|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 25 2015 08:46 Velocirapture wrote:
Maybe I have been checked out but I don't see Hilary as all that controversial. I was pretty young during the Clinton administration but I remember most women being incredibly sympathetic about the whole philandering husband thing. I heard very little about her work as a senator and she seemed overshadowed by Barack while secretary of state.
I remember when she first ran the major complaint was that she had no real experience (FLOTUS doesn't count). Now she has experience and I still know nothing about her that screams incompetent or crazy. Unless being a completely vanilla moderate democrat is a big deal now.
Well, erasing all emails from the week of Benghazi, and using a private email account instead of an official one is kinda sketchy.
I don't even care about Benghazi, big whoop 3 people died. But that's some "Nixon and his blank cassette tapes"-tier nonsense. I don't care whether or not she was trying to hide something, that kind of shit is just too suspicious.
|
When it comes to Clinton conspiracies, Republicans need to read a story about a boy who cried "wolf!".
|
On April 25 2015 09:19 Leporello wrote:
When it comes to Clinton conspiracies, Republicans need to read a story about a boy who cried "wolf!".
So using a private email account for official business, and erasing emails from a controversial week isn't at all suspicious to you?
|
On April 25 2015 09:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 09:19 Leporello wrote:
When it comes to Clinton conspiracies, Republicans need to read a story about a boy who cried "wolf!". So using a private email account for official business, and erasing emails from a controversial week isn't at all suspicious to you?
The problem is that they have yelled "Scandal!" so many time that when an actual ones comes around people don't pay attention to it.
|
On April 25 2015 09:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 09:19 Leporello wrote:
When it comes to Clinton conspiracies, Republicans need to read a story about a boy who cried "wolf!". So using a private email account for official business, and erasing emails from a controversial week isn't at all suspicious to you?
I agree it is suspicious but I am suspicious of a lot of politicians. Using personal e-mail is probably so hugely convenient I don't doubt a lot of people would do that unless security is 100% insistent on compliance, which is not what I have heard. The erasing thing sounds like one of those moments where you break a minor rule and then the one in a million thing happens that burns you hard for breaking it. Mark that down as one mistake.
I get that these are bad things but she has been center stage politically for decades. We have already seen how shining the presidential spotlight on candidates can destroy their image in a matter of days. At this point I am left feeling that there is nothing exciting or controversial about her at all. Nobody should be happy about that.
|
On April 25 2015 09:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 09:34 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2015 09:19 Leporello wrote:
When it comes to Clinton conspiracies, Republicans need to read a story about a boy who cried "wolf!". So using a private email account for official business, and erasing emails from a controversial week isn't at all suspicious to you? The problem is that they have yelled "Scandal!" so many time that when an actual ones comes around people don't pay attention to it.
They haven't yelled scandal without any proof beyond a reasonable doubt. if anything its eroded peoples trust of clinton and the obama administration fairly successfully in the past few years from the election.
|
On April 25 2015 09:56 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 09:34 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2015 09:19 Leporello wrote:
When it comes to Clinton conspiracies, Republicans need to read a story about a boy who cried "wolf!". So using a private email account for official business, and erasing emails from a controversial week isn't at all suspicious to you? I agree it is suspicious but I am suspicious of a lot of politicians. Using personal e-mail is probably so hugely convenient I don't doubt a lot of people would do that unless security is 100% insistent on compliance, which is not what I have heard. The erasing thing sounds like one of those moments where you break a minor rule and then the one in a million thing happens that burns you hard for breaking it. Mark that down as one mistake. I get that these are bad things but she has been center stage politically for decades. We have already seen how shining the presidential spotlight on candidates can destroy their image in a matter of days. At this point I am left feeling that there is nothing exciting or controversial about her at all. Nobody should be happy about that.
Convenient? Using Gmail is convenient, using your own private email is a pain because it probably sucks (or even worse, uses outlook).
Also I don't understand why someone who is not trying to hide something would delete emails. She was also under subpoena at the time. Storage space is essentially free for something as trivial as emails.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 25 2015 04:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On April 24 2015 07:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 07:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2015 07:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 07:00 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2015 06:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 06:38 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2015 06:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 06:13 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
If you redefine demos to mean not "the people", but "the elite group of people that you have redefined to be the people" then anything is a democracy. Hell, Mugabe is a democratic! He and his cronies (we will now call this "the people", or demos) chose him and rigged all elections since the 80s to reflect that!
