Political Theories

Havelock

Face it, Democracy, Captalism, Marxism and all other political theories do not work. There is only one choice, a complete and utter universal benign dictator. Now I know there has been some discussion of estabishing a on-line party. You all jumped the gun a bit (not a pun) by electing yourselfs to certain posistions, as i did ok any of these appointments, these will need to be re-examined and in some cases de-creation of certain ideas, adn peoples may be needed. Be good children and support your leader.

swiss

Deleted the double post. If you want to edit your original post, may I suggest you use the 'edit' link at the bottom right of the post in question.

For a start, saying that political philosophies do not work is being far too glib. Some of them work - given certain criteria and assumptions that do not always turn out to be reliable or accurate. For example Democracy is based on the fundamental belief that people know what's best for themselves, an assumption which has frequently been proved wrong under certain circumstances. Capitalism appeals to human greed, which leads to riches at the expense of the prolitariat. (However, both philosophies have their exclusive merits, such as (in the case of capitalism) the reward and esteem placed upon enterprise, needed for a successful industrial and services industry.)

These are all failings of a rigid interpretation of a particular political doctrine. However, a dictatorship also has it's own flaws. How does one ensure that a dictatorship is benign? Let's assume for a moment I was a (benign obviously ) dictator. Even though others may not trust me - *I* trust me implicitly. However, implicit trust is not a defence against human infallibility. One wrong decision can lead to distrust, even open hostility. More than freedom itself, people want to feel that they have some say in their own destiny. Even if this is an illusion, people will fight and die for this perceived right.

So while, on the surface the idea of a benevolent dictatorship would seem to sort out many of the problems inherent to class based administration structures, fundamental human nature dictates that not only does absolute power corrupt absolutely, but also that there will always be someone ready to provide an alternative to your rule.

sceptre

Originally posted by Havelock
There is only one choice, a complete and utter universal benign dictator.

When you find the perfect candidate that we all can (and will) trust let me know. Anyone who proposes themself probably makes themself ineligible.

bonkey

Originally posted by sceptre
When you find the perfect candidate that we all can (and will) trust let me know. Anyone who proposes themself probably makes themself ineligible.

Ideally, the successful candidate should also be immortal, unless a pool of such trustworthy candidates can be identified.

After all, no point implementing the "perfect system" only to have it fall apart once the first benign dictator snuffs it.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Havelock
You all jumped the gun a bit (not a pun) by electing yourselfs to certain posistions

I was a bit shocked when this happened. Still, nothing a good purge won't sort out. A period of political cleansing is in order.

Sand

Can their be gulags for dangerous independant thinking types who try to reform the system or bring about change? Somewhere like connemara or leitrim would be ideal.

Havelock

Swiss, Did you not read 1984?

Due to work commitments i have been unable to comment here the last week or so, but to rebutt, I suggest myself, nano-technology will lead to immortality, purges is so un-PC (selective populace reform, is new term). Actaully aside from the above, is anyone interested in joining with me to examine the potential of benign Dictatorship (and its pros and cons) on a more serious level, if so please do not hesistate to contact me.

Your Benevolent Leader

Éomer of Rohan

I think the signature picture of who I think is Lord Vetinari to be very ironic given that said Lord did not actually run the city of Ankh Morpork as a dictator - he ran it as a direct democracy but with the illusion of power - people did their own thing and during the course of his power, he stepped down, was arrested (twice) and acted basically as a one man civil service with a cynical and sarcastic wit - something we are never likely to have in this country anyway. An excellent record of Vetinari has to be the perception of his relationship with the Wizards (this is not verbatim but near enough) "In theory Lord Vetinari, as ruler of the city had the power of to summon Mustrum Ridcully to his presence and to have him executed if he did not obey but similarly Mustrum Ridcully could in theory turn the man into a toad and start hopping around the room on a big pogo stick" or another one that I liked, vis a vis the Guilds is summed up "They promise to do anything we ask so long as we promise not to ask them to do anything."

Yes I do indeed read far too many Terry Pratchett novels.

I do in principal agree with that Havelock said though - rigid systems do not work, and, over the last several years I know that I disagree with Marxism on several points - like the need for a Marxist 'revolutionary vanguard' for a start but to avoid semantics, my ideal is a Marxist-principled direct democracy given that such a democracy would prove malleable, not being built on just a larger autocracy than previous governments and not being a plutocracy (cf modern democracy).

