Democracy

Post Reply New Topic

@JWC

I do not think there is a good answer to that question. If society takes your rights away wholesale and you are on the sad end of a rough majority, then, you are in a pretty bad situation. Sometimes all one has left, is the ability to be loyal and say no, like St. Thomas More did. Otherwise, one can move elsewhere, to where they will be more appreciated... There is a reason the United States got to have all those fantastic Jewish scientists.

@91:

What I'm getting at is the relationship between a non-objective definition of rights and the destruction of rights. One leads to the other.

Three alternatives: run, fight or suffer.

ruveyn

One of the mistakes I believe has been committed in US foreign policy is the practice of uncritically equating free and fair elections with democracy.

I suggest that a democracy needs all of the following:

1) Free and fair elections
2) Rule of Law
3) Freedom of expression (including a free press)
4) Pluralism (including protection of minorities)
5) Private property rights

None of these are binary states--some elections are freer and fairer than others. Some governments are more or less responsive to courts than others.

Barriers to participation are a frequent democratic deficit. It doesn't matter how free your election is, if there is only one candidate on the ballot. To what extent does campaign finance establish a barrier to democratic participation in countries like Canada and the United States? How many people decide not to vote because the vote in their district is a foregone conclusion (thorugh gerrymandering) or because they perceive no value in choosing between two options with little to distinguish them?

When a free press is held in a relatively small number of controlling hands, is that a democratic deficit? How few is too few?

No system of government is perfect, but to the degree possible, we can keep a watchful eye on our own systems, and to the extent possible point out their flaws.

Good point. I haven't experienced anything but democracy so I can't say with any certainty what is better. In theory, a benign dictatorship that is ruled by officials with no corruption and with only the interests of the people and promotes based on merit would probably be ideal; but what chances are there for such a benign dictatorship to exist?
Even a meritocracy can fall prey to cronyism.
It is a very interesting problem

@Vigilans:

It is my position that a 'benign dictator' is a contradiction in terms. A moral man refuses to be ruled, nor does he seek to rule others; he understands that both are forms of slavery.

What are your thoughts, and why?

Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. The masses are the most tyrannical aspect of any society.

Riiight precision guided bombs are so much more barbaric and indiscriminate than cars blown up with IEDs .

For the record, a much greater number of innocent bystanders (civilians) are killed by IEDs than by the bombing campaigns run by Western militaries in Afghanistan.

That's right.

I prefer this Churchill quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

"The best argument against democracy is a ten minute conversation with the average man."

I'll take that over ten minutes with an angry fascist policeman.

So, from your p.o.v. fascism is less desirable than democracy?

ruveyn

There is sometimes a second part added to that saying; "liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote", which of course appeals to me on a variety of levels. The whole thing is sometimes wrongly attributed to Ben Franklin, but is actually a product of the old usenet discussion groups circa the early 90's. I've also seen it written with "constitutional democracy" replacing "liberty" in the saying, and I think it actually holds together a bit better that way as far as being a rational statement on government.

I like the additions.

Very few people prefer dictatorship or autocracy over democracy. But democracy has several downsides. One in particular: when the politicians loot the treasury to toss largess to the public to get re-elected. That is the road to eventual doom. It happened in Rome and it can happen to us.

ruveyn

Yes, a world a world of malice is in my view is less preferable to one of ignorance.