Is the left half right?

36 views
Skip to first unread message

Trevor Watkins

unread,
Oct 23, 2024, 9:52:58 AM10/23/24
to Individualist Movement

Is the left half right?


The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions which originated during the French Revolution based on the seating in the French National Assembly.


The “left” values social equality, diversity and inclusion while the “right” values respect, the rule of law, and individual rights. If USA politics is anything to go by, these positions are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable. Economically the left is socialist, the right capitalist. The left favours “big” government, widespread regulation, and community. The right prefers limited government, reduced regulations, and individual rights. Who is right? What is left? Which position aligns closest with  individualism?


Both sides believe their approach is best for humanity. Both sides believe in the same freedoms - of the individual, of speech, of religion. Both sides deplore violence, theft, cruelty, fraud, racism. Both sides believe in the inherent goodness in human nature. 

The left favours kindness and empathy, the right favours justice and duty. Nevertheless most western states flip-flop between left and right governments every 4 to 8 years, yet appear to prosper under both. What can these ideologies learn from each other?

Internationalism vs Nationalism

The left favours internationalism. Internationalists believe that humans should ignore national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests. They favour free trade, the elimination of borders, free and unfettered travel for individuals.

The right favours nationalism. Nationalists hold that the nation should be congruent with the state.  It regards the individual as subordinate to  the state, which is the only rightful source of political power. It is antithetical to individual rights.


Score 1 for the left

Equity vs equality 

The modern progressive left has embraced equality of outcome as an alternative to equality of opportunity. Equity seeks to identify victims and ensure fairness in treatment. Equity is essentially impossible, but provides endless opportunities for well-meaning busybodies to interfere in the affairs of others.


Equality treats all individuals equally, despite their differences. It believes in equal opportunities for all on a level playing field.


Score 1 for the right.

Identity vs individuality

Identity politics is based on a particular identity, such as ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste, and social class.

It reached a peak under the apartheid regime in South Africa. It seeks to separate people into groups using immutable characteristics. It is a nonsense.


Individuality treats  each unique  individual equally, without special harm or favour. It does not make or enforce arbitrary distinctions between people. It is the polar opposite of identity politics. Unfortunately many countries still enforce identity discrimination, not least the current South African government.


Score 1 for the right.

Community vs individual

Left-wingers claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations where excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated. They reject competition as aggressive and unfair. They believe in regulation of the market. They favour progressive taxation as a means to level the playing field.


Right-wingers believe that human potential flourishes with freedom and competition. They reject excessive state interference, reward differences and innovation, and believe that wealth is a measure of success. They favour minimum or zero taxation. They believe in free markets.


The economic results speak for themselves, with many leftwing jurisdictions mired in poverty.


Score 1 for the right.

Right to life

The left believes in the individual’s right to their own life and lifestyle. They believe you have an inalienable right to your own life, and to your own death. You decide what goes into your body, for better or worse.  Like men, women alone are responsible for their own bodies. While a foetus is a part of a woman's body, she decides how it will be handled. 


The right believes that you share ownership of your body with the state, with religious authorities, with politicians, experts and fanatics.  They believe they can conscript you, send you to war, decide what to inject into you, execute you, and decide the fate of a foetus still within you.


Score 1 for the left

Conclusion

By this analysis, the leftist positions are 40% reasonable, while the right wins at 60%. Of course it is not that simple. Hopefully this essay will give both sides some pause for thought.

An individualist perspective

I am an individualist. I consider myself above the tawdry issues of the left and right. Literally. Like the Nolan chart, libertarian/individualist values appear at the top of the chart, with left and right values in the middle, and authoritarian values at the bottom. Fundamental individualist issues such as harm and consent do not appear in the left-right calculus. The left sees the individual as a subordinate member of a community, while the right views the individual as merely a cog in a state powered machine.


Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

Sid Nothard

unread,
Oct 23, 2024, 10:57:33 AM10/23/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Unfortunately all countries have resorted to the Platonic version of how things should be. The state is all-important, and the individual is there to serve and sacrifice for a higher purpose (the state). Altruism is their call, and it all leads to a destructive system which requires deception and force to exist.

