[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Civil war, theocracy, and/or fascist communism is what we have now? I believe by 'we' he is referring to democratic western governments and if so then that's far from true.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thats cherry picking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Providing a counter-example to an unfair generalization about what "we" have is cherry picking?

[ QUOTE ]
For two, western government recent attempts to bring their prosperity and ideology to other nations has done nothing but result in theocracy and or civil war. Their political medicine only works on people who are already healthy apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course invading countries and trying to force them to have the sort of government we want doesn't work well. That's a completely different issue. It's not as if not being an anarcho-capitalist makes one an imperialist.

[ QUOTE ]
If you take a sick society, one with ethnic divide or something of the sort, and apply your strategies you'll see democracy is no political weapon towards legitimacy or peace.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only relevant if you compare it to other strategies. Because it's doubtful that any strategy will work particularly well in such a situation.

[ QUOTE ]
What good is democracy if it cant bring light to troubled societies? Isn't that democracies goal?

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh if you're saying a political system is only good if it works for every society then nothing is satisfactory, including anarcho-capitalism.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calling it a dictatorship is just silly hyperbole

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to remember the context of our debate. He was saying democracy is good because each gets a turn to get their way. Further it is a dictatorship when the majority is strong enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
A dictatorship is a country in which a dictator has absolute power. There is no one person in the US or even branch of govnernment that has absolute power. So again, calling it a dictatorship is silly and incorrect. Your point can be made without using that word.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to prevent a strong majority from going as far as amending the constitution to allow for sending Jews to concentration camps. This can all be done within the bounds of western democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the majority will is strong enough in any society they will get their way. There's nothing we can do about that. Jews are probably safer in a constitutional republic/democracy than in a society without government, however. In anarchism, they don't have to go to the trouble of amending the constitution. So I don't see how this is a flaw of democracy.