NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

No better options? Everything else puts ultimate power in a small group and/or a single person's hands. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

democracy allows for the maximum input from the people. why would any leftist liberal want anything else?

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

Well, all I know was it was not Democrats who lobbied for bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

funny. it always seems to be the right that tells me that socialism is eb1l and totalitarian because its not democratic.

it seems, as an observer, to be "un-american" to badmouth democracy - or freedom, the two seem to be used interchangably - and since it mostly appears, to me, to be the right who attack "un-american" attitudes, this question baffles me somewhat.

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?Because it means freedom, as it is one form of self-determination.

Well, all I know was it was not Democrats who lobbied for bringing "democracy" to Iraq.
What? You mean this wonderful gift of rubble and civil unrest? How could anyone not want that?

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

Because it is.

Because it is.Word.

What? You mean this wonderful gift of rubble and civil unrest? How could anyone not want that?

this is why the president is so HURT that the iraqis are not grateful for what we have done for them.

he really is.

No better options? Everything else puts ultimate power in a small group and/or a single person's hands. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.Look what it did to me.;)

See Atlantis and Lemuria?

No you don't becaue those were both me.;)

this is why the president is so HURT that the iraqis are not grateful for what we have done for them.

he really is.

That's exactly why. He doesn't understand why they aren't so greatful for this wonderful gift. He even gave the Iraqi security force hats and badges.

Why isn't anyone building him a statue?

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

Democracy is more likely to provide freedom than a dictatorship. And I would ask why the right in this country use the word "Libertarianism" when they mean Social Darwinism.

For all the ones who said it is because it is self-determination and not a dictatorship; how can we know that the majority won't oppress the minority, and be far more secure in its position than a minority oppressing the majority? And I say the left in this instance is upholding democracy as good because while I have seen democracy criticized by conservatives and libertarians as mob rule, and seen as outclassed by a republic, I have seen no such argument from left-liberals.

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

First, I want to know what the right-liberals have to say on the issue.

For all the ones who said it is because it is self-determination and not a dictatorship; how can we know that the majority won't oppress the minority, and be far more secure in its position than a minority oppressing the majority? We can't. However, the likelihood of oppression is lower in democracy than in any other system.
Furthermore, even if the minority is oppressed via a democratic decision, at least they had the chance to express their opinion, which means that they had freedom of expression. Non-democratic systems seldomly guarantee freedom of expression.

And I say the left in this instance is upholding democracy as good because while I have seen democracy criticized by conservatives and libertarians as mob rule, and seen as outclassed by a republic, I have seen no such argument from left-liberals.I fail to see how mob rule is less preferable to an oligarchy.

That's exactly why. He doesn't understand why they aren't so greatful for this wonderful gift. He even gave the Iraqi security force hats and badges.

Why isn't anyone building him a statue?

after all we (and he) have sacrificed for them, someone should be!

For all the ones who said it is because it is self-determination and not a dictatorship; how can we know that the majority won't oppress the minority, and be far more secure in its position than a minority oppressing the majority? And I say the left in this instance is upholding democracy as good because while I have seen democracy criticized by conservatives and libertarians as mob rule, and seen as outclassed by a republic, I have seen no such argument from left-liberals.

we dont know that the majority wont oppress the minority, thats the risk you take with democracy even a constitutional representative democracy like the US has.

no left liberal is going to suggest that the common man should be ruled over without getting a say.

First, I want to know what the right-liberals have to say on the issue.

As in libertarians like me? It depends, you probably wouldn't like my answer.

As in libertarians like me? It depends, you probably wouldn't like my answer.

That matters? Me liking your answer? Really? *head swells with power*

No really, go ahead. You know you want to.

We can't. However, the likelihood of oppression is lower in democracy than in any other system.
Furthermore, even if the minority is oppressed via a democratic decision, at least they had the chance to express their opinion, which means that they had freedom of expression. Non-democratic systems seldomly guarantee freedom of expression.

Hey, me and my people are going to be exterminated, but at least we got to say we don't like the idea very much. And the likelihood of oppression is probably higher in democracy because it is, ceteris paribus, easier for the majority to oppress the minority than the other way around, simply because it is inherent that the majority is bigger. The minority has to rein in their abuses for fear of being destroyed by the majority, while the majority has no such fear of the minority.

I fail to see how mob rule is less preferable to an oligarchy.

Because the mob is more powerful than the oligarchy.

Hey, me and my people are going to be exterminated, but at least we got to say we don't like the idea very much. And the likelihood of oppression is probably higher in democracy because it is, ceteris paribus, easier for the majority to oppress the minority than the other way around, simply because it is inherent that the majority is bigger. The minority has to rein in their abuses for fear of being destroyed by the majority, while the majority has no such fear of the minority.