 

Aristotle was able to see the flaws in Plato’s premise. His view was that the most important thing is the individual. If the individual’s rights are protected, then society’s rights are protected,  which means everyone’s rights are protected.

 

But unfortunately Plato’s model won, because there is one thing politicians love more than anything else and that is power.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmADcu9ua3pVsaJHJgg_mC3wCnktsJz7E3U7o%3DigsKM%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 23, 2024, 12:17:38 PM10/23/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Would the Direct Democracy system help? www.directdemocracy.org.za

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Oct 23, 2024, 3:47:54 PM10/23/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I don't think so. The problem is obvious when looking at democratic systems in which the options available to the voter are limited, especially when it consists of just two options - left vs. right or democrat vs. republican or liberal vs. conservative. When people are faced with just two options, they tend to argue heavily for one of those two options and nothing else. The problem is that both those options are bad. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The left stinks because they are socialists and the right stinks because they are conservatives. I recently heard someone watching a comedy show about all the stupid things Trump said in the past week... which I laughed with them at and agreed with with them... but then, at the end of it, this person said all those stupid things Trump said were the reason why they'd rather vote for Harris, which surprised and shocked me. This is both stupid and typical. Harris is a horrible person who said all sorts of stupid things too, but the person watching the comedy show only had two choices and the show seemed to suggest Trump is a bad option... so they are voting for Harris, despite Harris being an equally bad, if not worse, option. Ditto every other democratic election on this planet. The one option is terrible, which makes everyone vote for the other option which is also terrible. The flaw with democracy is that it is missing the ability to reject the available options and then get a good, decent or better alternative. Both Trump and Harris are terrible options. Democracy tends to ask you to vote for strangling the crying baby (left-wing) or drowning the crying baby (right wing). Both sides stink. In RSA and some other countries there is representation of minorities and more options, which is slightly better, but on the whole the limited options are simply bad. The less government and the smaller the say of the political parties, the better, regardless of their focus & principles.

S.


Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 24, 2024, 2:42:39 AM10/24/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 24, 2024, 2:46:42 AM10/24/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Hi All

 

I have a mission to get society to understand dementia better

 

Please read the invitation below and pass it on

 

We have heroes and heroines who may be sitting amongst us.

They are not your typical image of heroes and heroines.

They are normally quiet.

They will be suffering from stress.

They will normally be more tired than the rest of us.

They need your support and help.

Take time to help.

These heroes and heroines are the carers.

HONOUR THEM.

For any or organisations who would like a presentation to help understand dementia better and how to live with dementia, please contact, details below

There is no cost

The presentation takes about an hour There are limited spaces so it is on a first come, first accepted basis. Please reply to Whatsapp 0825712856 or jimp...@mweb.co.za

If you are not able to attend this presentation and want to at a future date, please respond and I will contact you

Please pass this on

 

Regards

 

Jim Powell

Trevor Watkins

unread,
Oct 24, 2024, 4:45:12 AM10/24/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I like that Aristotle and I have something in common - the primacy of the individual. We must try to make this ancient insight as widely known as possible.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one


Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Oct 24, 2024, 7:00:47 PM10/24/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Exactly. Society consists of individuals and is nothing more than that - it might be able to achieve more than the individuals that make it up, but it should not claim more rights or wield more power than the constituent individuals can grant it. Also, society should be observed, not sculpted or formalized, as is clear from all past attempts at social engineering. Individuals cannot be coerced, forced or even contracted into a society, only into arrangements with other individuals, from which then society may arise. There seem to be two kinds of people in this world - those who support JJ Roussouw's social contract and those who get why he gave his kids up for adoption and slept with his mother in law.

S.

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Oct 24, 2024, 7:04:43 PM10/24/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
What could be more democratic than an absolutely free market with zero government ? I will vote for KFC tonight using these green ballots with the queen's face on them. Tomorrow I will vote for MacDonalds using some blue ballot with some other guy's face on it. You all vote for whoever you like and then we all get what we want. How's that ? All that is missing is free banking, private money and abolition of the stupid provincial* GST.

* I typed "provincial" twice, but the spell-checker didn't get it.

S.


Leon Louw

unread,
Oct 25, 2024, 9:01:30 AM10/25/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Agree, Jim.

The left isn't half right, it's half wrong. 

Leon Louw

unread,
Oct 25, 2024, 9:04:11 AM10/25/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Indeed, Steven, the lesser of two evils, is evil.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S40XLM7aaH5xqT2BX0-G7LGHmZQPSoHvvD%2BYXHmsK0LQg%40mail.gmail.com.

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 25, 2024, 8:20:44 PM10/25/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I'm tempted to re-frame Trevor's original question a bit... can we say, for example, that "the left" have absolutely no redeeming qualities ? Is there anything coming from the right worth supporting ? I would say no and no, but open to suggestions, since blanket statements are generally a bad idea.

Stephen.

On Oct 25, 2024, at 07:04, Leon Louw <leonl...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 26, 2024, 10:57:23 AM10/26/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Dem_Democracy_Indices . There are different levels of control and accountability

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen vJ


Sent: Saturday, 26 October 2024 02:20
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 26, 2024, 2:56:21 PM10/26/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Two hundred years ago it would have been possible to make a map like that showing the level of benevolence of the various kings and emperors who ruled the earth. This map means equally little to me and I hope two hundred years from now there will be no democracies left with which to make maps like these. I hope by then we will all be free from rulers of any kind - king and democrat alike.

Stephen.

On Oct 26, 2024, at 08:57, Jim Powell <jimp...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 26, 2024, 3:53:59 PM10/26/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

There will always be a need for administration in an urban environment. The closer we get to real democracy the simpler it gets

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 26, 2024, 8:23:49 PM10/26/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
It is true that urban environments need administration, but I think that can be achieved without nationalization. As much as I dislike HOA's, I think the problem with them is merely a lack of competition and evolution. In 200 years the world may be run by HOA's rather than municipalities or parliamentarians. The only reason for the existence of a democracy common property, so if everything is private property then there is no need for democracy either. Voting rights based on a fractional share is what confuses many people, but it need not - simply consider alternatives (shareholders appointing a board and CEO) and the ability to sell your share. Those are forms of decision-making without the use of democracy under private yet shared property. In all cases, public property (collectivism) is a prerequisite for the existence of democracy. Individualism implies the absence of public goods and thus the need for democracy.

Stephen.

On Oct 26, 2024, at 13:54, Jim Powell <jimp...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 26, 2024, 11:16:58 PM10/26/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

I am trying to remember the country that has been taken over by companies. The problem with that is the general population does not have any control. Voting is the bedrock of democracy but little grows on a rock. Democracy will only grow when it is nurtured by the input and control of the voters. If you want pure individualism go live on an island

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 12:36:12 AM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
If a country is completely run by companies, then the population has all the say. The customer, as they say, is king.

Stephen.

On Oct 26, 2024, at 21:17, Jim Powell <jimp...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 12:39:01 AM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

The companies are omnipotent. They hold all the shares

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 12:46:20 AM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
How do they stay alive ? If they're not getting revenue, they'll soon die... so they may hold all the shares, but those shares are only worth something as long as there is revenue coming in.

Stephen.

On Oct 26, 2024, at 22:39, Jim Powell <jimp...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 12:50:41 AM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

It is major companies that are outside the country that have taken over

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 1:39:17 AM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
And they're in the country to.... lose money ?

Stephen.

On Oct 26, 2024, at 22:50, Jim Powell <jimp...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Sid Nothard

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 1:59:33 AM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

If there are property rights, then there must be some mechanism of dealing with violations of rights

 

Sid

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 2:08:32 AM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Yup. I have an issue with "rights" but will concede that even with just "property" there still needs to be a way to deal with violations. I'd rather those be private than public.

Stephen.

On Oct 26, 2024, at 23:59, Sid Nothard <sg...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 3:46:32 PM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Their head office is there and they have favourable tax rates.

 

what countries are effectively run by companies rather than politicians

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Countries where corporations exert significant influence over governance often exhibit characteristics of corporate governance or state capitalism. While no country is entirely run by companies instead of politicians, several nations have prominent corporate influence in political processes. Here are a few examples:

1.     United States: The U.S. has a strong corporate lobby, with companies heavily influencing legislation through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. This has led to debates about the impact of corporate interests on democracy.

2.     Singapore: The Singaporean government operates with a model that blends public and private sectors. While it has a stable political framework, many government-linked companies (GLCs) play crucial roles in the economy, and their influence can sometimes overshadow traditional political structures.

3.     United Arab Emirates: In the UAE, particularly in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, corporate interests often align closely with government priorities. Many major businesses have close ties to the ruling families and play significant roles in governance and policy-making.

4.     China: While China is officially a one-party state, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) dominate many sectors of the economy. The Communist Party retains political power, but corporations often act in concert with government policies, blurring the lines between business and governance.

5.     Russia: The Russian government has significant control over major industries, often using oligarchs (wealthy business owners) as political allies. The state and powerful corporations frequently intersect, influencing both policy and governance.

6.     Vatican City: Though not a typical example, Vatican City has been described as having corporate governance characteristics, especially in how it manages its financial and administrative affairs, with a significant influence from entities like the Vatican Bank.

These examples illustrate varying degrees of corporate influence in governance, but it's essential to note that actual political power typically remains with elected or appointed officials

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 9:12:25 PM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
That's like saying money is bad and giving it to people is worse, because some people bribe cops. The problem there is not the money or the giving, but the corrupt cop. The problem here is not the money or the corporations but the governments and the fact that companies can leverage government power to their advantage. The root problem is government, not the corporation. As per below, there is no single example of a country being run by a company, because that would be nonsensical. Running a country is not profitable so companies won't do it... unless they tax the people but then taxing by definition changes the organization into a government. Companies cannot exert any power except through government.

S.


Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 27, 2024, 11:07:10 PM10/27/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

The advantage  for the companies is that they have a global tax haven which they control. When I find the example again I will post. The interim is that the corporates completely control governments. A veneer of democracy which is rotten behind the facade

Dewald Katzke

unread,
Oct 28, 2024, 1:33:52 AM10/28/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
That describes every form of democracy, ever.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/0a4301db28e6%247284b350%24578e19f0%24%40mweb.co.za.

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 28, 2024, 2:35:25 AM10/28/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
One could argue that this rot behind the facade is one of the biggest improvements on the previous system (rule by hereditary or conquest). At least in democracies, you can have private organizations lean on the rulers and influence them towards policies favorable to conducting business, property rights, easy employment, low taxation cheap capital, etc. - all things which can be abused and misdirected, but typically lead to economic growth and thus the improved wellbeing of citizens.

Of course companies can get government to penalize their competition and raise barriers to entry into their market, which screws the customer out of options and lower prices, but companies are not able to completely abolish all competitive pressures or enact a police state or push products down consumer's throats (exceptions like seatbelts, warning signs, safety locks, smoke detectors, etc. being some exceptions, but not the rule).

Kingdoms and empires are bad, as is evidenced by their historical failure to produce widespread wealth and wellbeing. Democratic government on its own is bad too - that's called socialism and we know how that turns out too. Democratic government plus business has some problems, but is in general a vast improvement on government alone. Now if we can just eliminate the government part...

Stephen.

On Oct 27, 2024, at 23:33, Dewald Katzke <dk.om...@gmail.com> wrote:



Sid Nothard

unread,
Oct 28, 2024, 2:37:35 AM10/28/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Yup. It’s always the government

 

Sid

Sid Nothard

unread,
Oct 28, 2024, 2:57:50 AM10/28/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

In our case we have companies running to the government for protection against cheap imports and dumping of goods.

 

It’s invariably the case of inefficient companies seeking to continue enjoying profits at the taxpayer’s expense. So when

all companies enjoy protection the consumer has to use more of his limited resources which means his expenditure on

other goods/services is restricted.

 

We saw it with textiles.  The local industry had to have protection so they could “save jobs”. But then we discover that they

are exporting textiles! So how is that possible without the taxpayer coughing up the difference.

 

Collectivists see cheap imports as a threat. When other countries flood our shores with products at zero cost it will be a dark

day indeed for the collectivists, but the rest of us will be rejoicing in the streets.

 

The crux of the matter is that governments cause poverty.