You do realize that our modern definition of democracy means something other than "government chosen by election, no matter how unfair", right? People that define democracy like that are the same vein of people that refuse to use the word "communism" for anything except the pipe-dream that theorists and philosophers write about. It's a useless definition that only serves to prop up some false ideals about how things should be. Huh? You have a pretty good democracy in the US. I think the democracy in Brazil is an actual democracy too (although you can always question whether the people who are elected are actually in power at all). You can argue the merits of a direct and indirect system. However, there comes a point where it is simply no longer a democracy, even if the local government claims otherwise. South Africa during Apartheid was a democracy for about 10% of the population. That isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy. Claiming otherwise voids the meaning of the word democracy. As does calling China's government a democracy, or anywhere (including the US) before universal suffrage. I mean, you can certainly argue that current and historical democracies had severe issues with equality of their citizens, and the right to vote being only a representation of a specific group of people. But saying it's not a real democracy is falling straight into the whole "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Even if things like women's voting rights, and democratic rights of minorities, only really came into being in the mid 20th century, you're going to have a very, very hard time arguing that the Western democracy didn't begin in 18th century Europe. Okay. Name a democracy in 18th century Europe. It definitely had its roots there, and you could argue that there are many forms of governments that incorporate democratic elements... but The Netherlands (probably the country you are thinking of) was not a democracy in the 18th century despite being a republic, and the UK certainly wasn't despite having a Parliament. Read: No true Scotsman fallacy. So name one. Corsica, until they were invaded. France, following the revolution, even though it did fall to pieces quite quickly. There's a reason why the government established in the mid 19th century was called the Second Republic. And of course the British Parliament and American government, which you've already dismissed as being not real democracies. haven't read all of your discussion but did you really invoke no true scotsman when it comes to calling china a democracy? there's reason why it's only an informal fallacy, please do not invoke it as substitution for real discussion. No, not for China for specifically. Some of 18th-19th century America and Europe, yes, as well as several present day nations that have shadier politics. Just because land owners are the only voters, or if a nation still had slavery, or if women don't have rights, doesn't stop a nation from being a democracy. If you're pulling out the "it's not a democracy because it doesn't live up to the ideals I think that word means", then that's basically the "no true Scotsman" fallacy verbatim.
true scotsman concerns expanding or narrowing goalposts, it does not preclude discussion about definitions and substantial features of a concept.
when stuff like "democracy restricted to persons with feature Q" comes up, it is fine to say either "democratic rights is limited to Q" (conceiving democracy as individual's political power) or "democratic influence in government is limited by the power behind Q". (conceiving democracy as a particular kind of populist political faction)
problem with discussing stuff like this on tl is that most of these posters have no general survey of the different arguments and argue over definitional or usage points without realizing the pluralism ordinarily associated with these terms.
|
On April 25 2015 09:19 Leporello wrote:
When it comes to Clinton conspiracies, Republicans need to read a story about a boy who cried "wolf!".
"Yes. A politician being vaguely involved in lots of scandals but never firmly caught must be innocent." -Silvio Berlusconi
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this clinton stuff is really fascinating because of the way benefits are meted out to supporters and loyalists. it's like a modern version of feudal warfare.
|
On April 25 2015 16:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 04:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2015 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On April 24 2015 07:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 07:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2015 07:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 07:00 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2015 06:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 06:38 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2015 06:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
People that define democracy like that are the same vein of people that refuse to use the word "communism" for anything except the pipe-dream that theorists and philosophers write about.
It's a useless definition that only serves to prop up some false ideals about how things should be. Huh? You have a pretty good democracy in the US. I think the democracy in Brazil is an actual democracy too (although you can always question whether the people who are elected are actually in power at all). You can argue the merits of a direct and indirect system. However, there comes a point where it is simply no longer a democracy, even if the local government claims otherwise. South Africa during Apartheid was a democracy for about 10% of the population. That isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy. Claiming otherwise voids the meaning of the word democracy. As does calling China's government a democracy, or anywhere (including the US) before universal suffrage. I mean, you can certainly argue that current and historical democracies had severe issues with equality of their citizens, and the right to vote being only a representation of a specific group of people. But saying it's not a real democracy is falling straight into the whole "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Even if things like women's voting rights, and democratic rights of minorities, only really came into being in the mid 20th century, you're going to have a very, very hard time arguing that the Western democracy didn't begin in 18th century Europe. Okay. Name a democracy in 18th century Europe. It definitely had its roots there, and you could argue that there are many forms of governments that incorporate democratic elements... but The Netherlands (probably the country you are thinking of) was not a democracy in the 18th century despite being a republic, and the UK certainly wasn't despite having a Parliament. Read: No true Scotsman fallacy. So name one. Corsica, until they were invaded. France, following the revolution, even though it did fall to pieces quite quickly. There's a reason why the government established in the mid 19th century was called the Second Republic. And of course the British Parliament and American government, which you've already dismissed as being not real democracies. haven't read all of your discussion but did you really invoke no true scotsman when it comes to calling china a democracy? there's reason why it's only an informal fallacy, please do not invoke it as substitution for real discussion. No, not for China for specifically. Some of 18th-19th century America and Europe, yes, as well as several present day nations that have shadier politics. Just because land owners are the only voters, or if a nation still had slavery, or if women don't have rights, doesn't stop a nation from being a democracy. If you're pulling out the "it's not a democracy because it doesn't live up to the ideals I think that word means", then that's basically the "no true Scotsman" fallacy verbatim. true scotsman concerns expanding or narrowing goalposts, it does not preclude discussion about definitions and substantial features of a concept. when stuff like "democracy restricted to persons with feature Q" comes up, it is fine to say either "democratic rights is limited to Q" (conceiving democracy as individual's political power) or "democratic influence in government is limited by the power behind Q". (conceiving democracy as a particular kind of populist political faction) problem with discussing stuff like this on tl is that most of these posters have no general survey of the different arguments and argue over definitional or usage points without realizing the pluralism ordinarily associated with these terms.
I believe the point was that a society can be democratic without universal suffrage, especially considering that the progenitors of Democracy, the Greeks between 800BC and 300BC (especially Athens and its allies) didn't have universal suffrage. Comparatively as well, those original democracies also were quite a bit more democratic than modern 'democracies' even without universal suffrage. Switzerland is a pretty good example as they have more pluralistic voting on actual laws, et. al, without as much representative Republicanism that pervades so much of modern 'democracy'. This is why I brought up the fact that even stout defenders of Democracy staunchly defend the most anti-Democratic parts of modern 'democracy' while balking at supporting actual Democracy - e.g. popular vote on law. Not many support expanding referendums on everything for example and citizen law-making via the vote.
This view that the west is Democratic is such a fraud. There are far more elements of Republicanism (of the Roman sort) than Democracy (of the Athens sort). It's why I always get a chuckle out of the Wilsonian tools who want to spread 'Democracy' to societies that have no want of it (e.g. Middle East/Muslim societies). This also segue's into the fact that you can have these liberal values in non-Democratic societies (e.g. defense of individual liberty / minority rights / property rights / etc.). In fact, I'd probably argue that historically and empirically, the more Democratic a society, the less safe liberty and freedom is. The mob is an ugly thing and 'public perception' is atrocious, especially since it is so easy to manipulate.
|
As for Clinton(s), they/she have so many scandals and lack of ethics I can't believe how even 15% of the public can 'trust' her. For those who haven't been around since Whitewater...here's a good run-down.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/clinton-scandals-the-nineties-113905.html#.VTuI1e90y00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy
They're nearly on par with being as bad as the Bush's (and we all know about their bankrolling of Hitler, right?).
For me it's no surprise they/she are willing to throw away any semblance of ethics for a bit of $$$ and power even if that means handing over uranium to the same countries that are supposed 'enemies' or that we're 'sanctioning'. It's such a laughingstock that they continue to do the same damn stuff for 30 years and those who are ignorant of their history buy the idiocy that it was a simple 'mistake' or 'coincidence'. LMAO. They're so dirty they make Nixon look clean.