Because the mob is more powerful than the oligarchy.

not that i understood what you said but isnt the minority MORE likely to be oppressed by another minority that doesnt have to answer to anyone else?

The possibility of the majority oppressing the minority is the reason we have the bill of rights. We outline certain things the majority can't do to anybody, so while not everyone necessarily gets exactly what they want, no one gets oppressed.

Because the mob is more powerful than the oligarchy.

I fail to see this. If this statement were true, then no oligarchy would last any substantial time.

The problem here is that we haven't defined democracy well enough. We in America and Western Europe assume a form known as "liberal democracy." Liberal in this sense is the classical liberal version, which our Bill of rights expresses.

There is another version called "illiberal democracy" that exists in this world. It appears to be extremely prevalent in South Asia. Use Iran as example. The majority of the people have chosen to use Islamic Sharia law. This is extremely illiberal towards women, freedom of speech, etc. Singapore, although not using Sharia, is similar. They do not have provisions that we take for granted (no cruel or unusual punishment), but they are still a democracy.

So which type of democracy are we talking about here?

That matters? Me liking your answer? Really? *head swells with power*

No really, go ahead. You know you want to.

Well, I belong to a certain niche in libertarianism that I share with Hans Hermann-Hoppe, which is basically that everything should be structured on subsidiary institutions like family, religion, and community, where one chooses their own declarative law through voluntary relationship.

I fail to see this. If this statement were true, then no oligarchy would last any substantial time.

Well, it IS true that the masses are more powerful than the minority. But the masses will not overthrow the oligarchs because it would be too costly for them. It's not a question of power (which is in the favor of the majority), but of costs vs. benefits. Why get shot when you just have to pay harsh taxes?

not that i understood what you said but isnt the minority MORE likely to be oppressed by another minority that doesnt have to answer to anyone else?

I don't quite understand what you mean, but it's more likely that the majority will gang up on a minority that they can safely get away with bothering, as opposed to a minority taking on a group of roughly equal power.

how can we know that the majority won't oppress the minority, and be far more secure in its position than a minority oppressing the majority?

Don't be silly. Oppression is almost always done by the minority in government levels. Power flows upwards after all. The only exception to the rule is slavery and its lesser branch, racism.

The problem here is that we haven't defined democracy well enough. We in America and Western Europe assume a form known as "liberal democracy." Liberal in this sense is the classical liberal version, which our Bill of rights expresses.

There is another version called "illiberal democracy" that exists in this world. It appears to be extremely prevalent in South Asia. Use Iran as example. The majority of the people have chosen to use Islamic Sharia law. This is extremely illiberal towards women, freedom of speech, etc. Singapore, although not using Sharia, is similar. They do not have provisions that we take for granted (no cruel or unusual punishment), but they are still a democracy.

So which type of democracy are we talking about here?

I suppose we're speaking of liberal democracy. But I still find it troublesome that the term "democracy" is used only to express liberal democracy, basically leaving out the liberal part for an emphasis on the democratic part. And I don't think there are very many non-democracies left, seeing as how every dictator today relies upon being a man of the people and saying that he is the embodiment of their will, as opposed to ruling by patrimony. (Elections do not a democracy make- the Holy Roman Empire and corporations hold elections, but no one would call them democracies.)

I suppose we're speaking of liberal democracy. But I still find it troublesome that the term "democracy" is used only to express liberal democracy, basically leaving out the liberal part for an emphasis on the democratic part. And I don't think there are very many non-democracies left, seeing as how every dictator today relies upon being a man of the people and saying that he is the embodiment of their will, as opposed to ruling by patrimony. (Elections do not a democracy make- the Holy Roman Empire and corporations hold elections, but no one would call them democracies.)

True, there are very few monarchies left (20-something, last I heard), and some of those are like the UK, where they might as well be democracies. Still, what about military juntas? Last I knew, we had quite a few of them in South America, and I don't think that they rely on the masses for support.

I don't quite understand what you mean, but it's more likely that the majority will gang up on a minority that they can safely get away with bothering, as opposed to a minority taking on a group of roughly equal power.

i think not.

the minority im talking about is the minority that has power in a non democratic system.

if the absolute king doesnt like libertarians, youre a goner. there is no one to stop him.

if the oligarchy finds that your brand of libertarianism is a danger to their power, youre a goner, there is no one to stop them.

the mob doesnt know shit about libertarianism and is only going to do you in if the rules allow it or if someone gets them all in a dither over libertarians. even then its pretty hard to get enough of them worked up to give up their favorite tv shows long enough to leave the house and vote you into oblivion.

