Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 105

Thread: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

  1. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I WUB PUGS View Post
    I didn't back off at all. You're feigning ignorance to support your strawman.

    I'm sure you know the difference between capability and ease. They're two completely different and unrelated things.

    You're only counter to my "7 words" was:

    Which is your way of saying that if the tyranny already exists then its the easiest path! TA DA! Which, I just don't even. That doesn't deserve much more than a "duh, thanks for saying a tyrant is a tyrant". Although it isn't hard to look around and find a non-democracy that isn't a tyranny. Take your pick of monarchies and even dictatorships and they have their ups and downs just like a democracy, whether its Iraq or Thailand or the US or Germany or France. Ups and downs for any type of government that has ever ruled those countries. Sometimes a tyrant is in charge, sometimes not. So even your "counterpoint" is weak.
    It helps to read a post you're responding to.

    Quote Originally Posted by see above
    -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

    All autocracies (i.e. everything that isn't a democracy) have rulers of sorts (even if its a ruling class, see oligarchy) not bound by the law and thus ruling arbitrarily and without restraint.

    Not to mention that if you had read the OP, you would know that the whole point of democracy is the combination of 1) preventing tyranny and 2) upholding the rule of law (substantive). Since you seem capable of using an online-dictionary, look up the meaning of the word "and" if you need to. And (no pun intended) then I wish you good luck at proving that non-democratic systems are better at upholding the rule of law in combination with preventing tyranny.


    One can argue that an autocrat is perhaps even more at the whims of the people if he imposes tyranny than an elected official is. The elected official has the legitimacy of the people (as Jom pointed out) whereas an autocrat does not necessarily. An autocrat needs to keep his cronies, his army, his people all semi-pacified and if he becomes a tyrant then he runs the very high risk of being killed by his cronies, the army or the people.
    Ehhh except for the fact that in order to stay in power in a democracy you need to 1) follow the law (otherwise there's no substantive rule of law upheld in the first place, see OP), which severely limits your powers compared to an autocrat. Much easier to keep everyone happy if you have access to illegal funding and other illegal means. 2) by definition, it's harder to keep 51% of the population happy (while upholding the rule of law) than to keep the army+your cronies+only a basic level of "neutrality" from the people.

    This is basic stuff, just look at every (real, liberal, representative) democracy and at every dictatorship in recent times and compare how long the rulers were in power for. NK, Russia, Libya, Egypt...

    Hitler held legitimacy until the end.
    How? There were no (legitimate) elections. Prove it. And no, not rising up against a system of the Gestapo and SS is NOT proof of support/legitimacy.

    The people that voted for you tend to maintain ties and identify with their choice. They internalize this relationship and support to the end.
    Not true at all. How else do you explain that in most democracies, most rulers tend to get kicked out after 1-2 terms (exception: US due to the presidential term limit)?

    How quickly did Morsi rise via democracy and how quickly did he begin imposing his form of tyranny? He had to be overthrown via a coup. There was blood, there was upheaval, there was international outcry. Egypt is basically back where it was under Morsi just from the opposite POV. Still a tyranny no? Just that it took a coup which was clearly harder to do and drew more ire than Morsi winning an election. What about Al-Maliki? Same thing. Only a revolution in the Sunni parts of the country got him removed but the whole time he was an autocratic tyrant who had the legitimacy of the masses (voters) backing him. A lot easier than what ISIS is trying to pull.
    Err I'm talking about a democracy that upholds the (substantive) rule of law. Read the OP for once!

    Using failed states that don't follow the rule of law in the first place proves nothing. Democracy serves to *uphold* the rule of law but it cannot create something from nothing.


    I cited Cromwell, Napoleon III, Mussolini and Hitler earlier. You ignored those examples. All 4 of those men used democracy to generate their power and grant them legitimacy. Very easy for them to take power and they usually held it for much longer. The Western Hemisphere is littered with strongmen who grabbed power through force only to survive a short while.
    Once again, you are stating that democracies *can* fail. Great, nobody has ever disagreed with that. Now prove that democracies are the "easiest" road to tyranny.

    Really I'm just parroting Jom now.
    Not really. Latching onto someone else's posts does not give your own views more credibility.

    Democracy gives legitimacy.
    As long as there *is* democracy.

    Even if they're supporting a tyrant, it still looks legitimate which makes it easier not only to get power but to maintain it.
    Tyrant and legitimacy are mutually exclusive. Even if a tyrant appears to have public support (see Putin's autocracy) it means little due to the lack of any independent means of information etc. It's like saying that a child who was brought up into the Catholic faith and never learned about anything else and then turns out to be a devout Christian is proof of the validity of Christianity.

    You understand this. You understand Hitler's rise. You shrug this off by stating that those people were "stupid". How deep.
    Read the thread. Weimar as a system lacked proper legal safeguards, s above.

    Still you wish to maintain that everything that isn't a democracy is a tyranny and therefore is already the easiest path to tyranny. So the path is a path. Just wow. I'm not even trying to get that deep here, but if this is your maximum depth then....... jeez.
    Strawman. Noise.

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    I wouldn't say the main goal of democracy is to prevent tyranny i think that confuses some things.

    We do know certainly that representative democracy is most definitely not a sufficient condition for preventing tyranny.

    What history shows is that you need several other things in place (such as functional judicial system with power, economy over the key boundary point, etc) before a representative democracy can work.

    This book by Fareed Zakaria provides far more details and evidence for my above point than I could here

    Zakaria's main thesis is that an illiberal representative democracy is not really a good thing. The goal shouldn't just be democracy but liberal democracy.
    Hence "substantive rule of law", which includes everything that you stated here.

    I think part of the problem here is simply that I'm using terminology which apparently isn't that commonly known.

    To summarise it very briefly, the substantive rule of law basically includes the sum of all individual human rights, "judicial rights" (fair trial and so on.) etc. in addition to a formally functioning (court et al) system.
    Last edited by Aikanár; September 19, 2014 at 04:26 AM. Reason: consecutive postings
    Curious Curialist curing the Curia of all things Curial.

  2. #82
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,360

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    I think part of the problem here is simply that I'm using terminology which apparently isn't that commonly known.

    To summarise it very briefly, the substantive rule of law basically includes the sum of all individual human rights, "judicial rights" (fair trial and so on.) etc. in addition to a formally functioning (court et al) system.
    That's it.

    Further on, imo. it is merely impossible to discuss the whole item of the said kind of democracy along the OP properly, including "democracies" in non-western/middle-european (and as for me, plus north-american, while the US democracy is a bit problematic in this relation) states from on post WWII, nor including "democracies" in western/middle-european pre WWII.

    Why this? The fairly working establishment of the human rights in modern democracies is the requirement of the statement in the OP. Here the point could end.

    But here the trial to make it clearer:

    What our old generations (not to speak of pre-19th/20th c. times) called democracy (incl. perhaps a so-called rule of law) is nowadays not anymore a democracy which we would or could call based on rule of law et al.
    Ie. democracy lives also from the mentality of the people according to the time and region etc.. Mentality forms structures, forms laws, forms the executive. Mentality changes throughout history (different per region) - to point on something as example, Germany took a big lesson due to the Weimar times and then esp. 3rd Reich and WWII, other countries did as well, some other did not so much.

    Further point of related examples: Rights of women, rights of diverse minorities, in the whole equality in front of the law, plus overall the voting rights. Look up older so-called democracies in comparison to modern democracies.
    Or even look at the US's public life, here esp. ie. into the sixties, civil rights (racism, little example: seats in busses divided in seats for black and white people).

    Every democracy step (or non-democracy) has to be seen (analysed) by the according time and region, incl. culture and traditions and its history.

    Again, there is for example Germany, which took a brief lesson from history (i pointed to it already ealier in this whole thread), and thus it developed a repr democracy with a constitution and structures, which (by normal circumstances) prevents autocracy and the possibility of tyranny. This is pretty easy to understand for (most) germans (a debate about that is merely superfluous), probably not so much by non-germans (no wonder, because do they know the german history post WWII, do they know its constitution from 1949, do they know all its structures, and the ongoing change of mentality etc.? No. Was the real lived democracy in Germany actually satisfying, so to speak, from on 1949? No, absolutely not. It needed a lot of decades to become a proper working democracy. Are democracy-flaws in majority worked-out today, no, but a lot has been achieved since 1949, and imo. very important were the end sixties (not only for Germany - mental changes aka cultural changes). Was the creation of the german constitution (merely calls 'Grundgesetz', baselaw) one of the very requirements of the democratic developments and the overall rule of law? Yes, no doubt.

    It would need though a bigger effort to filter for example all western/middle european democracies, its structures, its constitutions, etc. along the functionality of the the so-called rule of law, plus the change(s) of the mentality.
    But the general assumption is, so far, that these modern (repr) democracies prevent tyranny, and uphold the so-called rule of law, at least that is our general valid expectation from those governments, example: Becoming member of the EU requires exactly this, laws which consider the rule of law et al. So, that's at least europe, part of it.

    Further on, there is the UN, which is founded by basic rights, which? Human Rights (look it up).
    We all know, that many countries are members of the UN (worldwide, also even non-democracies), and that many of these countries (incl. the said modern democracies) hurt human rights (along Amnesty International investigations/reports). Means, that in general a democratic country tries to uphold the rule of law is not even to exercising properly the human rights (along UN Human Rights charter or ie. the understanding of Amnesty International).

    Nonetheless, i think democrats see the sense in 'the main goal (along certain constitutions can also be understood as 'purpose') of modern democracies is the rule of law' along OP.
    Even if these goals can fail, and Astaroth, as far as i have read, didn't say, such a democracy cannot fail in this goal (or purpose).

    Also, as it is already stated, the only statesform-counterpart to democracy is autocracy, thus if a democracy fails, it becomes an autocracy; there is no other '...cracy' choice.
    Imo. there is not much other thing to debate about it, as perhaps to discuss, which circumstances, properties and which flawed structures within a democracy would/could lead to an autocracy, but that wasn't really part of the OP. Statements like "repr democracy is the easiest road to autocracy" make less if not any sense, when somebody has understood, that the only other option to democracy is autocracy. Ie. "direct democracy (compared to indirect/repr democracy) is less fragile in becoming an autocracy" would be a valid statement, even if very general phrased, and if much worth to debate, it is a valid statement (but imo. less worth, it's just a claim, because it lacks any reasoning and plausability, other than that, that a direct democracy implicates perhaps! a higher participation of democratic rights thus higher acceptance and satisfaction - in reality, imo. this assumption is flawed a lot, especially when we go back to the very point 'prevent tyranny' aka hold up 'rule of law').

    I'm personally not quite sure why this is so hard to understand, but i guess (rather i know), it's due to the international membership of the TWC'ers, which have all different insights, or let's say, understanding of certain items, especially for its descriptions - in effect, proper debating is just dependent on the understanding from which perspective an OP comes. I just don't wonder why i have that OP-understanding (i was one of the very few, who agreed in principle with the OP), very probably it's the perspective, i'm german, Astaroth is german (i assume, not sure, or he lives/lived in Germany or studied its states law/government structures whatsoever), we are democrats or just say we have probably a similar understanding of democracy.

    Astaroth, as you can see, it is somehow "dangerous" to discuss certain, especially political, items in the DD of TWC. The perspective (and language) is different, a lot, thus is the understanding of posts (with perhaps complex content).
    Last edited by DaVinci; September 19, 2014 at 01:04 PM.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  3. #83

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Astaroth View Post
    Hence "substantive rule of law", which includes everything that you stated here.

    I think part of the problem here is simply that I'm using terminology which apparently isn't that commonly known.

    To summarise it very briefly, the substantive rule of law basically includes the sum of all individual human rights, "judicial rights" (fair trial and so on.) etc. in addition to a formally functioning (court et al) system.
    I don't think your term covers everything as mentioned as you didn't mention the economy and that is another integral part of Zakaria's thesis that is demonstrated with numerous examples. Essentially if the per captia income is below a certain threshold then the democracy will most likely turn into a dictatorship. Per capita income has to be over the threshold for a representative democracy to work and not fall into tyranny.

    Thats why Zakaria uses the term liberal democracy as opposed to just representative democracy and thats the distinction I am making that your OP does not seem to make.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  4. #84
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by DaVinci View Post
    Astaroth, as you can see, it is somehow "dangerous" to discuss certain, especially political, items in the DD of TWC. The perspective (and language) is different, a lot, thus is the understanding of posts (with perhaps complex content).
    Entirely possible that language is playing a role, more likely the definition of democracy commonly accepted in Germany.

    What is absolutely true though is that Astaroth has changed the title of his OP to suit his "new argument" AKA a strawman, but we've now progressed 5 pages and its the defacto OP by now. He originally said "democracy", not representative or liberal or any other sort of democracy, just democracy. He did however mention the illegitimacy (in his opinion) of direct democracy so at least he partially recognizes the need for several definitions.

    Talking about the "rule of law" in conjunction with "democracy" doesn't necessarily guarantee what he's positing. The Nazis changed the law, the Nazis were by far the most popular party in pre-war Germany. So they had jack booted thugs and the police and army and all that. Didn't really matter when they had the hearts and minds of the people and the representatives of the people and the courts and the lawyers and all. No, Chilon/Zakaria's position is clearer and more in line with what Astaroth is trying to position himself in. Representation doesn't guarantee the rule of law by any means. The people may not be at all involved in governance and they may be ruled by kleptocrats.... elected kleptocrats. But that's why the position needs to be more than just "Representative Democracy" which I will reiterate is a change to the title of this thread that didn't exist until Astaroth faced several posters challenging him. The position should be all encompassing which is what Chilon is talking about and why some posters like Denny can't be arsed with this thread since its so poorly handled. To talk about democracy we need to talk about all the parts the guarantee its success.

    Merely having democracy doesn't guarantee anything positive. Which is why I posted my original 7 words that for some reason Astaroth can't grasp. It is easier to win an election and work your way up the rungs of power and gain the favor of the different mechanisms that support power than it is to try and seize it all at once. This isn't even exclusive to democracy or tyrants. There have always been far more failed revolutions than successful ones. Working within the system is naturally easier than trying to take it down from the outside.

    That is what my 7 words mean. It is simply the easiest route for a potential tyrant to take. This was of course my response to Astaroth's very plain an extremely broad term "democracy".

    @Astaroth
    It helps to read a post you're responding to.
    I did. And in my comment about how your OP didn't clearly join the "rule of law" to "the prevention of tyranny" I made my position clear.

    This is basic stuff, just look at every (real, liberal, representative) democracy and at every dictatorship in recent times and compare how long the rulers were in power for. NK, Russia, Libya, Egypt...
    If this is your position then you should have said "liberal representative democracy". You didn't. Now you understand the value of accuracy.

    How? There were no (legitimate) elections. Prove it. And no, not rising up against a system of the Gestapo and SS is NOT proof of support/legitimacy.
    There's that term "legitimate" again, as if you're the judge of it. As if you actually defined legitimacy in your OP. You merely said "democracy" and sort of laughed off the pitfalls of representation and daily governance with comments like "booooooooring" and "these people are stupid". I fail to see how Hitler wasn't legitimate. He had the hearts and minds and votes of the people, the laws supported him and then the laws were legally changed to support him even more. Just because he ended up a tyrant doesn't refute the fact that he was freely elected. Which is precisely my point. You failed to provide a better definition of democracy. But other posters have covered for you.
    Once again, you could just change your OP to something less ridiculous by getting rid of all the "boooooring" and "stupid people" comments and actually defining what form of democracy you are pushing.

    Not true at all. How else do you explain that in most democracies, most rulers tend to get kicked out after 1-2 terms (exception: US due to the presidential term limit)?
    Interesting. In the US we have term limits. That doesn't prevent people from voting for the same platform every single election. New face. Same platform. Then if you look at offices that do not have term limits.................yeah.............plenty of Senators and Congressmen/women have been in office for decades and wield massive amounts of power in their parties (to include influencing the Executive). This notion that Western Liberal Democracy has rapid turnover in leadership is absurd. At least not in the US and we're the largest of the Liberal Democracies. Merkel seems like she's been there forever and in the UK the same old crap with Tony and Gordon went on for what also seemed like forever. Turnover. Pfft.

    Err I'm talking about a democracy that upholds the (substantive) rule of law. Read the OP for once!

    Using failed states that don't follow the rule of law in the first place proves nothing. Democracy serves to *uphold* the rule of law but it cannot create something from nothing.
    You're just moving the goalposts since your OP wasn't detailed and instead focused on making fun of voters and daily governance. Once again, I invite you to thoroughly revise your OP and I'll disappear. "Failed states that don't follow the rule of law". This is the problem, you only view your "legitimate" laws as the only possible legitimate laws, except we know that laws are often changed legally by ruling powers to suit their aims. This is true even in Liberal Democracies. For example the ACA (Obamacare) is a law that changes the laws that govern healthcare in this country. It is actually a Conservative law that is being pushed by our shill President and pseudo-leftists. It is a law that is pushing from idealism. The Right in this country doesn't view it as legitimate, but the Left does. Determining "legitimacy" is impossible when the law is created within the framework of the overarching laws of the land which the ACA is. "Legitimacy" is now in effect a matter of opinion since the law is in fact legal.... as ruled by the highest court in the land. Just like how some tin pot dictator changes the election laws in his country...... legally. You may not view them as "legitimate" but from a legal standpoint they absolutely are legitimate legal changes and the party is certainly well within the law..............thus democracy upholding the law isn't at all a guarantee against tyranny since the law is a living breathing thing that must always be in a state of progress/change. What you claim as "legitimate" is purely subjective and I would think someone with a law background would understand that the law is the law and there is only so much interpretation that can had and once a law has actually been deemed legal, well, there isn't much to discuss concerning its "legitimacy". Hence seizing the assets of Jews in Germany was absolutely legal. Maybe not "legitimate" in your eyes, but absolutely legal. That's one of the greatest quirks about the Nazis. They actually sought to look legitimate and legal at every possible turn. That's why they took so much care to hide the death camps.... the one thing they knew they could never get any true legitimate legal support for.

    Once again, you are stating that democracies *can* fail. Great, nobody has ever disagreed with that. Now prove that democracies are the "easiest" road to tyranny.
    I've already told you about half a dozen times how democracy is the "easiest" road to tyranny. Once again, in short: it is far easier to work your way into a position of power and potential consolidation of power into a tyranny than it is to gain that same level of power in any other way. Someone can even become a legal Tyrant with the full legitimacy of the laws of the land. But I understand that you have a subjective definition of legitimate and legal. This doesn't matter. Example: Putin is a defacto Czar of Russia, and he is so legally and therefor legitimately. Any disputing this is just subjective puff that seeks to define legitimacy in terms that don't matter in any real sense.

    Not really. Latching onto someone else's posts does not give your own views more credibility.
    LOL. I wasn't searching for credit from you. I know I'll never have it since well, you're... you. I was indeed parroting Jom so I thought I would GIVE HIM credit for it in case a lurker cared to know who originally posted the notion that the people provide the only legitimacy in any political system.

    As long as there *is* democracy.
    Democracy isn't confined to "Astaroth's BS definition". Your OP didn't even clearly state what sort of democracy, just that Representative Democracy was "good enough" and that "lol stupid voters are stupid and should just trust their better/smarter Representatives". Again, giving credit to Chilon for bringing in Zakaria's "Liberal Democracy" position. The thread is the better for it.

    Tyrant and legitimacy are mutually exclusive. Even if a tyrant appears to have public support (see Putin's autocracy) it means little due to the lack of any independent means of information etc. It's like saying that a child who was brought up into the Catholic faith and never learned about anything else and then turns out to be a devout Christian is proof of the validity of Christianity.
    LOL. I can tell you don't do a lot of problem solving that has an impact on anything meaningful. Your notions are straight out of academia. Once again I'll point to Jom's position that Putin is indeed legitimate. And the Russians have full access to the same information you and I have, or at least enough to give them ample counterweights to the BS found on RT. They still love them some Putin.

    Read the thread. Weimar as a system lacked proper legal safeguards, s above.
    No. Hitler won legally and was then lauded as he took complete power after Hindenburg died. Having the people hold an additional vote on August 12, 1934 would have been a pointless exercise. The popularity of the Nazis was already supreme by this point. It would be like asking the US to hold a vote for Ford if Ford had like 80% of the voters in his pocket. Moreover as I've pointed out, laws can be changed, easily, especially when you have such vast amounts of political power. When Hitler took the Presidency and declared himself Furher he had put down the SA and the Conservatives and gained the backing of the Army. Combine that with his voting block and any discussion of "legal safeguards" is pretty much moot. Oh what if the Republic had had a law in place that prevented Hitler from declaring himself Fuhrer? Oh he's just gonna be the President with all this power? What would have prevented him from declaring himself supreme ruler for all time? This one law? CHANGE IT like so many laws are changed to suit the political aims of the ruling party. Oh yeah, but that wouldn't be "legitimate" to you. Again........ I'll parrot Jom, the people provide any and all legitimacy.................but you also view the voters/people as "stupid".

    Strawman. Noise.
    No, that was my attempt to summarize your position that all non-democracies are already tyrannical and that somehow debunks my position that "democracy is the easiest path to tyranny" since a tyranny is already a tyranny it must be the easiest path. Do I really need to quote you?

    Again, thank you to Denny, Jom and Chilon for bringing some better definition into this thread. You can still revise your OP to get rid of all the pointless smugness and actually provide a detailed definition of the system of democracy you are trying push over the last 4 pages.

    I don't see how I need to keep defining what my original statement meant. "Easiest" as in "path of least resistance". Everyone else in here understands what I'm saying.
    Last edited by I WUB PUGS; September 19, 2014 at 02:47 PM.

  5. #85

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by I WUB PUGS View Post
    Entirely possible that language is playing a role, more likely the definition of democracy commonly accepted in Germany.

    What is absolutely true though is that Astaroth has changed the title of his OP to suit his "new argument" AKA a strawman, but we've now progressed 5 pages and its the defacto OP by now. He originally said "democracy", not representative or liberal or any other sort of democracy, just democracy. He did however mention the illegitimacy (in his opinion) of direct democracy so at least he partially recognizes the need for several definitions.

    Talking about the "rule of law" in conjunction with "democracy" doesn't necessarily guarantee what he's positing. The Nazis changed the law,
    the Nazis were by far the most popular party in pre-war Germany. So they had jack booted thugs and the police and army and all that. Didn't really matter when they had the hearts and minds of the people and the representatives of the people and the courts and the lawyers and all. No, Chilon/Zakaria's position is clearer and more in line with what Astaroth is trying to position himself in. Representation doesn't guarantee the rule of law by any means. The people may not be at all involved in governance and they may be ruled by kleptocrats.... elected kleptocrats. But that's why the position needs to be more than just "Representative Democracy" which I will reiterate is a change to the title of this thread that didn't exist until Astaroth faced several posters challenging him. The position should be all encompassing which is what Chilon is talking about and why some posters like Denny can't be arsed with this thread since its so poorly handled. To talk about democracy we need to talk about all the parts the guarantee its success.

    Merely having democracy doesn't guarantee anything positive. Which is why I posted my original 7 words that for some reason Astaroth can't grasp. It is easier to win an election and work your way up the rungs of power and gain the favor of the different mechanisms that support power than it is to try and seize it all at once. This isn't even exclusive to democracy or tyrants. There have always been far more failed revolutions than successful ones. Working within the system is naturally easier than trying to take it down from the outside.

    That is what my 7 words mean. It is simply the easiest route for a potential tyrant to take. This was of course my response to Astaroth's very plain an extremely broad term "democracy".
    This long part exemplifies the complete inability displayed in your post to understand even basic legal concepts. The whole point of having a "substantive" (read the OP for once) rule of law is that it is MORE than just a formal legal system a la the Nazi one.

    @Astaroth

    I did. And in my comment about how your OP didn't clearly join the "rule of law" to "the prevention of tyranny" I made my position clear.
    Look up the word "and".

    If this is your position then you should have said "liberal representative democracy". You didn't. Now you understand the value of accuracy.
    "Substantive" rule of law. Look it up. Here: Chapter 6, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Bradley/Ewing. It's a UK book, not German.

    I fail to see how Hitler wasn't legitimate.
    Without democracy, no legitimacy. Without freedom of thought/speech/press/information, no democracy. If the Gestapo and SS are running around (at first: SA), everyone who disagrees is detained/tortured/executed, and everyone is brainwashed by state propaganda, then there is no way whatsoever to express a different opinion, let alone to oppose the ruling party. Without a way to speak up and oppose the status quo, "support" for the ruling power is meaningless and contains zero legitimacy.

    Did some or even many people support Hitler? Sure. Do lots of people in NK support the Kim dynasty? Of course. Does that give them legitimacy? No. Support that stems solely from brainwashing, oppression and a lack of alternatives gives no legitimacy at all.

    He had the hearts and minds and votes of the people, the laws supported him and then the laws were legally changed to support him even more.

    Just because he ended up a tyrant doesn't refute the fact that he was freely elected.
    I don't want to make this thread about Hitler's rise to power, but how "freely" he really was elected is up for some debate. Sure, he did have a lot of public support, but it was nowhere even close to 50% in 1933 (Hitler came to power via a coalition with the conservatives) and his rise was supported by his SA thugs terrorising his political opponenets, the govt at the time being powerless or unwilling to stop that.

    Aside from that, it has little relevance to the thread. Yes, democracies can fail, particularly when their system is designed as poorly as Weimar was, in combination with harsh economic times and the stupidity of the people (i.e. the desire to go for any "option" to get out of the economic woes rather than to simply accept things as they are, disregarding the consequences). But that doesn't prove your original point. Easiest. Prove it, you have yet to do so.



    Once again, you could just change your OP to something less ridiculous by getting rid of all the "boooooring" and "stupid people" comments and actually defining what form of democracy you are pushing.
    What's boring is the spam of noise and ad hominems. Now you are actually (somewhat) trying to make a point, so I'll return the favour. And no, I won't change my OP to placate you, lol. Don't think too highly of yourself.


    Interesting. In the US we have term limits. That doesn't prevent people from voting for the same platform every single election.

    New face. Same platform.
    That's a libertarian perspective. Unfortunately for you, most other people disagree. Fact is, even in the US, the #1 office changes between the two main parties quite often, which makes it very hard for any one group to permanently and directly seize power. Ofc there will always be special interest groups in the background, but that applies to every system of govt (hello Putin's bff oligarch club) and is for another thread to discuss.

    Then if you look at offices that do not have term limits.................yeah.............plenty of Senators and Congressmen/women have been in office for decades and wield massive amounts of power in their parties (to include influencing the Executive).
    Yes, but they do not hold the highest office and are not the "face" of govt policies. The ones who have the most responsibility and hold the most power (ie the govt) are replaced quite often, even if there are no term limits.

    Not to mention the gerrymandering problems in the US in particular.

    This notion that Western Liberal Democracy has rapid turnover in leadership is absurd.
    It's true.

    UK:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

    14 PMs since WW2, that's approx one for four years, despite the fact that the average term lasts FIVE years and that there are no term limits.

    Germany:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ors_of_Germany

    9 chancellors since 1949 (founding of FRG), i.e. about 1 for 7 years, despite the fact that 2 terms take 8 years, i.e. the average chancellor doesn't even reach a full 2 terms, which is less than most US presidents. The statistic is also skewed by Kohl who had 4 terms only because he was chancellor during the reunification of Germany and highly profited from that.

    At least not in the US and we're the largest of the Liberal Democracies. Merkel seems like she's been there forever and in the UK the same old crap with Tony and Gordon went on for what also seemed like forever. Turnover. Pfft.
    Again, libertarian POV "left, right, they're both the same". But fact is, both the individual leaders and the parties in power change all the time. Merkel is only in her third term (just started), Brown only had 1 term.

    You're just moving the goalposts since your OP wasn't detailed and instead focused on making fun of voters and daily governance. Once again, I invite you to thoroughly revise your OP and I'll disappear. "Failed states that don't follow the rule of law". This is the problem, you only view your "legitimate" laws as the only possible legitimate laws, except we know that laws are often changed legally by ruling powers to suit their aims.
    "Substantive" rule of law. Individual human rights. UN. Declaration of human rights. Constitution. Grundgesetz.

    Just some suggestions for you to do some research of your own. Google is a nice start.

    This is true even in Liberal Democracies. For example the ACA (Obamacare) is a law that changes the laws that govern healthcare in this country. It is actually a Conservative law that is being pushed by our shill President and pseudo-leftists. It is a law that is pushing from idealism. The Right in this country doesn't view it as legitimate, but the Left does. Determining "legitimacy" is impossible when the law is created within the framework of the overarching laws of the land which the ACA is. "Legitimacy" is now in effect a matter of opinion since the law is in fact legal.... as ruled by the highest court in the land. Just like how some tin pot dictator changes the election laws in his country...... legally.
    What are you talking about? A law is legitimate when it follows the Constitution. ACA does, as ruled by the SC. Whether you subjectively don't like it is entirely irrelevant.

    The other way to get rid of a law in a system governed by the rule of law is to repeal it, i.e. the people have to vote in different guys to repeal it. Hasn't happened yet, won't happen in the future, either, I'd say. If it does happen, bye bye ACA.

    The only other way the law would be illegitimate despite following the Constitution (letter of the law) and despite having the support of the people (indirectly via the representatives; it doesn't matter what opinion polls say) is if it is in violation of the *substantive* (look it up) rule of law. When would that be the case? If it seriously trampled individual freedoms+rights, if it violated basic human rights, tampered with the foundations of the judicial system (e.g. abolished the right to a fair trial etc.) and so on. Is that the case? Hardly. It's not a matter of whether you personally "like" the law.

    You may not view them as "legitimate" but from a legal standpoint they absolutely are legitimate legal changes and the party is certainly well within the law..............thus democracy upholding the law isn't at all a guarantee against tyranny since the law is a living breathing thing that must always be in a state of progress/change. What you claim as "legitimate" is purely subjective and I would think someone with a law background would understand that the law is the law and there is only so much interpretation that can had and once a law has actually been deemed legal, well, there isn't much to discuss concerning its "legitimacy".

    Hence seizing the assets of Jews in Germany was absolutely legal. Maybe not "legitimate" in your eyes, but absolutely legal.
    No, you are absolutely and entirely wrong. See Oppenheimer v Cattermole (1976) for a UK case: a Nazi "law" was held not to be law at all.

    For a German example, check out the Mauerschützenprozesse (cases against Eastern German soldiers who shot people who tried to flee to Western Germany and claimed that "what was rightful/legal back then cannot be wrong/illegal today" -- held that what the soldiers did was in fact illegal, despite the Eastern German national laws).

    That's one of the greatest quirks about the Nazis. They actually sought to look legitimate and legal at every possible turn. That's why they took so much care to hide the death camps.... the one thing they knew they could never get any true legitimate legal support for.
    And this my friend is why there is a "substantive", rather than a "formal" rule of law. Not to mention the UN Decl. of HR etc. etc. Basic human rights law, basic Public Law. I'll refer you to the book by Ewing and Bradley (s. above).


    I've already told you about half a dozen times how democracy is the "easiest" road to tyranny. Once again, in short: it is far easier to work your way into a position of power and potential consolidation of power into a tyranny than it is to gain that same level of power in any other way. Someone can even become a legal Tyrant with the full legitimacy of the laws of the land. But I understand that you have a subjective definition of legitimate and legal. This doesn't matter.
    "Work your way into a position of power" -- in which system is it harder to do that than in a democracy? Perhaps it is harder to become an autocrat in a country in which someone else is already an autocrat, lol. Sure.

    Example: Putin is a defacto Czar of Russia, and he is so legally and therefor legitimately.
    No. Is the Kim dynasty legitimate because nobody speaks up against them? Sure, Putin is no Kim, but he has no democratic legitimacy, either, even if he does have some support in the public.

    Any disputing this is just subjective puff that seeks to define legitimacy in terms that don't matter in any real sense.
    Errr no. See above.


    LOL. I wasn't searching for credit from you. I know I'll never have it since well, you're... you. I was indeed parroting Jom so I thought I would GIVE HIM credit for it in case a lurker cared to know who originally posted the notion that the people provide the only legitimacy in any political system.


    Democracy isn't confined to "Astaroth's BS definition". Your OP didn't even clearly state what sort of democracy, just that Representative Democracy was "good enough" and that "lol stupid voters are stupid and should just trust their better/smarter Representatives". Again, giving credit to Chilon for bringing in Zakaria's "Liberal Democracy" position. The thread is the better for it.
    Nice contradiction.

    LOL. I can tell you don't do a lot of problem solving that has an impact on anything meaningful. Your notions are straight out of academia. Once again I'll point to Jom's position that Putin is indeed legitimate.
    Ad hominem. Lame.

    And the Russians have full access to the same information you and I have, or at least enough to give them ample counterweights to the BS found on RT. They still love them some Putin.
    ...No. This is like saying the NK regime is legitimate because you can inform yourself online. No democracy and thus no legitimacy without real freedom of press/thought/speech/assembly etc.


    No. Hitler won legally
    Terrorising people and bullying+attacking the opposition with SA thugs isn't exactly legal. Wasn't back then, either.

    and was then lauded as he took complete power after Hindenburg died.
    Lauded? By whom? In any case, the Ermächtigungsgesetz was illegal and unconstitutional by any means.

    The popularity of the Nazis was already supreme by this point.
    Not really, see above.

    It would be like asking the US to hold a vote for Ford if Ford had like 80% of the voters in his pocket.
    So if someone gets a 50+% majority once (more than Hitler btw), voting and polls and elections can be abolished afterwards. Right.

    Moreover as I've pointed out, laws can be changed, easily, especially when you have such vast amounts of political power.
    Possible only in a system such as Weimar.

    When Hitler took the Presidency and declared himself Furher he had put down the SA and the Conservatives and gained the backing of the Army. Combine that with his voting block and any discussion of "legal safeguards" is pretty much moot. Oh what if the Republic had had a law in place that prevented Hitler from declaring himself Fuhrer? Oh he's just gonna be the President with all this power? What would have prevented him from declaring himself supreme ruler for all time? This one law? CHANGE IT like so many laws are changed to suit the political aims of the ruling party. Oh yeah, but that wouldn't be "legitimate" to you. Again........
    The point isn't to have laws in place that stop an autocrat once he IS in power, the point is to have a constitutional system that prevents anyone that crazy from ever getting to the point of having any comparable power: strong federal system to prevent accumulation of power (unlike Weimar); weaker president (unlike Weimar); stronger Constitutional court (unlike Weimar); stopping <5% parties from entering parliament to prevent countless small parties making democratic majorities impossible; prohibiting anti-democratic parties (such as the NSDAP) etc.


    I'll parrot Jom, the people provide any and all legitimacy.................but you also view the voters/people as "stupid".
    Legitimacy within the legal/constitutional framework. If they elect someone aiming to abolish that system, then yes, they are stupid.


    Again, thank you to Denny, Jom and Chilon for bringing some better definition into this thread. You can still revise your OP to get rid of all the pointless smugness and actually provide a detailed definition of the system of democracy you are trying push over the last 4 pages.
    Sorry your highness, your "arguments" have failed to convince me.
    Curious Curialist curing the Curia of all things Curial.

  6. #86
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    So if someone gets a 50+% majority once (more than Hitler btw), voting and polls and elections can be abolished afterwards. Right.
    Hitler's legitimacy: the Enabling Act of 1933, passed by both the Reichstag and the Reichsrat, renewed twice. If they have a mandate to do it and the assent of both the legislature and the executive (which Hitler did - Hindenburg also signed it) and the act doesn't violate the constitution, then voting, polls and elections can be abolished. Obviously the Enabling Act was passed under significant duress, but it has been suggested that it would have been passed anyway, had opposition deputies not been arrested.

    The point isn't to have laws in place that stop an autocrat once he IS in power, the point is to have a constitutional system that prevents anyone that crazy from ever getting to the point of having any comparable power: strong federal system to prevent accumulation of power (unlike Weimar); weaker president (unlike Weimar); stronger Constitutional court (unlike Weimar); stopping <5% parties from entering parliament to prevent countless small parties making democratic majorities impossible; prohibiting anti-democratic parties (such as the NSDAP) etc.
    You're moving the goalposts here. You're essentially talking about the advantage of post-1945 representative democracies. Weimar was a democracy, just not one that was right for its time. Weimar would work perfectly well today, I would imagine, as the post-depression climate in Germany isn't likely to be reproduced.
    Last edited by Jom; September 19, 2014 at 03:55 PM.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  7. #87
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,360

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    (Originally posted right after IWP's post)
    Ignoring my thoughts written above ... or read them again, because they imo. also give some answers to some of IWP's points above, also imo. to the following item.

    Again only the item, as extract from IWP's comments ... because it seems to be a central question about "democracy" (and read it all in context, not cheap quoting or taking certain sentences alone, because it belongs together, my post here interpretes the commenting style in diverse posts, not the latter alone).

    "democracy is the easiest path to tyranny"
    you, IWP, used mainly, as far as i understood, the example 'Hitler's rise to power via democracy', 3rd Reich = tyranny, roger; or just others, which were voted in a democracy to power and started a tyranny, which ones, btw.? Alright, there are a few, but then also look up what for example i wrote in my recent post about the matter (timeline of democracies aka modern democracies).

    I don't understand it, this claim: "democracy is the easiest path to tyranny", while you say or said, if i understood right, it is obvious, or just no claim, i say it's a claim.

    You mean, that the way to tyranny via democratic votes (aka democracy) is easier (to what?, asked Astaroth) or easiest (again, to what?, asked Astaroth).

    So now, in your post above you explained (tried) the thoughts behind it:

    Just that the way to tyranny via a violent revolution, or i would say to the options belongs also military coups (in german: Militär-Putsch), is much harder than via the democratic institutions, so by this logic
    "democracy is the easiest path to tyranny" would become a valid statement.

    First of all, that's a claim. An interesting claim, i would say. We would need to investigate it.

    Second, still valid, we can only speak of "democracy becoming an autocracy", nothing else, so the point of the claim in principle is already mute, let's say by logic of language or by logic of choice of possible stateforms.
    To add again: If we have an autocracy, it cannot longer be a democracy, by simple word-definition. Vice versa as well.

    Now to the prominent example...for "democracy is easiest way to becoming an autocracy".

    Do you know, when Hitler started his political career, and under which circumstances he gained political power, and when that was superior?

    Start political career: That was 1919 (right after WWI), he becomes member of the DAP, a little (meaningless) right-winger worker-party.
    In this year, he also writes the first comments of getting-rid of the jews.
    So you see, he needed from 1919 to 1933, that makes 14 years.
    Alright, you say, at 1919, he was still a meaningless idiot, roger.
    1920, NSDAP foundation, former name DAP.
    1921, NSDAP, inner-democratic understanding of the party negated, instead the Führer-principle is valid (undemocratic!).
    1923, he tried a violent military coup in Bayern, for non-germans, Bavaria (not so democratic, or?).
    1923, he was imprisoned as for this, for him luckily only for 5 years (and sat there in jail only 13 months!).
    1923, the NSDAP is forbidden! due to its violent undemocratic goals.
    1924, he wrote "Mein Kampf".
    1925, re-foundation of the NSDAP.
    1927, he publicly promises, the NSDAP would try to gain power only via democratic institution (not anymore by violence).
    1930, support by diverse german industrials, driven by Thyssen, one of the most rich ones.
    ...up to this point 1930/31, the NSDAP has no political meaning in the parliament.
    1931, Thyssen, a superrich industrial becomes NSDAP member.
    1932, Hitler becomes german states-citizen (first now!).
    1932, the NSDAP first got a real political meaning in the parliament, 36-37 % votes. 2nd vote, the NSDAP even looses 4 % (note, voting participation ... 37 % doesn't mean 37 % of germans).
    1932, Hitler aka the NSDAP could become part of the government due to voting results. Hitler rejects, he wants total power, wants to becoming the ruler of the government.
    1933, industrials give millions to the NSDAP. For this, Hitler promises the destruction of the workers-movement (meant were the KPD, the SPD parties and any other socialist workers unions).

    the chaos of 1933 happened incl. the brand of the Reichstag (the parliament!), suddenly, the votes give nearly 44 % for the NSDAP, while the KPD even gets still above 12 % (although a forbidden party short before, and communists long persecuted), Hitler annulates these mandates.
    ... then what i wrote a few posts above (look up: Ermächtigungsgesetz) ...powered by force of the SA/SS's presence within the parliament, still legal by the democratic frame, in which Weimar existed at this point, because still gained by vote in the parliament, the only party which voted against it, was the SPD (social-democrats); Hitler practically sets off the democracy with this law; this step from a democratic or here free parliamental point of view, can be merely understood as illegal, from our view/understanding of democracy today, in every case, illegal ... stuff for debate, if legal/illegal).

    1933, July, the parliament and constitution is not anymore -> Hitler's (and the NSDAP's) power is superior, NSDAP is the only party = One-party-state in Germany, end of democracy -> autocracy.

    ... it is a long, and objective hard, way, and if you look at it, there are then 2 years, full of drastical events, which lead to the power of Hitler. Nonetheless, these two years wouldn't be possible without all the former career of Hitler, and of many others, without certain events (i would say, the history since WWI up to 1933) including the support of superrich industrials, and imo. also not without the insane character of the person in question, his crank 'driver' to power.

    So all in all, was that way of Hitler easy or easiest and can backup "democracy is the easiest path to tyranny"?


    IWP, and others, who share the same view, please back that up "democracy is the easiest path to tyranny", as for this claim, we actually need the comparative investigation, as this point imo. can't be debated only by logic/common knowledge/plausability/personal education (which i prefer to use as well, when i think or better hope, that level is okay), and short-descriptions of Hitler's power-gain, used by IWP.

    --

    Plus, "tyranny" ... if i understood some comments right, tyranny is possible within a democracy. That, by the OP's definition, or later comments by Astaroth, is not possible in a repr democracy, only perhaps in a direct democracy.

    What's tyranny by definition? Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    noun, plural tyrannies.
    1.
    arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
    Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.
    2.
    the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
    3.
    a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
    4.
    oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
    5.
    undue severity or harshness.
    6.
    a cruel or harsh act or proceeding; an arbitrary, oppressive, or tyrannical action.


    So, as you can see, by definition, even the "strangeled" or "expanded" usage of "tyranny of the mob in a direct democracy" doesn't really work here within a democracy, as long a state is a democracy.
    I think, it becomes clear, that autocracy or autocrat or here just tyranny or tyrant belongs never to democracy, but then only to autocracy.

    Why this? Because all of the possible brief definitions are properties, which are contrary to a democracy/democratic structure, even if possibly certain actions and events within a democracy seem to have a tyrannical character to certain people within a democracy, ie. feel opressed by the state or certain laws/actions aka executive power.
    That's it by definitions, there is democracy (democratic ruler or group of) or autocracy (tyrannic ruler or group of, mostly ...maybe there are a few exceptions).

    The reality indeed shows that certain power groups exploit their power within democracies, but can we really call that tyranny or even the end of democracy and start of autocracy or start of tyranny or tyranny?
    At least not by definition. Again, tyranny is contrary to democracy. By logic of language and definition, if a democracy becomes a tyranny or is a tyranny, or is ruled by a tyrant, then it is an autocracy.

    Further, still speaking here about contemporary reality, means nowadays: Can a politician usually exploit its power in a democracy, unfiltered? No. Can other groups exploit their power in a democracy, aka non-politicians? Yes. Also unfiltered? Merely, no, at least not anymore today (also valid for eventual exploiting politicians). Are those who exploit their power within a democracy, tyrants? I would say, no, as long they act in a democracy, they are democratic rulers (politicians) or members of power groups (lobbyists, etc., you know it), which might use harsh or even clearly undemocratic tools etc. to gain their goals, but by definition, that's hardly tyranny or that these people can be called tyrants, because how i understand 'tyrant' in this whole matter, those persons must be politicians aka public actic people on a political platform, with an according position. We have though other fitting terms for non-political power groups which exploit power in democracies (and of course in non-democracies), i personally at least never heard about them as 'tyrants' (although i really actually don't like them). My point here is also, that people (here in this thread) use to easy the term tyrant or tyranny.
    Last edited by DaVinci; September 19, 2014 at 09:19 PM.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  8. #88
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    You mean, that the way to tyranny via democratic votes (aka democracy) is easier (to what?, asked Astaroth) or easiest (again, to what?, asked Astaroth).
    You may as well ask the opposite questions. If democracy prevents tyranny, then what enables it? Astaroth has talked about inherent weaknesses in systems of government, like an imbalance of power between a legislature and an executive, or a weak judiciary, but those are just features of a certain type of democracy. They may not be the idealised type that Astaroth is lionising as the bullwark against tyranny, but they are certainly possible and in some cases desirable: the French 4th Republic was reformed in order to move power away from the Assemblée Nationale and bestow more of it on the President.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  9. #89
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,360

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Jom View Post
    You may as well ask the opposite questions. If democracy prevents tyranny, then what enables it? Astaroth has talked about inherent weaknesses in systems of government, like an imbalance of power between a legislature and an executive, or a weak judiciary, but those are just features of a certain type of democracy. They may not be the idealised type that Astaroth is lionising as the bullwark against tyranny, but they are certainly possible and in some cases desirable: the French 4th Republic was reformed in order to move power away from the Assemblée Nationale and bestow more of it on the President.
    Sure - while if or what is desirable is still always a question, stuff for controversial debates, imo. rather it needs real historical science. Can we really make firm valid statements when viewing/analysing history and then even related to a common statement about democracy and its purpose or goal or benefit whatsoever, or vice versa? There is always a high degree of speculation, if not 100 % speculation, when it contains a what-if, notmy cup of coffee. The value is imo. low. What we can do is analysing and commenting on history, its real or rather investigated events, when we know them in a pretty high degree. This has less to nothing to do with a theoretical common statement about democracy, in the first place, at least, in the second place, one would have to analyse our whole history according to the development of democracy, and all it's ongoing things until today, feasable here? No.

    I know about the complexity, thus i overall jumped into the thread, the trial to assist here and there with some deeper views or let's say additive points for a theoretical discussion, which, imo. never really was meant by Astaroth to analyse also the history of democracy or history of non-democracy (along the OP, imo. merely impossible). Still, it seems, i'm one of, or the only commenter here in this thread, who understands overall, what Astaroth tries to transport. I personally don't understand all the fuzz here, ie. the personal attacks, but then i remember that i'm within TWC ( where i myself as well can get some rage about certain posts thus i usually don't like to discuss here overall, in the DD).

    The point from which you quoted is to understand in the context of my post.

    It's simply the claim "democracy is the easiest path to tyranny", which i, like Astaroth, don't understand or which cannot be accepted by ease of reading or logic. I just contained the lack of logic in it where IWP simply makes the claim, and Astaroth asked after the comparison about "easiest". IWP then makes it first later clear what he means with "easiest", and above, i try to show, that also this is still a claim which needs, when claimed that stark here, brief backup(s). If you read my whole post, then you might see, that i tried to comment about the whole complexity of these certain points (democracy, autocracy, tyranny), still in a simple common theoretical way using definitions and/or logic of language incl. imo. common knowledge plus some relations to reality, plus that i imo. debunked the assumption of Hitler becoming easily to power via democracy with Hitler's political career-vita dates and my comments, just one historical example. Thus one must ask, after IWP uses that promintent historical example for his claim, for more examples and this in a comparitive way, as brief backup of this certain claim. I then also tried to negate the easy use of terms like tyranny or tyrants in all that relation, unlike to perhaps the usage by populists of those terms.
    Last edited by DaVinci; September 19, 2014 at 08:41 PM.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  10. #90

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    I imagine that the primary downfall of dictatorships is that true autocrats are relatively rare, so that all too often absolute power ends up in the hands of weak individuals with neither the capability nor the inclination to wield it, so that the government devolves into an oligarchy which nobody ever wants. On the other hand, I don't think that any form of government inherently provides a safeguard against tyranny, as long as a would-be tyrant is able to convince others that he knows what's best for them no institutional safeguard is going to prevent such an individual from accumulating power.

    I suppose then that the best form of government is the one that functions best in the absence of strong leadership, and democracy has an advantage here because it at least encourages people to think about the issues and participate in public discourse. Sure the masses might be easily swayed by emotional demagoguery, but any people who hold the keys to powers can be similarly manipulated. After all, Hitler failed to win a clear mandate from the public even after applying the most extreme of strongarm tactics and had to rely on back room political machinations to gain power.

  11. #91

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOff View Post
    I suppose then that the best form of government is the one that functions best in the absence of strong leadership, and democracy has an advantage here because it at least encourages people to think about the issues and participate in public discourse. Sure the masses might be easily swayed by emotional demagoguery, but any people who hold the keys to powers can be similarly manipulated. After all, Hitler failed to win a clear mandate from the public even after applying the most extreme of strongarm tactics and had to rely on back room political machinations to gain power.
    The best form of government is a friggin' salad bar. Take the good parts of democracy, the good parts of republics, the good parts of whatever, and leave the bad parts behind.

    Now take your debate from there. And yes. I left a lot of forms of government unnamed for a reason. Feel free to name them on your own. If you have the balls.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  12. #92
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    The best form of government is a friggin' salad bar. Take the good parts of democracy, the good parts of republics, the good parts of whatever, and leave the bad parts behind.

    Now take your debate from there. And yes. I left a lot of forms of government unnamed for a reason. Feel free to name them on your own. If you have the balls.
    "The good parts of republics"? Do you realise how vague that is and that there are at least three types of republic: presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary? Which parts do you want us to take exactly? A directly elected president holding executive power? Or perhaps a prime minister accountable to the legislature? Both?

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  13. #93

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Republic in the (modern) American sense of the word (as opposed to the ancient Greek meaning) basically just means representative democracy with a Constitution. In other words, every Western liberal representative democracy is a republic.

    That's why the American emphasis that "we are a republic, not a democracy" is so meaningless. Newsflash: every republic nowadays (including the US) is a democracy, a representative one. Misguided American exceptionalism ftw.
    Curious Curialist curing the Curia of all things Curial.

  14. #94
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Astaroth View Post
    Republic in the (modern) American sense of the word (as opposed to the ancient Greek meaning) basically just means representative democracy with a Constitution. In other words, every Western liberal representative democracy is a republic.

    That's why the American emphasis that "we are a republic, not a democracy" is so meaningless. Newsflash: every republic nowadays (including the US) is a democracy, a representative one. Misguided American exceptionalism ftw.
    My point is that there are different "good parts" to take. Every Western liberal representative democracy may be a republic, but they have different and distinct features, some of which are incompatible, like the role of the French President versus that of the German one.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  15. #95

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Jom View Post
    "The good parts of republics"? Do you realise how vague that is and that there are at least three types of republic: presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary? Which parts do you want us to take exactly? A directly elected president holding executive power? Or perhaps a prime minister accountable to the legislature? Both?
    I did that on purpose. Or didn't you notice that.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  16. #96

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Astaroth View Post
    Republic in the (modern) American sense of the word (as opposed to the ancient Greek meaning) basically just means representative democracy with a Constitution. In other words, every Western liberal representative democracy is a republic.

    That's why the American emphasis that "we are a republic, not a democracy" is so meaningless. Newsflash: every republic nowadays (including the US) is a democracy, a representative one. Misguided American exceptionalism ftw.
    That doesn't really fit your point. The whole meaning and origin of that quote was to justify the supremacy of the rule of law over mob rule which was the Federalists whole platform. Then modern pundits pick it up and try to twist it to whatever other meaning they desire. If anything, that saying actually backs your position.
    Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri

  17. #97
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    I did that on purpose. Or didn't you notice that.
    Feel like answering my questions, then?

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  18. #98

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Jom View Post
    Feel like answering my questions, then?
    Nah, I'll let you take the parts you want and go from there since Astaroth has failed so utterly miserably. I just said I think the best government is a salad bar result taking the good working pieces from all sorts of concepts up to and including even communism and leaving the bad parts behind. I'm just here to spark off the next part with a thought concept, not an actual "WHAT ABOUT THIS GOVERNMENT". If you want to throw out an actual governmental concept from my brain-thought, be my guest.
    Last edited by Gaidin; September 20, 2014 at 02:24 PM.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  19. #99

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    Nah, I'll let you take the parts you want and go from there since Astaroth has failed so utterly miserably.
    This is at least the third time you've made a ridiculous claim without a shred of evidence. Prove it.

    You're making stuff up as you go.

    And really, "taking the best parts of every system of govt", that's the best you can come up with?

    Sometimes it helps to do your research before posting -- newsflash: most systems of govt are mutually exclusive, duh. You can't have an "efficient" autocrat and still be democratic. You cannot have a ruler not bound by "unnecessary bureaucracy" yet still guarantee individual rights according to the substantive rule of law. You can't have a 100% (directly) democratic state yet still have a Constitution that puts a check on what 50%+X of the people can do.

    A system of govt is always a compromise, there are always trade offs.

    I am saying that rep lib democracy is the best model out there.

    You are saying that the best model out there... is the best model out there. Lol, nice circular argument there bro.
    Curious Curialist curing the Curia of all things Curial.

  20. #100

    Default Re: The main purpose/benefit/advantage of (representative) democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Astaroth View Post
    This is at least the third time you've made a ridiculous claim without a shred of evidence. Prove it.
    Proof. Be sure to read posts other than your own so you're not stroking your own ego here. Sorry for not feeling the need or urge to repeat the first forty to sixty posts ad nauseum when they're already there.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •