NationStates Jolt Archive

...the people overwhelming vote (more than two-thirds {67%}) with 100% turnout to have their system replaced by a dictatorship? Is that still democracy? Should it be allowed?

A democratically-elected dictatorship is still a dictatorship.

If votes are continually held and respected, then it is a functioning democracy with "dictator" as a synonym for Prime Minister or President.

The process creates the ends; they are not necessarily the ends themselves.

I would suppose they could vote for that if their laws provided for that kind of government change. However once the dictator took over the democracy ceases to exist.

It wouldn't be a democracy but the government would have been democratically elected.

Should it be allowed?


Ask those who have already tried it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrepublik_Deutschland).

Their answer: Article 21. (http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/parliament/function/legal/germanbasiclaw.pdf)


My own opinion is that it is entirely silly to conclude that democratic liberties must include the right or ability to destroy the democratic order. One may as well argue that I must provide my bare chest to a knife welding murderer, lest I violate said murderer's individual right to kill me. Such is absurdity, obviously.

The hypothetical society posed in the OP abandoned democracy long before the matter was put to any vote.

can a democracy vote out a democracy?

I don't see why not.

the ensuing dictatorship would not be a democracy though, no matter how it got there, because as you just said it is a dictatorship.

...the people overwhelming vote (more than two-thirds {67%}) with 100% turnout to have their system replaced by a dictatorship? Is that still democracy? Should it be allowed?

It really depends on the exact circumstances.
Imagine an elected tyrant who serves a specified term which is followed by a new election. Is that democracy?

can a democracy vote out a democracy?

I don't see why not.

the ensuing dictatorship would not be a democracy though, no matter how it got there, because as you just said it is a dictatorship.seconded

No they can't, in the same way that nobody is free to sell themselves into slavery.

EDIT: I'm not sure who's going to stop the overwhelming majority, but in theory it should be stopped. :p

It really depends on the exact circumstances.
Imagine an elected tyrant who serves a specified term which is followed by a new election. Is that democracy?

in a literal sense, yes. A democracy is in regards to the functional method of creating government, not the process in which the government governs

If an individual is elected to an office, that was a democratic process. What powers the individual has is not related to the function of democracy itself, with, I suppose, the limitation that he could not suspend democratic elections.

Oh well, we already dont elect the judges, civil service, heads of army, heads of industry, bureaucracy, etc etc.
One less thing to elect isnt the end of the world is it?

It wouldn't be a democracy but the government would have been democratically elected.
Agreed. Technically, according to the law, it would be legal, but from an ideological perspective or a moral view, not neccessarily so.

No they can't, in the same way that nobody is free to sell themselves into slavery.


Some otherwise rational people in this thread seem to be suggesting just exactly that though...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537656

No they can't, in the same way that nobody is free to sell themselves into slavery.

While one can't force another into slavery who are you or anyone else to say that another cannot choose to submit to slavery? After all, a person as the freedom to make their own life choices.

And just for fun, let's assume that the person submitting themselves to slavery has a lawyer who drew up the contract agreement which states that this person is aware of their rights and has entered this arrangement voluntarily.

dp

EDIT: I'm not sure who's going to stop the overwhelming majority, but in theory it should be stopped. :pyou are not sure how we are going to stop their majority?

there is several outrageous examples like ... 911.

...the people overwhelming vote (more than two-thirds {67%}) with 100% turnout to have their system replaced by a dictatorship? Is that still democracy?since most newly elected Government need a few weeks for the transition of power.
I vote YES.
.

should that be allowed?well if some Aliens (ex US army) comes and stops the ongoing democratic transition of power.. It automatically kills the "Democracy".

which one is the most undemocratic course of action?

Answer: some alien entity killing the electoral process. Thats the most undemocratic action of all.

While one can't force another into slavery who are you or anyone else to say that another cannot choose to submit to slavery? After all, a person as the freedom to make their own life choices.

And just for fun, let's assume that the person submitting themselves to slavery has a lawyer who drew up the contract agreement which states that this person is aware of their rights and has entered this arrangement voluntarily.

There are two good arguments against allowing voluntary entry into slavery:

Jean Jacques Rousseau pointed out that agreeing to become a slave cannot be seen as a contract because it works only in the favour of the owner. A contract is supposed to be an exchange of advantages, but it isn't a contract to say "I will give myself to you completely and surrender all right to anything in return."

John Stuart Mill approached the argument from a different persepective: if we were to grant people the right to become slaves then presumably we are doing it because we consider freedom of choice to be a good thing, and if freedom of choice is a good thing then we shouldn't allow slavery as it is an end to freedom of choice and we should be trying to maximise freedom. Therefore considering the right to make oneself a slave should not be seen as an example of liberty.

There are some more subtle arguments about man's existence as a free creature, defined by his choices, but personally I prefer these two.

you are not sure how we are going to stop their majority?

there is several outrageous examples like ... 911.