True, there are very few monarchies left (20-something, last I heard), and some of those are like the UK, where they might as well be democracies. Still, what about military juntas? Last I knew, we had quite a few of them in South America, and I don't think that they rely on the masses for support.

I don't think we have any military juntas left in South America; can anyone confirm or deny? But still, even in a military junta, there is the claim that the junta represents the will of the people- communist juntas would never claim that they were not representing the will of the people, and Pinochet honestly thought that the people of Chile supported him.

Don't be silly. Oppression is almost always done by the minority in government levels. Power flows upwards after all. The only exception to the rule is slavery and its lesser branch, racism.

So, are the Muslims in Indonesia a minority who are oppressing the Christians, or were the Germans a minority oppressing the Jews? No. Keep in mind, ceteris paribus, it is easier for a majority to oppress a minority. Doesn't mean it will always end up like this, but a fairly good amount of time it will.

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

Democracy-worship isn't inherently right or left. It's as American as apple-pie. (You know what I mean.) The cold war always equated democracy with freedom, regardless of left or right. As a matter of fact, the left were often accused of being on the wrong side of the cold war, and anti-freedom (which is silly.)

i think not.

the minority im talking about is the minority that has power in a non democratic system.

if the absolute king doesnt like libertarians, youre a goner. there is no one to stop him.

if the oligarchy finds that your brand of libertarianism is a danger to their power, youre a goner, there is no one to stop them.

the mob doesnt know shit about libertarianism and is only going to do you in if the rules allow it or if someone gets them all in a dither over libertarians. even then its pretty hard to get enough of them worked up to give up their favorite tv shows long enough to leave the house and vote you into oblivion.

The idea that all monarchic/oligarchic rulers wielded literally absolute power is not historically accurate. Even nobles who controlled fiefs had limits to their power (they couldn't just go and demolish the serfs homes, for example.) Venice, an effective oligarchy, was actually one of the most liberal places in the world, as were the various other cities of the times (places like Milan, Venice, Amsterdam, etc. were the cradles of modern liberty.) I remember, off the top of my head, one Danish king being overthrown for taxing the peasantry and one Byzantine emperor being overthrown for having devalued the money. This is mainly due to the fact that the people realize that the rulers are of a different class than they are and will react bitterly against any depredations; rex sub legis was a very real concept. Both happen nowadays in the US and there's hardly a peep out of anyone, since there is no perceived difference between ruling class and everyone else.

The idea that all monarchic/oligarchic rulers wielded literally absolute power is not historically accurate. Even nobles who controlled fiefs had limits to their power (they couldn't just go and demolish the serfs homes, for example.) Venice, an effective oligarchy, was actually one of the most liberal places in the world, as were the various other cities of the times (places like Milan, Venice, Amsterdam, etc. were the cradles of modern liberty.) I remember, off the top of my head, one Danish king being overthrown for taxing the peasantry and one Byzantine emperor being overthrown for having devalued the money. This is mainly due to the fact that the people realize that the rulers are of a different class than they are and will react bitterly against any depredations; rex sub legis was a very real concept. Both happen nowadays in the US and there's hardly a peep out of anyone, since there is no perceived difference between ruling class and everyone else.

thats nice.

but what does it have to do with my point?

a government with power held in the hands of a minority is no protection against being unfairly targeted for ruin.

thats nice.

but what does it have to do with my point?

a government with power held in the hands of a minority is no protection against being unfairly targeted for ruin.

It has to do with your indirect assertion that a government by minority like an oligarchy or monarchy does not have the power that you ascribe to it; i.e., that it can just go and exterminate whoever it wants. In actual fact, the government ruled by such a minority realizes that it is a minority, is recognized as a foreign minority by the more powerful majority, and thus must engage in a game in which it does not overexpropriate for fear of being overthrown. Whereas, the majority, with its superior numbers and thus power, along with a blurring of the line between ruling class and ruled class, makes it easier for a majority to be tyrannical than the minority.

Also, the monarch will not overexpropriate for fear of discouraging work or inspiring uncertainty, which will damage the economy of his state, which in turn makes his holdings less valuable, which in turn makes him poorer. The democratic majority holds no such possession but rather wishes to satiate its desires as quickly as possible before someone else grabs it.

It has to do with your indirect assertion that a government by minority like an oligarchy or monarchy does not have the power that you ascribe to it; i.e., that it can just go and exterminate whoever it wants. In actual fact, the government ruled by such a minority realizes that it is a minority, is recognized as a foreign minority by the more powerful majority, and thus must engage in a game in which it does not overexpropriate for fear of being overthrown. Whereas, the majority, with its superior numbers and thus power, along with a blurring of the line between ruling class and ruled class, makes it easier for a majority to be tyrannical than the minority.