Havelock

It's a sig, a nice sig but still only a sig. Let it not distract from discussion (thought I liked your summary).
Does it not seem to you that all the problems with most governments steem from their democratic nature, it is waste, its like how monopolies in Economics are more effective as they have no waste throught competition If there is only one leader, no elections to campaign and please everyone for, no summer holidays for the governments head and no inter-ministerial bickerings the government would be more able to deal swiftly with any problems, remain focused on the core problems without being derailed to deal with election time "hot" issues etc. Also the single mindness of the government would become national spirit and the nation could be spurred onto great goals at the highest efficenty.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I do in principal agree with that Havelock said though - rigid systems do not work, and, over the last several years I know that I disagree with Marxism on several points - like the need for a Marxist 'revolutionary vanguard' for a start but to avoid semantics, my ideal is a Marxist-principled direct democracy given that such a democracy would prove malleable, not being built on just a larger autocracy than previous governments and not being a plutocracy (cf modern democracy).

In this scenario, would there be mechanisms built in to ensure continued Marxist principles? Would the people have the power to switch to capatilism or mixed economies?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Havelock
Does it not seem to you that all the problems with most governments steem from their democratic nature, it is waste, its like how monopolies in Economics are more effective as they have no waste throught competition If there is only one leader, no elections to campaign and please everyone for, no summer holidays for the governments head and no inter-ministerial bickerings the government would be more able to deal swiftly with any problems, remain focused on the core problems without being derailed to deal with election time "hot" issues etc. Also the single mindness of the government would become national spirit and the nation could be spurred onto great goals at the highest efficenty.

I was going to comment here but then I realised that under the new benign dictatorship, my views won't count.

The only question remaining is the practical issue of how to take power. After that further discussion is irrelevant.

Care to share the answer with us?

Éomer of Rohan

In this scenario, would there be mechanisms built in to ensure continued Marxist principles? Would the people have the power to switch to capatilism or mixed economies?

If most of the people don't believe in Marxism in the first place, then a Marxist government is not going to form but once a Marxist government IS formed, there would be no need for capitalism and so the idea, like that of Feudalism, would die out. People would not consider returning to it.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
If most of the people don't believe in Marxism in the first place, then a Marxist government is not going to form but once a Marxist government IS formed, there would be no need for capitalism and so the idea, like that of Feudalism, would die out. People would not consider returning to it.

But would the mechanism be there to revert, either partially or totally? That is the question I was asking.

Sand

Does it not seem to you that all the problems with most governments steem from their democratic nature, it is waste, its like how monopolies in Economics are more effective as they have no waste throught competition

Monopolies are wasteful and inefficient as a rule, with natural monopolies being an exception which even still require intense scrutiny to ensure consumers/the public arent being exploited.

If there is only one leader, no elections to campaign and please everyone for, no summer holidays for the governments head and no inter-ministerial bickerings the government would be more able to deal swiftly with any problems, remain focused on the core problems without being derailed to deal with election time "hot" issues etc. Also the single mindness of the government would become national spirit and the nation could be spurred onto great goals at the highest efficenty.

Id agree if I was that leader. However dictatorships do not allow for compromise, consultation or a joint decision. If people do not feel they hold even a nominal control over the decision making process then their resentment against the government and the impact its decisions have on their lives will be even more intense. The rationale for paying tax breaks down as well. The inefficiencies and bickering you describe would still exist in the civil service or bureacracy that would have to exist to carry out the leaderships will and attempt to curry favour from the leadership.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
If most of the people don't believe in Marxism in the first place, then a Marxist government is not going to form but once a Marxist government IS formed, there would be no need for capitalism and so the idea, like that of Feudalism, would die out. People would not consider returning to it.

Let me re-phrase that gently.

As most of the people don't believe in marxism...{snip} IF people were to be persuaded that it might be a good idea, they would have to have lost all their basic selfish ideals*1.
In that case capitalism would have nothing to thrive on and would be consigned mostly to text books.
mm
*1. : Thats about as likely as me , winning last nights lotto, I didn't buy a ticket btw, and there was no winner...

DadaKopf

Eomar of Rohan said:
I disagree with Marxism on several points - like the need for a Marxist 'revolutionary vanguard' for a start but to avoid semantics, my ideal is a Marxist-principled direct democracy given that such a democracy would prove malleable, not being built on just a larger autocracy than previous governments and not being a plutocracy (cf modern democracy).

Um, isn't the idea of a revolutionary vanguard a modification by Lenin and his mates? Marx always held out for the true revolution which would always be a genuine uprising once class consciousness reached a critical mass. Isn't Marxism a form of direct democracy in the first place? Government and politics in all forms gave way to self-regulation, all public affairs are governed collectively and consensus is the principle of all public decisions; of course, as you say 'Marxist-principled' since direct democracy doesn't preclude plutocracy.

Then there's the economic stuff which I know nothing about and is most likely the weak link in the chain.

That's the theory. It's a nice theory. One which I think most people come around to accept as having a few good points, once you help them see through their prejudices. Those prejudices are mostly the result of the spectacular failures of most 'communist' states but also because of where we're living, being influenced so much by American and British liberalism and all.

Considering this thread is all about political theory, it might be swell of me to mention the bestest thing every that Marxism did give the world. Marxist theorists begin examining the relationship between theory and practise - in short, good theory relies on sound analytic practise and good practise relies on sound theory. This is a virtuous circle - when both sides of the equation are balanced, things work better; when something doesn't work, it simply invites people to go back to examine both the theory and the practise to see where the breakdown is occurring. Unfortunately, Marxism in the USSR became a conservative orthodoxy (just like neo-liberalism [which meshes ultra-conservative Keynesian economics and radical libertarian politics by the likes of Hayek and Nozick]) and scorned any genuine attempts to revise the system so it would work better. One of the greatest dudes who tried to do this was Georgy Lucácks who was forced to flee Russia 'cos he was too damn cool. This tradition/approach within Marxism is actually a great advantage over other theories like liberalism or utilitarianism - in a world where we're not encouraged to question theory but just look at the pragmatic side of things, we're leading each other into a chasm blindfolded.

Yeah, anyway, that's my bit.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Man
Let me re-phrase that gently.

As most of the people don't believe in marxism...{snip} IF people were to be persuaded that it might be a good idea, they would have to have lost all their basic selfish ideals*1.
In that case capitalism would have nothing to thrive on and would be consigned mostly to text books.
mm
*1. : Thats about as likely as me , winning last nights lotto, I didn't buy a ticket btw, and there was no winner...

Yeah, man, you're really goin' on about societal values. You'd be surprised how unselfish people can be. People in the Scandinavian countries are soo damn committed to wealth redistribution and welfare that they don't really mind paying 58%('ish) income tax and high taxes on goods and services so long as they know it's being used to better society. The positive benefits are obvious: everything works, the buses and trains run on time (and not a fascist in sight), their educational systems are top notch, they're so socially responsible to each other that government corruption is unheard of (with the slight exception of Norway where there's US involvement because of oil - go figure) and, most strikingly of all, there are no skangers. In largely capitalist societies, there's an obscene level of social responsibility where freedom isn't perceived as being unbound from the state so you can do whatever you want when you want, it's perceived as being mutually bound by laws which they know makes them all roughly equal in terms of basic provisions to be a socially mobile, fully functioning human being with the potential to better yourself. They don't mind paying high taxes because it's all for the common good.

So many people in Ireland are wedded to this notion of the selfish nature of 'human instinct'. Look what that attitude's doing to our society. Human nature is also strongly cooperative - where the hell else did the 'division of labour' come from if we were all totally selfish and individualistic?

I don't remember Marxism implying that we would have to shed all our basic personal desires - in fact it lauds them. In Marxland, you can be whatever you truly want to be so long as you give something back to society. What humans do have to shed is lust for power.

Marxism is based on a view relating to the value of work. It's much better, and nicer feeling, to work on something yourself that's valuable to you and the community rather than to work in a mindless job that strips you of all sponteneity and potential. I think everyone can relate to this - how many people work in an office and say on a regular basis that the job's killing them? They don't see the point of it except for getting money. Doctors and artists on the other hand....

