iDemocracy

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

In the future, people will no longer take the law seriously.

People will get together on the internet. They will decide via polls what laws they will follow and what laws they will break.

We all want to break the law, some laws more than others. The reason why we don’t, is either because we believe in God, Karma, pseudo-philosophical notions about “liberal/social democracy”,or about how those in charge are comparatively angelic, or about how tyranny is preferable to anarchy, or, we’re afraid of being the only one to break the law, and we’ll go jail as a consequence. Some people are more naturally law abiding than others, but all of us want to break the law from time to time, when facing stupid, selfish and ignorant laws.

If the majority of people in state, a city or what have you, or even a significant minority, decided on January 1st, 2015, we’re no longer going to pay rent, or what have you, and they followed through with that, there’s little or nothing the government could do about it, it’d be virtually powerless to intervene.

I’m not necessarily alluding to anarchy, I’m talking about selectively breaking laws we don’t like, and leaving sensible laws in tact, unbroken.

You can’t arrest 10 000 people, unless they’re spread out over vast distances. If 10 000 people in a community say we’re going to do x, that’s that. Nothing could stop us if we got semi-organized, stop being so atomized, at least temporarily.

2

If the police and legal system isn’t going to make rent defaulters pay, then the landlords are going to hire some people and break a few arms and legs.

How does a merchant know that tomorrow, food or books or gasoline will not be declared free? The merchants need to get some muscle and weapons to protect their property.

How can you trust anyone who will not honor his obligations?

3

I’m not sure how you’re making the inference from “we will break the laws we don’t like” to “the laws remaining will be the sensible ones”. What’s your evidence that internet consensus is sensible?

4

Phyllo

The renters will organize themselves into coalitions and arm themselves too, if necessary, to make sure shit like that doesn’t happen.

Obligations are subjective, I’m not obliged to follow laws that don’t serve me. Everyone will know what laws will be broken and what laws will be left unbroken by visiting idemocracy websites. We can’t break laws individually or in small groups, because military and police can arrest or execute individuals and small groups, we can only break them collectively via the internet. My theory is working people respect the majority of the laws, we just want to narrow the gap between rich and poor a little and end ignorant, stupid laws like the war on drugs. The people will figure out that if they break each and every law, then we’ll either end up with anarchy, or… perhaps idemocracy will become the law, police and military will start enforcing it, rather than pseudo-democratic law, because in actuality, we have the power, we just have to start taking it back.

5

Right, sensibility isn’t guaranteed, but it isn’t presently guaranteed, either.

Man is selfish. Why would selfish men permit other selfish men to govern them? I’m probably as smart as you, I may even be dumber, but does it follow I should allow you to disarm me, that I should allow you to have all the power because our intelligence is equal? idemocracy is more sensible because it’s more selfinterested, even if it isn’t more intelligent.

Pseudodemocracy is selfsacrificng.