Also, the monarch will not overexpropriate for fear of discouraging work or inspiring uncertainty, which will damage the economy of his state, which in turn makes his holdings less valuable, which in turn makes him poorer. The democratic majority holds no such possession but rather wishes to satiate its desires as quickly as possible before someone else grabs it.

well you can say that but it seems to me that such rulers have exterminated minorities throughout history. from political opponents to hated racial/religious groups. the only power the people might have had was to overthrow the government through bloody revolution but that would require them to know about it and give a damn about whatever minority was being destroyed.

the only thing an absolute ruler is afraid of is oppressing the MAJORITY so much that they will revolt. not that that stopped any of the rulers of the soviet union.

but that is not the topic eh? are you still wondering why the leftist liberals wouldnt prefer an oligarchy that can only be influenced by the most strenuous methods instead of votes by a majority who are encouraged to go with their own best interests?

or did you really want to discuss your own preferred government for a while?

For all the ones who said it is because it is self-determination and not a dictatorship; how can we know that the majority won't oppress the minority, and be far more secure in its position than a minority oppressing the majority? And I say the left in this instance is upholding democracy as good because while I have seen democracy criticized by conservatives and libertarians as mob rule, and seen as outclassed by a republic, I have seen no such argument from left-liberals.
Are you kidding me? I can't believe no one has called you on this nonsense yet.

Lets just go to the most recent example-gay marriage. The right leans on 'what the majority wants' while the left has had to remind them that we have a bill of rights to prevent tyranny of the majority.

And that's just recent. If you haven't seen this then it's not a product of left or right but of you not paying attention.
The possibility of the majority oppressing the minority is the reason we have the bill of rights. We outline certain things the majority can't do to anybody, so while not everyone necessarily gets exactly what they want, no one gets oppressed.
That.

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

I thought your ideal form of government was some kind of decentralized councils...wouldn't those be more or less democratic?

Has Greill been reading too much Hans Hoppe? One article by Hoppe would count as too much.

Because it is.

Not really. Only establishment candidates are allowed to win office (with extremely rare exceptions); both parties are virtual clones of each other; and both work for ever bigger and more repressive government.

The possibility of the majority oppressing the minority is the reason we have the bill of rights. We outline certain things the majority can't do to anybody, so while not everyone necessarily gets exactly what they want, no one gets oppressed.

Constitutions are meaningless without a government unwilling to uphold them.

Not really. Only establishment candidates are allowed to win office (with extremely rare exceptions); both parties are virtual clones of each other; and both work for ever bigger and more repressive government.

The reason that the US parties are so similar is that we have agreed on so much as a society. Where the parties do differ is where we have not worked out our disagreements yet. Europe has a broader spectrum of parties because they haven't agreed on some basic points, such as capitalism vs. socialism.

The US parties work to enlarge government because that is what the majority of the public has told them to do. One side wants bigger government for security, the other side for social programs. Either way, the government gets bigger. You don't like it, work a big PR campaign to switch public opinion.

Constitutions are meaningless without a government unwilling to uphold them.

They also need a large section of the people to call the government on the carpet when it violates it.

There is another version called "illiberal democracy" that exists in this world. It appears to be extremely prevalent in South Asia. Use Iran as example. The majority of the people have chosen to use Islamic Sharia law.

So which type of democracy are we talking about here?

Er... No? I wouldn't exactly say that they've 'chosen' Shari`a law...

Has Greill been reading too much Hans Hoppe? One article by Hoppe would count as too much.
Funny, I've read three books by him and that's left me wanting for more. So no, it wouldn't count as too much, at all.

Constitutions are meaningless without a government unwilling to uphold them.

Wow. Was that a triple negative? damn, I don't even know how to start sorting that out.

Funny, I've read three books by him and that's left me wanting for more. So no, it wouldn't count as too much, at all.

He's spoken at my University a few times. The chair of my department, Economics, is pretty good friends with him. Hoppe seems to hold certain beliefs simply because they are controversial, and not because they actually make sense. The only time I've every slightly agreed with him is on a private police force. But, heck, public cops might suck, but what kind of system would it be if the cops openly worked for the highest bidder?

no left liberal is going to suggest that the common man should be ruled over without getting a say.
I would, and on nearly every other issue, besides perhaps free trade, I fall left of center.

The common man wants to be oppressed. He fears an open society and change. Thoughtfulness is equated to depression in his mind. He lacks the ability to empathize with those he has not met and thus apathetically and sometimes even gleefully will condemn thousands to death. He has no more self-determination in a democracy than in a dictatorship. Fear will always rule him; the media will always control him, and ancient superstitions will always be the basis of his life. All we can hope for is intelligent, benevolent, practical leaders coming to power.