The other part of this is that the most ethical politician of the past 100 years Ron Paul was so demonized and mocked and was 'quixotic', yet people are willing to give the Clintons and Bush's power? My god, my fellow Americans are beyond the pale.
|
On April 25 2015 21:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 16:06 oneofthem wrote:On April 25 2015 04:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2015 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On April 24 2015 07:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 07:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2015 07:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 07:00 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2015 06:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 24 2015 06:38 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Huh? You have a pretty good democracy in the US. I think the democracy in Brazil is an actual democracy too (although you can always question whether the people who are elected are actually in power at all). You can argue the merits of a direct and indirect system. However, there comes a point where it is simply no longer a democracy, even if the local government claims otherwise. South Africa during Apartheid was a democracy for about 10% of the population. That isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy. Claiming otherwise voids the meaning of the word democracy. As does calling China's government a democracy, or anywhere (including the US) before universal suffrage. I mean, you can certainly argue that current and historical democracies had severe issues with equality of their citizens, and the right to vote being only a representation of a specific group of people. But saying it's not a real democracy is falling straight into the whole "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Even if things like women's voting rights, and democratic rights of minorities, only really came into being in the mid 20th century, you're going to have a very, very hard time arguing that the Western democracy didn't begin in 18th century Europe. Okay. Name a democracy in 18th century Europe. It definitely had its roots there, and you could argue that there are many forms of governments that incorporate democratic elements... but The Netherlands (probably the country you are thinking of) was not a democracy in the 18th century despite being a republic, and the UK certainly wasn't despite having a Parliament. Read: No true Scotsman fallacy. So name one. Corsica, until they were invaded. France, following the revolution, even though it did fall to pieces quite quickly. There's a reason why the government established in the mid 19th century was called the Second Republic. And of course the British Parliament and American government, which you've already dismissed as being not real democracies. haven't read all of your discussion but did you really invoke no true scotsman when it comes to calling china a democracy? there's reason why it's only an informal fallacy, please do not invoke it as substitution for real discussion. No, not for China for specifically. Some of 18th-19th century America and Europe, yes, as well as several present day nations that have shadier politics. Just because land owners are the only voters, or if a nation still had slavery, or if women don't have rights, doesn't stop a nation from being a democracy. If you're pulling out the "it's not a democracy because it doesn't live up to the ideals I think that word means", then that's basically the "no true Scotsman" fallacy verbatim. true scotsman concerns expanding or narrowing goalposts, it does not preclude discussion about definitions and substantial features of a concept. when stuff like "democracy restricted to persons with feature Q" comes up, it is fine to say either "democratic rights is limited to Q" (conceiving democracy as individual's political power) or "democratic influence in government is limited by the power behind Q". (conceiving democracy as a particular kind of populist political faction) problem with discussing stuff like this on tl is that most of these posters have no general survey of the different arguments and argue over definitional or usage points without realizing the pluralism ordinarily associated with these terms. I believe the point was that a society can be democratic without universal suffrage, especially considering that the progenitors of Democracy, the Greeks between 800BC and 300BC (especially Athens and its allies) didn't have universal suffrage. Comparatively as well, those original democracies also were quite a bit more democratic than modern 'democracies' even without universal suffrage. Switzerland is a pretty good example as they have more pluralistic voting on actual laws, et. al, without as much representative Republicanism that pervades so much of modern 'democracy'. This is why I brought up the fact that even stout defenders of Democracy staunchly defend the most anti-Democratic parts of modern 'democracy' while balking at supporting actual Democracy - e.g. popular vote on law. Not many support expanding referendums on everything for example and citizen law-making via the vote. This view that the west is Democratic is such a fraud. There are far more elements of Republicanism (of the Roman sort) than Democracy (of the Athens sort). It's why I always get a chuckle out of the Wilsonian tools who want to spread 'Democracy' to societies that have no want of it (e.g. Middle East/Muslim societies). This also segue's into the fact that you can have these liberal values in non-Democratic societies (e.g. defense of individual liberty / minority rights / property rights / etc.). In fact, I'd probably argue that historically and empirically, the more Democratic a society, the less safe liberty and freedom is. The mob is an ugly thing and 'public perception' is atrocious, especially since it is so easy to manipulate.
Hm, I always thought "democracy" of the American variety was a dog-whistle for anti-imperialist self-determination. Or a nod to the fact that most president pushing this democracy are Democrats.
|
On April 25 2015 21:32 Wegandi wrote:As for Clinton(s), they/she have so many scandals and lack of ethics I can't believe how even 15% of the public can 'trust' her. For those who haven't been around since Whitewater...here's a good run-down. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/clinton-scandals-the-nineties-113905.html#.VTuI1e90y00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversyThey're nearly on par with being as bad as the Bush's (and we all know about their bankrolling of Hitler, right?). For me it's no surprise they/she are willing to throw away any semblance of ethics for a bit of $$$ and power even if that means handing over uranium to the same countries that are supposed 'enemies' or that we're 'sanctioning'. It's such a laughingstock that they continue to do the same damn stuff for 30 years and those who are ignorant of their history buy the idiocy that it was a simple 'mistake' or 'coincidence'. LMAO. They're so dirty they make Nixon look clean. The other part of this is that the most ethical politician of the past 100 years Ron Paul was so demonized and mocked and was 'quixotic', yet people are willing to give the Clintons and Bush's power? My god, my fellow Americans are beyond the pale.
Excellent, I wondered how long it'd take someone to bring up Whitewater!
Here's a better, sourced rundown that isn't a politico article.
+ Show Spoiler +The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with investigations into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s. A March 1992 New York Times article published during the U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons—then governor and first lady of Arkansas—had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, owned by McDougal. She looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but she continued to pursue it. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1994. David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that as governor of Arkansas, Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal.[3] Clinton supporters regarded Hale's allegations as questionable, as Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment for this in 1993 did Hale make allegations against the Clintons.[4] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation did result in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project, but the Clintons themselves were never prosecuted, as three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal.[5] Bill Clinton's successor as governor, Jim Guy Tucker, was also convicted and served time in prison for his role in the fraud. Susan McDougal later served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer any questions relating to Whitewater, and was granted a pardon by President Clinton just before he left office. Whitewater controversy
And in regards to everyone's favorite Randroid, given your inability to understand how folks might prefer Clinton over Paul, I think it's time to get your hands dirty.
+ Show Spoiler +
lol yeahhhh, he even mentions your favorite railroad baron, Mr. "The Government Won't Let Me Own a Common Carrier" himself, Lysander Spooner! Whoop whoop. How could anyone prefer those horrible Bush and Clinton folk to that?
|
Norway28739 Posts
Wegandi, I am seriously interested in your historical and empirical defense of the statement that the more Democratic a society is, the less safe liberty and freedom is. I am not disputing that it is possible to find some undemocratic societies that have highly valued certain freedoms and liberties (often in particular economic freedoms and liberties), and I'm not disputing that some democratic societies have put some restrictions on the same freedoms and liberties, but the notion that dictatorships have on average been less restrictive than democratic societies.. That statement blows my mind.
For one, you certainly don't seem to value freedom of speech and expression highly, values that are nearly universally championed by democratic states and nearly universally combated by dictatorships.
Frankly, I'm left with the impression that when you talk of freedom and liberty, you are solely talking about restrictions on economy, and then you confuse will with ability, and by noticing that more developed (coincides with more democratic) societies are more capable of enforcing economic regulations, you make the conclusion that more democracy equates to more regulation. And this is me trying to give you credit - the notion that non-economic freedoms and liberties are more protected in undemocratic than democratic societies is just factually wrong.
I mean, look at this map
+ Show Spoiler +
This is the 'democracy index'. Fully democratic nations are dark green, the less democratic the lighter green, the more authoritarian the darker red. You seriously want to claim that liberties and freedoms are less safe in the dark green than the dark red states?
|
"democratic" in public discourse and in the name of the republican party has little to do with something like Aristotle's definition of democracy. Comparison with Athens can be apt and interesting, but it has generally been renamed something like direct vs representative democracy. Thus I'm not sure wegandi's points really meant anything.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
"undemocratic societies that have highly valued certain freedoms and liberties"
this would be the libertarian gloss on the situation, but reality is that these societies simply enforce existing and highly oppressive distribution of property and economic power. of course, the poor landless farmers would be 'free' to exercise whatever liberties accorded to property to the same degree the owner of his farm gets, but it's very obvious to see that this is a pretty illberal situation.
|
On April 25 2015 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Wegandi, I am seriously interested in your historical and empirical defense of the statement that the more Democratic a society is, the less safe liberty and freedom is. I am not disputing that it is possible to find some undemocratic societies that have highly valued certain freedoms and liberties (often in particular economic freedoms and liberties), and I'm not disputing that some democratic societies have put some restrictions on the same freedoms and liberties, but the notion that dictatorships have on average been less restrictive than democratic societies.. That statement blows my mind. For one, you certainly don't seem to value freedom of speech and expression highly, values that are nearly universally championed by democratic states and nearly universally combated by dictatorships. Frankly, I'm left with the impression that when you talk of freedom and liberty, you are solely talking about restrictions on economy, and then you confuse will with ability, and by noticing that more developed (coincides with more democratic) societies are more capable of enforcing economic regulations, you make the conclusion that more democracy equates to more regulation. And this is me trying to give you credit - the notion that non-economic freedoms and liberties are more protected in undemocratic than democratic societies is just factually wrong. I mean, look at this map + Show Spoiler +This is the 'democracy index'. Fully democratic nations are dark green, the less democratic the lighter green, the more authoritarian the darker red. You seriously want to claim that liberties and freedoms are less safe in the dark green than the dark red states?
Before I being, I just want to say your post proves my prior post. The attributes you give Democracy are actually Republican principles, not Democratic. I'm much more inimical towards Democracy than Republicanism for instance. Things such as guaranteed recognition and obeyance of our natural rights are not Democratic ideals - in fact, they're pretty opposed. You can't vote away someone elses' right of self-defense, expression, etc. You're not defending democracy, you're defending republicanism. Similarly, when democracy is expanded and you're allowed to vote on a wider range of activities this tendency is to limit liberty and freedom. On a micro scale, entities like Homeowner's Associations which have a shit ton of democracy are atrocious at recognizing liberty. Scale this up to the nation-state and the trend becomes even worse.
Imagine giving the population to vote for economic and personal policy. It would make the USSR look tame in comparison. A microcosm are the state referendums that generally come up and mostly tend to reduce our liberties. Also, just so you're aware I don't separate economic and personal liberty - it is all one principle of self-ownership. Good luck legalizing prostitution, gambling, vices in general, etc. especially in our 'safety' paranoid society. A good view on this is also socialized healthcare actually. When this happens as it all ready is in Europe for instance (and you should be aware of this) is that personal choice tends to be at the whim of popular will - that's the exact opposite of freedom. You think you're going to have legalized heroine or cocaine or insert other 'dangerous' 'addictive' activity in that environment? No. Democracy is essentially the unlimited expansion of this intrusion by your neighbors. Being able to vote on anything and everything as plurality law is unbridled Democracy. In fact, it is so extreme and dangerous that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone defend it.
Now, I never said that our liberties are better protected in a 'dictatorship'. From a state perspective the best option is city-state republicanism and then 'enlightened' Monarchy is after that. The point was that liberal values aren't inherit part of Democracy. Now if you a modern day example take the Drug War. There were no drug wars going on in 18th Century monarchies for the most part. Similarly, early Rome the citizens had more overall liberty than say their Greek counterparts in Athens. Again, I'm talking in aggregate.
Anyways, you still haven't answered my first statement - that the more Democratic a society is, the less safe freedom and liberty is. You're under the false assumption that there exists only Democracy and or Dictatorship. It's a false dichotomy.
|
On April 25 2015 22:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
"democratic" in public discourse and in the name of the republican party has little to do with something like Aristotle's definition of democracy. Comparison with Athens can be apt and interesting, but it has generally been renamed something like direct vs representative democracy. Thus I'm not sure wegandi's points really meant anything.
Because modern Democracy is not Democracy at all, but mostly REPUBLICANISM. It's the difference between Rome and Athens and that is a huge difference.
|
On April 25 2015 22:46 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 22:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
"democratic" in public discourse and in the name of the republican party has little to do with something like Aristotle's definition of democracy. Comparison with Athens can be apt and interesting, but it has generally been renamed something like direct vs representative democracy. Thus I'm not sure wegandi's points really meant anything. Because modern Democracy is not Democracy at all, but mostly REPUBLICANISM. It's the difference between Rome and Athens and that is a huge difference.
You don't (and neither do I because I'd love to make that sort of points) own the meaning of the word democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png/1280px-EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png)