...and that worked out well for the minority? ;)

If the people (Palestinians) vote for a government that the US doesn't like it's not a democracy.

There are two good arguments against allowing voluntary entry into slavery:

*SNIP*

There are some more subtle arguments about man's existence as a free creature, defined by his choices, but personally I prefer these two.

But as a free creature is a human not allowed to make his/her own choices, which are voluntary choices to do as a human wishes? As you say, we're free creatures, so as free creatures are we not allowed to make our own choices even if you don't agree? Even the choices appear to give up liberty, we do have the ability to make the choice and that choice stems from our existence as free creatures.

If you say a person cannot do something, like for example, voluntarily enter slavery, then he is not a free creature now is he?

It really depends on the exact circumstances.
Imagine an elected tyrant who serves a specified term which is followed by a new election. Is that democracy?

The US tried that in 2004. We'll see how it turns out.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Actually the US gives it's citizens the right to overthrow the government.

But as a free creature is a human not allowed to make his/her own choices, which are voluntary choices to do as a human wishes? As you say, we're free creatures, so as free creatures are we not allowed to make our own choices even if you don't agree? Even the choices appear to give up liberty, we do have the ability to make the choice and that choice stems from our existence as free creatures.

If you say a person cannot do something, like for example, voluntarily enter slavery, then he is not a free creature now is he?

It isn't 'liberty' to sign away your freedom and it isn't a 'choice' if you give up your autonomy. Sure, a society where it's illegal to make yourself a slave isn't perfectly free, but it's a hell of a lot more free than a society where you can.

No, it isn't a democracy. And where the public are stupid enough to do that, they deserve dictatorship for as long as it takes until they redeem themselves by overthrowing it.

It isn't 'liberty' to sign away your freedom and it isn't a 'choice' if you give up your autonomy. Sure, a society where it's illegal to make yourself a slave isn't perfectly free, but it's a hell of a lot more free than a society where you can.

lib·er·ty /ˈlɪbərti/
–noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
—Idiom
9. at liberty,
a. free from captivity or restraint.
b. unemployed; out of work.
c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.

Yes, the person may seemingly "give up" liberty but they are at liberty to do so as it is their choice in the matter. You may not seem to think so but the freedom of choice means a person can do as they want; they are at liberty to do as they want.

When people do something voluntarily, even if it is something like enter slavery, they are doing it by choice even if you don't seem to accept it. I have made that one thing clear in my argument that the person is making the choice to do so voluntarily, just as a group of people can democratically elect a dictator to rule.

Yes the definition I give involves freedom, but freedom also means the person making the choice is doing so freely and is not under any obligation or being coerced or anything of that sort. It is not hampering if the person agrees voluntarily (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voluntarily&x=0&y=0) etc.

Of course it is. In America, at least, you wouldn't even need 100% voter turnout (though you WOULD need to make some MAJOR changes to the constitution).

Democracy is just a kind of dictatorship anyway* :::hold for gasps::: so it really isn't that much of a problem.

*Such a loaded statement requires at least SOME extrapolation, so I will tell you why this is so: Cuba has Castro, who decides what's "best" for himself is best for Cuba. We have a "Castro" of our own in America, namely, the "majority," which is the entity that decides both their own fate and the fate of the dissenters (the minority). See the Presidential election of 2000 for an extreme example of this.

(in response to the OP)

You mean if the people overwhemingly elect Giuliani(SP)? :eek:

Part of the reason why democracy for democracy's sake isn't a virtue, and it isn't exactly the most desirable course of action, either. Rather, democracy is used as it is the most effective realistic method of organizing and selecting a government. What democracy does do is put limits on government, holds it accountable for protecting the conditions to allow a society to prosper (with the threat of removal from power in the event of failure) and provides a vent for the pressure of the malcontents of society.

Dictatorships, though, even if democratically selected at the beginning, aren't good at any of those things.

It's not because there's some sort of instant validation of the rightness of a decision made democratically, rather it's that it works for certain things, and democratically creating a dictatorship violates all of the real reasons that states choose to operate a democratic system.

...and that worked out well for the minority? ;)the minority was pleased.

Then again dictatorships wouldn't work as well without the people conforming to the will of their masters.

So I guess whatever the name of the game is, the rule is still the same, appease or control the masses, or die.

Freedom isn't the same to all people. Are you free from hunger? Are you free from homelessness? Are you free to walk the streets without fear of crime? Are you free from ethnic violence? Are you free from worry about medical expense? Are you free from fear of someone stealing from your house? Are you free of fear for your children when they go out to play?

The list could go on, but in some cases a dictator can provide freedoms that a western "democracy" (at least not the US) can provide for all of it's citizens. There may not be freedom to vote, but what good is a vote if you're sick and can't afford a doctor? What good is a vote if you are scared of crime? etc.

Actually the US gives it's citizens the right to overthrow the government.

"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons."
-- United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2385 "Advocating overthrow of Government." ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html )