Er... No? I wouldn't exactly say that they've 'chosen' Shari`a law...

Then what do you call the Iranian Revolution of 1979?

I would, and on nearly every other issue, besides perhaps free trade, I fall left of center.

The common man wants to be oppressed. He fears an open society and change. Thoughtfulness is equated to depression in his mind. He lacks the ability to empathize with those he has not met and thus apathetically and sometimes even gleefully will condemn thousands to death. He has no more self-determination in a democracy than in a dictatorship. Fear will always rule him; the media will always control him, and ancient superstitions will always be the basis of his life. All we can hope for is intelligent, benevolent, practical leaders coming to power.

Scratch "benevolent leader" and insert "dictator."

Hey, me and my people are going to be exterminated, but at least we got to say we don't like the idea very much.That's more than you could say about a minority that plans on exterminating you.

And the likelihood of oppression is probably higher in democracy because it is, ceteris paribus, easier for the majority to oppress the minority than the other way around, simply because it is inherent that the majority is bigger.You don't think that the groups 'majority' and 'minority' are so homogenized, do you?

The minority has to rein in their abuses for fear of being destroyed by the majority, while the majority has no such fear of the minority.The majority may have a lesser fear of the minority, but it's certainly not a lack of fear.

Because the mob is more powerful than the oligarchy.But oligarchies, knowing that they are minorities, tend to want to consolidate power.

Well, I belong to a certain niche in libertarianism that I share with Hans Hermann-Hoppe, which is basically that everything should be structured on subsidiary institutions like family, religion, and community, where one chooses their own declarative law through voluntary relationship.Democracy coexists well with this type of choice.

Well, it IS true that the masses are more powerful than the minority. But the masses will not overthrow the oligarchs because it would be too costly for them. It's not a question of power (which is in the favor of the majority), but of costs vs. benefits. Why get shot when you just have to pay harsh taxes?And likewise, why would the majority risk getting shot trying to kill the minority when they could just tax them?

well you can say that but it seems to me that such rulers have exterminated minorities throughout history. from political opponents to hated racial/religious groups. the only power the people might have had was to overthrow the government through bloody revolution but that would require them to know about it and give a damn about whatever minority was being destroyed.

But in the 20th century, the age of democracy, we've seen 100 million people exterminated in democide. Religious minorities, such as Jews, became a very important part of oligarchies and monarchies. After all, Louis XIV had good relations with the Rothschilds, and Ludwig von Mises, who was Jewish, was an Austrian noble. Why? Because these rulers realized that it was not for their long-term benefit to keep killing these people who would continue to help them become richer. They could kill them, just like you could shoot yourself in the foot. (Not that I'm saying monarchies or oligarchies are perfect; it's just that they are more future-oriented.)

the only thing an absolute ruler is afraid of is oppressing the MAJORITY so much that they will revolt. not that that stopped any of the rulers of the soviet union.

It did stop the Czars; after all, they made quite a few concessions to the populace of Russia. But the Soviets had their own form of democracy that allowed them to manipulate the majority to support them in whatever they did.

but that is not the topic eh? are you still wondering why the leftist liberals wouldnt prefer an oligarchy that can only be influenced by the most strenuous methods instead of votes by a majority who are encouraged to go with their own best interests?

I wasn't wondering why they didn't prefer anything else. I was just wondering why their specific word for freedom was 'democracy.' And I'm much more afraid of an oligarchy that has to step carefully to get what it wants without rousing a hornet's nest or shooting themselves in the foot, than the majority that can be driven from their TV sets into a mindless hysteria and screw over the minority.

or did you really want to discuss your own preferred government for a while?

*Shrugs* I don't really care. What do you want to discuss?

Are you kidding me? I can't believe no one has called you on this nonsense yet.

Lets just go to the most recent example-gay marriage. The right leans on 'what the majority wants' while the left has had to remind them that we have a bill of rights to prevent tyranny of the majority.

And that's just recent. If you haven't seen this then it's not a product of left or right but of you not paying attention.

But the thing is is that I've seen more left-liberals say "democracy" with positive connotations, than conservatives or libertarians who infer that democracy = mob rule. There does not appear to be such a split in left-liberals.

That's more than you could say about a minority that plans on exterminating you.

But the minority either can't do it, because they're too weak or fear reprisal, or won't do it, because it will cost them in the long-run.

You don't think that the groups 'majority' and 'minority' are so homogenized, do you?

As technical terms, why shouldn't they be homogenized? I'm talking about ceteris paribus conditions, which automatically imply a homogeneity to talk about one variable. You wouldn't overcomplicate a math problem by putting in a bunch of variables when all you want to know is what X equals, would you?

The majority may have a lesser fear of the minority, but it's certainly not a lack of fear.

But it's still easier for them to go around terrorizing than the other way around. I would rather have the greater fear of a minority than the lesser fear of a majority.

But oligarchies, knowing that they are minorities, tend to want to consolidate power.

Yes. And majorities, knowing that they are majorities, tend to want to decentralize power. It works both ways.

Democracy coexists well with this type of choice.

Hence family disintegration, high crime, low church attendance, increasing top-down controls, etc.?

And likewise, why would the majority risk getting shot trying to kill the minority when they could just tax them?

Because they've got a better chance of killing the minority, and their representatives want to get their constituents a quick-fix to stay in office.

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

So the right to pick one's own political leaders isn't a form of freedom?

Scratch "benevolent leader" and insert "dictator."

Oh, indeed. We're always ruled by dictators, you see. It's primate nature. Just look at gorillas and chimpanzees. The dictators in democracies just tend to be more clever, hidden and numerous than in self-styled dictatorships. I just hope for decent ones, though in truth, there's nothing either of us can do to effect that.

What's really weird is how supposed "libertarians" want to deny people the right to participate in decisions that affect them.

I can understand the general statist argument that people just don't know what's good for them, but I see no reason that, if you reject it in the case of, say, consensual sex, you should reject it in the case of political rule.

But the minority either can't do it, because they're too weak or fear reprisal, or won't do it, because it will cost them in the long-run.It would cost the majority in the long run to exterminate the minority, as well.
Of course, you could simply say that the majority won't have its long term goals in mind, but you can't prove that the minority would.

As technical terms, why shouldn't they be homogenized? I'm talking about ceteris paribus conditions, which automatically imply a homogeneity to talk about one variable. You wouldn't overcomplicate a math problem by putting in a bunch of variables when all you want to know is what X equals, would you?Because what X equals isn't constant for every problem. At best, you can only figure out what X is in a given problem.

But it's still easier for them to go around terrorizing than the other way around. I would rather have the greater fear of a minority than the lesser fear of a majority.But it's less likely for them to do so, since the majority today is the minority tomorrow.

Yes. And majorities, knowing that they are majorities, tend to want to decentralize power. It works both ways.Decentralizing power is a good thing. I'm inclined to say it's inherently a good thing, but I'll stop short of that.

Hence family disintegration, high crime, low church attendance, increasing top-down controls, etc.?Increasing top-down controls runs contrary to democracy. It could be argued that that is part of what is causing the rest of the problems you name.

Because they've got a better chance of killing the minority, and their representatives want to get their constituents a quick-fix to stay in office.The chance of them killing the minority isn't large enough to give them a significant chance of doing so.

What's really weird is how supposed "libertarians" want to deny people the right to participate in decisions that affect them.

I don't think people should have the right to participate in decisions that affect others, either. I think people should be allowed to make all their own decisions, provided they aren't violating anyone else's rights or hurting anyone else.

I don't think people should have the right to participate in decisions that affect others, either.

Yes, you do.

Your decision to not let me take your money affects me, for instance.

But the thing is is that I've seen more left-liberals say "democracy" with positive connotations, than conservatives or libertarians who infer that democracy = mob rule. There does not appear to be such a split in left-liberals.

It was conservatives who crowed about bringing democracy to the middle east, that that was what this war was about (after the other 'abouts' fell away, but that's another thread)...seriously, again I say that it is not a phenomenon of the left as it is that you either aren't paying attention or have skewed your observations to meet pre-determined results. I think the latter is the case reading how you have tried to shoe-horn your philosophy into facts that really don't fit it.

I can understand the general statist argument that people just don't know what's good for them, but I see no reason that, if you reject it in the case of, say, consensual sex, you should reject it in the case of political rule.
Someone else's consensual sex doesn't affect me. For the record, most of the people I know make terrible decisions in that department.
Besides, trying to administrate sex is more trouble than its worth. Best thing the government can do there is encourage the use of contraceptives.

Someone else's consensual sex doesn't effect me.

Someone else's democracy doesn't affect you either.

It would cost the majority in the long run to exterminate the minority, as well.
Of course, you could simply say that the majority won't have its long term goals in mind, but you can't prove that the minority would.

Well, the majority wouldn't have its long term goals in mind, since their officials are focused on getting them as much as possible now to keep in office. The minority, serving themselves without the fear of someone else grabbing the nation, would inherently be more future-oriented.

Because what X equals isn't constant for every problem. At best, you can only figure out what X is in a given problem.

You do realize that you just said X doesn't equal itself?

But it's less likely for them to do so, since the majority today is the minority tomorrow.

Not necessarily. And if they get rid of the minority now, they don't have the fear of becoming minority relative to them later.