 

Sid Nothard

Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 28, 2024, 5:43:51 AM10/28/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 28, 2024, 5:46:33 AM10/28/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Democratic Government with Direct Democracy

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Oct 28, 2024, 11:45:33 PM10/28/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Interesting how that map loosely correlates with the economic freedom indexes... however, there is no reason to expect economic freedom and democracy to match up - people forget that Hitler was democratically elected. It does seem like most of the time free markets and democracy go together, but I would be careful to assume that this is always the case or to jump to the conclusion that democracy equals or even equates to freedom. Democracy, after all, is just one method of selecting rulers. The fact that democracy tends to result in rulers who are somewhat more lenient than rulers acquired by heredity or conquest is not an inherent feature of democracy and could be mostly psychological / cultural. Over time the cultural attitudes to democracy could change such that the rulers elected do not hold freedom-based principles and then democracies could correlate more strongly with oppression, possibly even more so than kingdoms and empires from history. One can clearly see this shift of cultural attitudes in the USA where the electorate have been increasingly socialist leaning in their political choices. It would not surprise me if the formerly freedom-loving Americans sometime soon elect an overtly socialist leader like Bernie Sanders, AOC or Kamala Harris. Luckily, the private sector, those dreaded companies, tend to grow and innovate faster than government can regulate, as foretold by Adam Smith in the final pages of Wealth of Nations. The invisible hand still has the upper hand.

S.


Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 12:00:53 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Direct democracy misses the point of electing representatives. If you're going to micro-manage the elected representatives, then why not just make all the decisions directly ala free market without a government ? If you're going to have public goods and services and if you're going to have government, taxation and regulation, then those in charge should be able to lead without encumbrances from the uneducated masses. The election itself is all the check there should be.

Can you imagine a dynamic politician pushing for efficiency cutting back social grants or state pensions under direct democracy ? There is no way anyone will be able to reduce the size of government if the masses have a say in every minutia of the administrative machine. Also, the average person has no idea what it takes to run an organization or to achieve targets. It requires prioritization which necessarily means some people's pet projects will not be at the top of the list. It requires getting rid of dead wood and resources not aligned with organizational priorities... and I don't see state serpents being retrenched en masse to make the Post Office functional or get the Traffic Department working without having direct democracy stopping the politician suggesting those changes summarily removed for causing their cadres to be unemployed.

I used to like direct democracy, but one night after two hours of heated debate in a very emotional HOA meeting, one member stood up and said that this is why we elect a board of directors to represent the home owners - so that we don't need to deal with all this crap. He then tabled a proposal to either ratify the election of the board or elect a new one. The board was ratified, the meeting adjourned and the board left to decide what to do, knowing they had the blessing of the interested quorum of home owners. The home owners were relieved that they had elected a board they trust and did not need to make difficult decisions themselves. Not everyone would agree with every decision the board made, but that was exactly the point of electing them. That was the night I stopped supporting direct democracy. It's a black hole that sucks up emotional energy, efficiency and good decision-making.

S.


Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 12:36:29 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Direct Democracy is normally a hybrid system. The representatives are elected as normal.

 

Should the members or voters decide that they are unhappy with a decision, a petition is raised. A meeting or referendum is held and the decision is implemented.

 

You mention the uneducated masses. What are the qualifications of our current government? The uneducated masses are capable of deciding whether the Mayor has a R2,000,000 car or the money is used to stop the sewage running down the road.

 

When we vote we collectively decide who is employed as a politician. When we pay our taxes we pay the politicians’ salary. That describes the voters as the employers of the politicians.

 

As an example of the ability of a government to function efficiently with direct democracy in place, only 3% of the legislation in Switzerland is subject to referendum. This is because the government does not want the embarrassment of having laws overturns. The reason why the % is so low is because the government lobbies many people and organisations before a law is passed.

 

The HOA should be subject to the will of the members. A % of the members should be able to call a meeting and the decision of the meeting implemented. Agendas and decisions of the Board should be circulated

 

Just a result from chat GBT:

In countries that have direct democracy, what % of laws are subject to referendum by country

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The percentage of laws subject to referendum in countries with direct democracy varies significantly. Here are some examples:

 

Switzerland: Almost all federal laws can be subjected to a referendum if a certain number of citizens (about 50,000 signatures) request it within 100 days of the law's publication. This includes both new laws and amendments to the constitution.

 

Italy: Citizens can call for a referendum on certain laws, particularly constitutional amendments and laws passed by Parliament. However, the threshold for triggering a referendum is relatively high (500,000 signatures).

 

California (USA): In California, voters can propose new laws or amendments to existing laws through initiatives, or they can challenge laws passed by the legislature through referendums. The percentage of laws subject to direct voter decision can fluctuate widely based on political climate and mobilization efforts.

 

Uruguay: Citizens can petition for a referendum on laws passed by Parliament, requiring 25% of registered voters' signatures within a specified period.

 

Germany: While Germany has mechanisms for referendums at the state and local levels, there is no national-level referendum process for most laws. Only constitutional amendments require a referendum, making the percentage very low.

 

New Zealand: Citizens can petition for referendums on specific issues, but the threshold for initiating a referendum is quite high.

 

In general, while some countries allow broad access to referendums, others have more limited frameworks. The exact percentage of laws subject to referendum is difficult to quantify universally, as it depends on specific legal frameworks and political contexts

Sid Nothard

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 3:36:18 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

In a democracy 51% of the people can trample on the rights of the other 49%

 

Sid

Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 3:54:09 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Without a constitution, Yes. But even with or without a constitution the “representatives” trample the rights of the rights of the voters.

 

We live in a 5 year dictatorship

Trevor Watkins

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 6:05:47 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
The word "democracy" is a red flag for me. Generally it means that some majority can impose its will on some minority against the wishes and interests of that minority.

It's a bit like herding cats. First, ask yourself why you want to herd the cats. Is it for the good of the cats? Unlikely the cats will agree. Does a majority of dogs think it's a good idea? Probably, even if it's only because it annoys the cats. Do you think you will succeed? With humans perhaps, but never with cats. 
If you want a cat to go somewhere, offer it food, or get a vacuum cleaner. But don't tell it that  that is what a majority of dogs want. 

Don't ask what the majority what it wants. Understand what the limits are on what you want. And that you can't get it from me if I don't agree.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one


Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 10:19:52 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
In theory yes. In practice it is far worse because only 45% of the population is eligible to vote (over 18, registered, in possession of valid ID, etc.) and of those only 20% will pitch up on voting day. Of those 10% will botch their ballot (some deliberately) so only about 8% of the populations votes are actually collected. Unless there is a representative democracy where even the "losers" still get proportional seats, it means 4.1% can elect the rulers for the whole 100%. What's more, voters can only vote for parties with buckets of policies, so almost all of the 4% will have voted for something they partly disagree with. And that's assuming the politicians were honest in their campaign promises.

Stephen.

On Oct 29, 2024, at 01:36, Sid Nothard <sg...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 10:27:37 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Yes, exactly and well put. The only reason for a democratic process to exist is to legitimize the use of force. It is an excuse or justification to do unto some those things we would never consider moral or ethical had it not been "ratified" by an artificial system of "legitimization", like a command from the gods or a divination by the planets or the dictates of a supreme leader or the outcome of a democratic election. If there was no force to be applied, you would not need democracy, because you'd have nothing needing legitimization.

Stephen.

On Oct 29, 2024, at 04:05, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:



Janette Eldridge

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 10:53:10 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Please remove me from your mailing list.

 

 

Jan...@FinishTime.co.za

Eldridge, 071 018 9359

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Stephen van Jaarsveldt


Sent: Friday, 25 October 2024 01:01
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: IM: RE: Is the left half right?

 

Exactly. Society consists of individuals and is nothing more than that - it might be able to achieve more than the individuals that make it up, but it should not claim more rights or wield more power than the constituent individuals can grant it. Also, society should be observed, not sculpted or formalized, as is clear from all past attempts at social engineering. Individuals cannot be coerced, forced or even contracted into a society, only into arrangements with other individuals, from which then society may arise. There seem to be two kinds of people in this world - those who support JJ Roussouw's social contract and those who get why he gave his kids up for adoption and slept with his mother in law.

 

S.

 

Op Do. 24 Okt. 2024 om 02:45 het Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> geskryf:

I like that Aristotle and I have something in common - the primacy of the individual. We must try to make this ancient insight as widely known as possible.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 11:02:10 AM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
You have to remove yourself. Scroll to the bottom of any of these messages and then select one of the links for managing your subscription. You can also do this at groups.google.com.

Stephen.

On Oct 29, 2024, at 08:53, Janette Eldridge <Jan...@finishtime.co.za> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 12:42:08 PM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

In countries with Direct Democracy more people vote in the referendums than for representatives

 

Jim

Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 1:40:25 PM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Then what is the best political system? There is no perfect system. Currently the minority (politicians) impose on the majority

 

Jim

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 2:06:47 PM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Less of it, whatever it is, just less. Cut, trim, remove, shut down, reduce... the less political system of any kind, the better.

Stephen.

On Oct 29, 2024, at 11:40, Jim Powell <jimp...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 2:10:26 PM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Choose a system

 

Jim

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Oct 29, 2024, 7:43:21 PM10/29/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Ok, sure... I'll go with a geographically limited & land-locked, hereditary, non-denominational kingdom with a multi-cultural & multi-ethnic population.

S.


Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 30, 2024, 12:15:52 AM10/30/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

If the king goes rogue, as in Swaziland, what then?

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 30, 2024, 12:35:46 AM10/30/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
It's easier to assassinate a king than it is to hold a referendum. Cheaper too.

Hey, you asked me to pick a political system after I clearly said none and less... so I pick one having already made it clear that in my opinion all political systems suck, so obviously it follows that if you make me pick one I'm going to be the #1 person to take my own pick apart.

That, incidentally, is what happens when you make people make choices with limited options - they pick shitty options. Just like in a democracy.

Stephen.

On Oct 29, 2024, at 22:15, Jim Powell <jimp...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Jim Powell

unread,
Oct 30, 2024, 1:23:17 AM10/30/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

 

Violence is not the answer. Then violence will be used against you

Stephen vJ

unread,
Oct 30, 2024, 5:21:55 AM10/30/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
That's exactly why we should minimize the violence that automatically comes with systems based on compulsion, like government, taxation, regulation, collectivism and democracy. Each individual should decide for themselves and not be compelled by anyone to do anything without their consent. There are enough non-violent incentives (employment contracts, marriages, friendships, stores & markets) in private life to make the individual behave and the vast majority do. Those who don't can be brought and kept in line with means other than a political system, though possibly not entirely without violence. The point is that a "system" of freedom and individuality provides costlessly all of what we need without having to compel, force, oppress and restrict the vast majority of us who would have behaved anyway. Systems of general regulation and compulsion cannot be justified by the few in society who behave badly. That is to yank the lever in the trolley problem so it hits the 60million rather than the 5. No, we can do without that gross violence. If you're going to force a political system on the world, then at least focus the violence at one spot - the top - rather than the broad bottom.

Stephen.

On Oct 29, 2024, at 23:23, Jim Powell <jimp...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



Sid Nothard

unread,
Oct 30, 2024, 6:11:44 AM10/30/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

If there is any doubt as to whether any action is bad, simply look for the F word

If force or threat of force is involved, then it is bad

 

Sid

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Oct 30, 2024, 10:33:19 AM10/30/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Exactly. I think the biggest challenge the world faces is inertia in the minds of people. We find it hard to imagine a world without a king or an emperor, until we see an example with an elected president. We cannot picture a world where a god and his church is not in charge until someone separates church and state. We cannot imagine a world without slavery until someone takes the inconceivable step of abolishing it. We cannot imagine how a world could function without taxation and public roads, until someone builds a flying car. Just because we cannot imagine it right now, does not mean a world without a politically driven system of government cannot be achieved. We can be free and we largely already are - the typical government now controls less than 20% of the country's GDP and far less of the rules, norms and behaviors than 20%. That means even with government and taxation still in place, we are already 80% or more in an anarchic state... and isn't it beautiful ? Everytime I go to Walmart in my sweatpants, I marvel at all the wonders that capitalist freedom has already brought us.

S.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages