[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Debatable about higher living standards, but definitelly not true about greater human rights. That's a lie and people know that. I will count just some of areas where human rights could simply not be greater: labor rights, police interventions, blackmailing, prison conditions, discriminations, criminal sentencing, respecting laws. A system which favour the rich over the poor on every single step somehow just cannot be a system of freedom. Definitelly not a system of greater human rights, but a system of mighty which leads to tyranny and oppression IMO. It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?