Decentralizing power is a good thing. I'm inclined to say it's inherently a good thing, but I'll stop short of that.

Yes, but this is in an oligarchy or monopoly, where the centralization is a benefit to the minority. Whereas, where the majority have the power, centralizing power benefits them. And they can do it more easily, because they have the ability to sustain their gains, unlike the minority ruler who is ultimately outclassed.

Increasing top-down controls runs contrary to democracy. It could be argued that that is part of what is causing the rest of the problems you name.

No, increasing top-down controls is the natural result of democracy, like any other form of government. The majority wants to grab as much as possible before someone else takes it, whether it be another group or a competing official.

The chance of them killing the minority isn't large enough to give them a significant chance of doing so.

Sure didn't stop the Indonesian government in Timor.

It was conservatives who crowed about bringing democracy to the middle east, that that was what this war was about (after the other 'abouts' fell away, but that's another thread)...seriously, again I say that it is not a phenomenon of the left as it is that you either aren't paying attention or have skewed your observations to meet pre-determined results. I think the latter is the case reading how you have tried to shoe-horn your philosophy into facts that really don't fit it.

I'm not saying that it's completely a liberal thing, but I have never heard a criticism of democracy from the left. I was just wondering why this never happened. And what facts have I shoe-horned?

I support dictatorship...

I am hard core libertarian and I am very attached to democracy. I'm also a big fan of republics and democratic republics are da bomb!

Someone else's democracy doesn't affect you either.

Unless that democracy decides to bomb me.

Not really. Only establishment candidates are allowed to win office (with extremely rare exceptions); both parties are virtual clones of each other; and both work for ever bigger and more repressive government.

Cheh. Although what everything means isn't always what happens.

To the OP, the term ‘democracy’ is one of a select few words in the English language that has come, through accident or artificial means, to a point where it is very hard to use in a pejorative sense.

One lecturer on Soviet Russian literature I had last year noted the similarity in the usage of ‘democracy’ in today’s western society, and the usage of the word ‘communism’ or ‘the Party’ in the USSR.

I'm not saying that it's completely a liberal thing, but I have never heard a criticism of democracy from the left. I was just wondering why this never happened. And what facts have I shoe-horned?

Because you haven't been paying attention.

But in the 20th century, the age of democracy, we've seen 100 million people exterminated in democide. Religious minorities, such as Jews, became a very important part of oligarchies and monarchies. After all, Louis XIV had good relations with the Rothschilds, and Ludwig von Mises, who was Jewish, was an Austrian noble. Why? Because these rulers realized that it was not for their long-term benefit to keep killing these people who would continue to help them become richer. They could kill them, just like you could shoot yourself in the foot. (Not that I'm saying monarchies or oligarchies are perfect; it's just that they are more future-oriented.)

You know, that paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Since when has the 20th century been the age of democracy? From what I've seen, its been a century dominated by a few islands of bourgeouis representative democracy surrounded by dozens of puppet regimes that claim to be democratic. Those 100 million people exterminated were nearly all killed by dictatorships (20 million in Russia, 20+ million in China, 20 Million+ by Nazi Germany, millions more in Africa, and SE Asia.). It's also very easy to argue that those few real bourgeois liberal democracies are more like oligarchies then democracies.

It did stop the Czars; after all, they made quite a few concessions to the populace of Russia. But the Soviets had their own form of democracy that allowed them to manipulate the majority to support them in whatever they did.

Ah no. The Soviets were decentralized local councils in Russia. They were a form of direct democracy, and never persecuted anyone. They were abolished by V.I. Lenin, a dictator perverting socialism to serve his own ends.

I wasn't wondering why they didn't prefer anything else. I was just wondering why their specific word for freedom was 'democracy.' And I'm much more afraid of an oligarchy that has to step carefully to get what it wants without rousing a hornet's nest or shooting themselves in the foot, than the majority that can be driven from their TV sets into a mindless hysteria and screw over the minority.

It is impossible to have any real conception of freedom without allowing everyone a share in decision making process. Fundamentally, democracy is about giving everyone a part in decisions that affect them. Anything else is a misuse of the term.

But the thing is is that I've seen more left-liberals say "democracy" with positive connotations, than conservatives or libertarians who infer that democracy = mob rule. There does not appear to be such a split in left-liberals.

Leftism is fundamentally requires that everyone has a voice in decision making process. That is fundamentally true. Most left liberals in the US want to increase the level of people's participation in politics while simultaneously decreasing the power of the state to harm people.

But the minority either can't do it, because they're too weak or fear reprisal, or won't do it, because it will cost them in the long-run.

Oligarchs in the modern world are rarely bound by that. Such paranoia is more often the cause of repression then a deterrant to it. Dictators and oligarchs oppress their people precisely because they are afraid of them. So they divide them and instill them with fear in order to keep them under their control.

It seems to me that you have more of a fear of statism then of democracy per se. If you look at the concept of the state and realize that is both negative and antithetical to both real democracy and real freedom, you'll see why leftists believe in both democracy and freedom and are opposed to the State in varying degrees.

I've noticed that left-liberals in the United States will often use "democracy" in such a way that it has an implied meaning of "freedom." Could any American left-liberals tell me why this is so?

Because, it gives us a way to fire employees we don't like. That's right, we pay the salaries of the President and Congress, we are their boss. They are public servants. In any other type of government system, we wouldn't have the ability to fire them so easily.

What's really weird is how supposed "libertarians" want to deny people the right to participate in decisions that affect them.

true liberty comes from obeying orders from your betters

true liberty comes from obeying orders from your betters
I knew we’d see your true colours soon enough! :-P

I knew we’d see your true colours soon enough! :-P

Dear Zeus! How could someone called "Free Soviets" say something like that. :p

Oh, indeed. We're always ruled by dictators, you see. It's primate nature. Just look at gorillas and chimpanzees. The dictators in democracies just tend to be more clever, hidden and numerous than in self-styled dictatorships. I just hope for decent ones, though in truth, there's nothing either of us can do to effect that.

You might want to look into the political philosophy in 1984. No, I'm not talking about the "Big Brother" stuff. There are a couple of chapters on Goldstein's political theories that need to be better examined. The short version is that there is always someone in charge. What changes is how we define who is in charge. In the Middle Ages, it was socially. Currently, it is economically. In the book, it is politically. Same story, different players.

As a Brit, I'd like to say that it's because at this point in time, it looks to be a good thing for a developed state such as the US, although there are a great many failings with democracy at the moment.

For example, a few posts ago someone suggested that it means that you can kick out your higher ups. No it doesn't. If someone gets voted into a position by any group (in a company level, think of a regular employee being voted to a better position by the senior management team) then they're extremely difficult to remove, simply because at one stage they were supported by one group of people or another, and when some kind of crisis threatens, even a small one, those feelings are often brought up again and people usually stay where they are.



On the other hand, you could look at it as something which could easily go wrong - what if the inhabitants of a small town in the middle of nowhere voted to kick out or kill all of the homosexuals / ethnic minorities?

That'd be democracy in action, although not exactly the kind of democracy most of us imagine.

I am hard core libertarian and I am very attached to democracy. I'm also a big fan of republics and democratic republics are da bomb!
I'm going to assume that doesn't include the Democratic People's Republic of Korea :p

Well, the majority wouldn't have its long term goals in mind, since their officials are focused on getting them as much as possible now to keep in office. The minority, serving themselves without the fear of someone else grabbing the nation, would inherently be more future-oriented.If they're serving themselves, they'd inherently be more now-oriented.
An official needs votes now, sure, but officials also need future votes, too.

You do realize that you just said X doesn't equal itself?No I didn't. You've never seen solutions to problems that are something like X = A/B? That's what we're talking about here. There are different vairables here that change what X is.

Not necessarily. And if they get rid of the minority now, they don't have the fear of becoming minority relative to them later.No, but as I said the majority isn't homogenous. It will be made up of many different minority groups. It isn't a good idea to start a policy of exterminating minorities, as pretty much all of us is a member of some minority or other.

Yes, but this is in an oligarchy or monopoly, where the centralization is a benefit to the minority. Whereas, where the majority have the power, centralizing power benefits them. And they can do it more easily, because they have the ability to sustain their gains, unlike the minority ruler who is ultimately outclassed.If we're talking about the majority as in a democracy, this contradicts when you said "And majorities, knowing that they are majorities, tend to want to decentralize power." Does the majority want to centralize power under itself, or decentralize it?

No, increasing top-down controls is the natural result of democracy, like any other form of government. No, that's fascism. Democracy is rule from the bottom up.

The majority wants to grab as much as possible before someone else takes it, whether it be another group or a competing official.Why would they do that if they have nothing to fear from the minority?

Sure didn't stop the Indonesian government in Timor.And the minority being the minority didn't stop the Spanish from conquering the Aztecs and Incas. What's your point?

No better options? Everything else puts ultimate power in a small group and/or a single person's hands.

There's always rule-by-consensus....sure it couldn't work on any scale larger than a few thousand people, but imagine: what if we had a world of tiny utopian communities of likeminded individuals, all governed by consensus, trading with each other freely without a higher authority ruling them?

Sorry for the rambling.

Can't democracy also repeal the Bill of Rights? Imo, liberal democracy is the best form we have right now, but to worship it as the epitome of freedom...nah.