury it. This is a ridiculous argument. It happens already. It's called the market. Hence the word "estimate". Do put a little effort in in future. Ad hominem fallacy. Attack the argument, not the person. Otherwise I could say, "well, Winterhaze is a big fat stupid idiot, so obviously anything he says is wrong." But according to you, that's a perfectly valid argument. I doubt it. Either you are lying, or you are studying at such a poor-quality university that they don't believe students need to be able to compose a coherent work in English to graduate, or have the slightest inkling of even the most common logical fallacies, or even to be able to spell common words correctly. Hint: if your final exams are multiple-choice, it's not a good institution!

What very small group - the government? I agree, and democracy is exactly what creates that situation. The free market opens the decision-making process to the largest group of all: consumers. Whose fault is it if a person buys an SUV? And why are you leaving it at that - can't find an argument? They don't, and never will. Some people are stupid, some people smart. Democracy takes fairness out of society. It forces people to submit to the will of others, giving up their rights on pain of jail, death or emigration. By the same standard, somebody at the bottom of the East River wearing concrete overshoes did something that warranted their murder, so we shouldn't worry about the Mafia. How can you not hear? This is in print. Stop saying "what" and answer the question. I don't dislike democracy, I hate it. It is a system of exploitation and violation of rights which even in our democracy we pretend are sacred. It is the means by which the majority can tyrannize the minority (and even whereby the minority can tyrannize the majority, if the constitution is worded in certain ways). Democracy basically legitimizes the imposition of the will of other people onto you against your will and without your consent.