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It's much better, and nicer feeling, to work on something yourself that's valuable to you and the community rather than to work in a mindless job that strips you of all sponteneity and potential. I think everyone can relate to this - how many people work in an office and say on a regular basis that the job's killing them? They don't see the point of it except for getting money. Doctors and artists on the other hand....

Sure...but what about at the opposite end of the spectrum? Who actually wants to do many of the less "prestigeous" jobs? Very few, I would wager, and yet the need for them would still exist in a Marxist framework.

Similarly, what about those who want to do something, but that something is so popular that society has no need for everyone to do it. Should we allocate on an ability-basis or on have some sort of "equitable" sharing mathod. The former is leading back towards some form of elitism, but is probably necessary in certain fields (e.g. medicine).

Obviously its a question of balance, but the problem with all these idealistic systems is that there will always be a degree of denial (you cant do X, even though you want to), and a degree of imposition (you must do Y, even though you dont want to). Once you have these, how do you prevent an elitist or classist mindset from emerging once again???

Ultimately, the answer seems to be that the sucess of such a system would ultimately require a significant change of mindset of the population - and yet it would appear to be the underlying mindset which brings out the problems in current systems around the world. Surely, therefore, requiring a change of mindset as a precondition for a "better" system is only valid if said system can be shown to be better than the current system with the same mindset change, rather than being shown to be better than the current system and the current mindset.

The same logic applies to the concept of a benevolent dictator. No matter how benevolent, it would require a mindset change of the populace to accept that such a leader would be benevolent, and that when a decision was made that impacted negatively upon an individual that he or she would accept it as the best thing for society as a whole. It would also require that the benevolent dictator himself or herself be genuinely benevolent.

jc

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Yeah, man, you're really goin' on about societal values. You'd be surprised how unselfish people can be. People in the Scandinavian countries are soo damn committed to wealth redistribution and welfare that they don't really mind paying 58%('ish) income tax and high taxes on goods and services so long as they know it's being used to better society.

We had rates higher than that here as you know in the eighties most of it going to pay the interest on the national debt, caused in part by the selfishness of the electorate who voted for Jack Lynches famous manifesto and by the lack of political will by opposition parties to do anything about it , masked by their desire to keep Haughey out.
By now it's evident that in our case anyhow, the lower the tax rate the higher the take from it as it promotes endeavour, initiative and lessens the size of the black economy.
It also encourages people to stay in the country, rather than emmigrate in their droves.
Perhaps, the Swedes are more effecient than us,it's not hard.
mm

SkepticOne

All this talk of left and right, socialism and capitalism will not be necessary under a benign dictatorship. Stop it now! The correct ideology will be chosen by the benign dictator. The benign dictator will know what is best because he is benign. He can choose from a wide array of experts to guide him in implementing his benign policies, indeed, his very benignness forces him to do this, for ignoring the advice of the best minds shows disregard for the welfare of his people. Therefore a benign dictator is a wise dictator. Stands to reason.

One issue he or she will have to deal with is the issue of discontents. There will always be people who don't go along with the programmes implemented by the benign dictator. There will even be those who claim that the dictator is not benign! This is despite the fact that what is being proposed is specifically a benign dictatorship. These people are therefore wrong. They would only be right if what was being proposed is a malevolent dictatorship which is not what is being proposed.

This is simple logic.

Reeducation camps are the obvious answer where people can be gently persuaded of their error. More extreme measures should only be necessary in rare cases. Of course, I'm just speculating. It would all be down to the benign dictator.

DadaKopf

Who decides what is benign in the first place? When (not if) the leader becomes malignant, what then? And what is the scope of the leader's power? What/who even gives him the right to be leader in the first place?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Who decides what is benign in the first place? When (not if) the leader becomes malignant, what then? And what is the scope of the leader's power? What/who even gives him the right to be leader in the first place?

The scope would be universal ("complete and utter universal benign dictator").

DadaKopf

Thanks for not answering the other questions. THanks for musunderstanding the one you answered.

What would be the scope in which this 'benign dicator' would be able to control society, and individuals' lives?

I still want you to answer the other questions.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by DadaKopf
What would be the scope in which this 'benign dicator' would be able to control society, and individuals' lives?

I still want you to answer the other questions.

I did understand your question.

The topic of the thread is absurd since dictatorships are intrinsically evil. However, although the topic is not entirely serious, my understanding of Havelock's proposal is that the scope would be universal, i.e., there would be no limits placed on the authority of the dictator. I'll let Havelock answer the other questions.

Although I don't take it seriosly, it's interesting to explore the idea and bring it to a logical conclusion. Even if you assume there can be such a thing as a benign dictator, in practice you get the same as any dictatorship.

DadaKopf

That's better .

But I was really just responding to what I assumed was your thought experiment.

SkepticOne

Right, to answer these questions. A dictator can't be chosen by the people. What if the people get it wrong and choose someone who is not benign. You would then have to suffer the consequences of this choice for the remainder of the dictator's life. This is too much to ask of a people. To lessen the burden you would need to introduce something like "limited duration dictatorships", where the dictator gets elected for a specific period of time. You could also limit the authority of the dictator to lessen the impact should the wrong choice be made. This, however, smacks of democracy which does not work.

A truly benign dictator, knowing that he can't be chosen, must sieze power using whatever methods are necessary. The benign dictator must have unlimited authority although may voluntarily choose not to exercise that authority in certain areas.

Havelock

I would have to obviously take authority, as the current powers that be would not let a dictatoship political theory deveolp. They fear its competence and potential. Why would you say all dictatorships are evil?

SkepticOne

All dictatorships are intrinsically evil because there is no freedom under a dictator.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
All dictatorships are intrinsically evil because there is no freedom under a dictator.

Not true.

Under a dictator, there is no "complete freedom", but rather only the freedoms that the dictator is willing to allow you to have.

This is no different to any other governmental system - none of which offer complete freedom either.

So, if a dictatorship is intrinsically evil because it doesn't offer complete freedom, then so is every other form of government.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Not true.

Under a dictator, there is no "complete freedom", but rather only the freedoms that the dictator is willing to allow you to have.

Wrong. This is merely the appearance of freedom. The ability of a dictator to, say, lock you up or have you shot, even if he chooses not to do so today, means you have no freedom.

Sparks

Wrong. This is merely the appearance of freedom. The ability of a dictator to, say, lock you up or have you shot, even if he chooses not to do so today, means you have no freedom.

*points to the US, which isn't a dictatorship*
*points to the patriot acts, guantanamo bay and the "disappearing" of various muslims after 9/11 and their incarceration without trial or charge*

Now either:
1) The US is in fact a dictatorship (or as bad as one)
or
2) The "freedoms" you refer to can be overridden by all forms of government, not just dictatorship and thus you need another criterion to determine whether or not dictatorship is inherently evil.

I'd recommend you look more at what limitations a government puts on itself rather than the freedoms it awards it's citizens.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
*points to the US, which isn't a dictatorship*
*points to the patriot acts, guantanamo bay and the "disappearing" of various muslims after 9/11 and their incarceration without trial or charge*

Now either:
1) The US is in fact a dictatorship (or as bad as one)
or
2) The "freedoms" you refer to can be overridden by all forms of government, not just dictatorship and thus you need another criterion to determine whether or not dictatorship is inherently evil.

No. I said that dictatorships were intrinsically evil. You are simply arguing that limiting of freedom is possible in non-dictatorships. This is not intrinsic to democracies. In fact, to be called a democracy, certain freedoms are necessary.

I'd recommend you look more at what limitations a government puts on itself rather than the freedoms it awards it's citizens.

Lets get the first bit straight about the intrisic evil of dictatorships. Do you agree with this? It has nothing to do with the US.

Sparks

No. I said that dictatorships were intrinsically evil. You are simply arguing that evil is possible in non-dictatorships.

Perhaps you could re-read the second alternative I pointed out?

Lets get the first bit straight about the intrisic evil of dictatorships. Do you agree with this? It has nothing to do with the US.

No, I don't agree with it, for the following reason:
A dictatorship is the rule over a state by one individual. In order for that form of government to be inherently evil, you must state that all humans are inherently evil.
Remember, not all dictatorships are like those of Pinochet and Hitler - recall that the person who invented democracy was in fact a dictator (though the actual word was tyrant at the time).

However, I will argue that dictatorship is the form of government that is most open to abuse, because only one person need be corrupted. Representative democracy was a big step forward from this because it meant that you had to corrupt hundreds of people to assure your agenda was followed. Today, sadly, our society has progressed to the point where corruption of a few hundred people is easily achieved - so personally, I think it's time we moved on to direct democracy, because you would have to corrupt a majority of the society to achieve your agenda - which is beyond even Bill Gates' financial abilities for the moment...

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Perhaps you could re-read the second alternative I pointed out?

OK here it is: 'The "freedoms" you refer to can be overridden by all forms of government, not just dictatorship and thus you need another criterion to determine whether or not dictatorship is inherently evil.'

Except to be called a democracy, the freedom to vote (either directly in referenda or for a representative) must be present. Now, you may argue that people in prison don't get to vote etc. What this means is that, to this extent the are not true democracies. Case in point would be South Africa under apartheid. This was evil insofar as peoples freedom could be encroached upon without their consent.

No, I don't agree with it, for the following reason:
A dictatorship is the rule over a state by one individual.In order for that form of government to be inherently evil, you must state that all humans are inherently evil.
Remember, not all dictatorships are like those of Pinochet and Hitler - recall that the person who invented democracy was in fact a dictator (though the actual word was tyrant at the time).

The point I'm making is independent of the good or evil of the dictator himself. I'm saying that the very nature of dictatorship is evil since there is no freedom.

However, I will argue that dictatorship is the form of government that is most open to abuse

I agree and there are a load of other practical issues arising from lack of accountability.

Sparks

The point I'm making is independent of the good or evil of the dictator himself. I'm saying that the very nature of dictatorship is evil since there is no freedom.

Not necessarily. Take McMurdo for example - it's a military/civilian scientific base run by the highest ranked officer. Technically, it qualifies as a dictatorship. But that doesn't mean it's inherently evil.

What it boils down to is that you judge a government on the basis of what it has done if you want to say it's "evil". And that means you can't state that a government is inherently "evil".

And that's quite apart from the fact that "evil" is a highly subjective term. For example, we don't see homosexuality or atheism or polygamy as "evil" today, but a hundred years ago, we'd kill people for those acts or beliefs.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Not necessarily. Take McMurdo for example - it's a military/civilian scientific base run by the highest ranked officer. Technically, it qualifies as a dictatorship. But that doesn't mean it's inherently evil.

Two points: you volunteer to work there, or you volunteer for the military and get sent there. Secondly, the commander does not have unlimited powers. He can't shoot people without consequences. There may be limited freedom, but it is not the case that there is no freedom. In that sense it is no different to any organisation.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
And that's quite apart from the fact that "evil" is a highly subjective term. For example, we don't see homosexuality or atheism or polygamy as "evil" today, but a hundred years ago, we'd kill people for those acts or beliefs.

Indeed, and dictatorships or tyrants were once unquestioned.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
The ability of a dictator to, say, lock you up or have you shot, even if he chooses not to do so today, means you have no freedom.

Replace "dictator" with "democratically elected government" and that statement is still as accurate as you make it out to be for dictators.

You have taken the tack that if a democracy does such things, then its not really a democracy. OK - its a fair point.

However, I defy you to show me a single "real" democracy (by that standard) anywhere in the world today - one which does not abuse what you see as the limits of a "real" democracy.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

You state as an example that democracy must guarantee the freedom of the right to vote - pick a nation where 100% of the population have voting rights and I'll believe you. Indeed, show me a nation where 100% of just the adult population have voting rights and I'll believe you. Otherwise, all you're saying is that its a freedom which is selectedly handed out.

By your standard, every functioning government - past and present - is intrinsically evil, as there has never been a government which granted real freedom. In every case it is "here are the freedoms we choose to allow you to have, until such times as we choose to take them off you".

I'll tell you what...name a single freedom that you have today which your democratic government cannot take off you. Just one. It may not be as easy or them as a dictator to do (as Sparks has already argued), but that doesn't mean that they cannot find a way to do it should they wish.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
You have taken the tack that if a democracy does such things, then its not really a democracy. OK - its a fair point.

However, I defy you to show me a single "real" democracy (by that standard) anywhere in the world today - one which does not abuse what you see as the limits of a "real" democracy.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

You state as an example that democracy must guarantee the freedom of the right to vote - pick a nation where 100% of the population have voting rights and I'll believe you. Indeed, show me a nation where 100% of just the adult population have voting rights and I'll believe you. Otherwise, all you're saying is that its a freedom which is selectedly handed out.

Yes, I'm sure we all agree that democracy is an ideal. It is never fully implemented in practice. Insofar as a political system falls short of this ideal, it contains some of the problems of dictatorship.

Potentially, in a representative democracy, an elected government could grant itself wide reaching powers. However, if they interfered with the right to vote significantly, or limited free political speech you would reach the point that it could not be reasonably called a democracy. It would be approaching a dictatorship.

While there is semblance of a democracy, there is a degree of accountability and the government can be influenced by the people. While this is the case, it is hard for them to impose draconian laws. This is why I don't think democracies are intrinsically evil.

In short, to be called a democracy (even by loose standards), the government cannot have absolute power. Absolute power means no freedom. This is slavery. I would regard this as intrinsically evil.

While it is a democracy (by ordinary standards), the government can't choose to an innocent person shot without breaking the same law as if I shot you.

Sparks

However, if they interfered with the right to vote significantly, or limited free political speech you would reach the point that it could not be reasonably called a democracy.

By which time, the semantics would be irrelevant.

While there is semblance of a democracy, there is a degree of accountability and the government can be influenced by the people. While this is the case, it is hard for them to impose draconian laws.

Incorrect.
*points to the patriot acts and Guantanamo Bay in the states and the amendment to the FOI act, the data retention act, last year's gardai actions at the RTS protest, the use of armed soldiers to guard shannon airport from legitimate protest, and the policy of internment without trial that was implemented in the 70s here.*

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
By which time, the semantics would be irrelevant.

No, the semantics would still be important. There are examples of supposed "democracies" that are abused to the extent that only the insane or the very foolish would call them such.

There will always be a judgement to be made as to whether a country is a democracy. However, some freedoms must be granted, for a normal person to consider a country a democracy. You can't have a democracy with no freedoms. A country that removes all freedoms ceases to be a democracy by any definition.

Dictatorships allow no freedom except the illusion of freedom and are therefore intrinsically evil in the sense that one person has total authority over others.

Can we agree that one person having total authority over others is intrinsically evil?

Even in an imperfect democracy (as all are), there are at least mechanisms to limit power, otherwise they could not reasonably be called such.

Sparks

No, the semantics would still be important.

Not to anyone who was a citizen of that state....

Can we agree that one person having total authority over others is intrinsically evil?

Doubt it. We could agree that it was inherently wrong to us, however.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Incorrect.
*points to the patriot acts and Guantanamo Bay in the states and the amendment to the FOI act, the data retention act, last year's gardai actions at the RTS protest, the use of armed soldiers to guard shannon airport from legitimate protest, and the policy of internment without trial that was implemented in the 70s here.*

There are various categories of things mentioned here. Only some of them are to do with the eroding of rights. Even so, they can not remove the fundamental rights of free political speech and the right to vote. As such, all these things can be reversed. Of course if the system is rigged that it can't be reversed, then we don't have a democracy. The word has a meaning and implies certain rights.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Not to anyone who was a citizen of that state....

I think the meaning of the word democracy would be particularly important to someone in a state where it is being eroded.

Doubt it. We could agree that it was inherently wrong to us, however.

Fine. Do you agree that one person having total power over another is wrong?

potlatch

Voting is an act of disenfranchisement. Voting is a transfer of power from the many to the few.

There is no such thing as freedom qua freedom. People experience impediments to their freedom on a daily basis. People are 'unfree' to the extent that they are prevented from doing as they wish. As it happens, one man's freedom is another man's unfreedom. Democracy, based on consensus, is about being mutually constrained to maximise everyone's basic freedoms and equalities.

The nature of modern republican democracy (what we have now) is fundamentally disempowering as it takes responsibility away from the community by extending bureaucracy and reducing participation.

I think everyone is agreed on what democracy is ideal. This isn't so much an issue. We need to examine the boundaries between public and private goods, the interaction of which are the arenas that ultimately give shape to the state and its provisions and protections.

It's absurd that we sit here talking about democracy yet the kind of democracy people envisage is one which is entirely selfish, one which conceives of freedom as the ability to do what you want without public interference. Everyone agrees private liberty should be defended at all costs (it's agreed in our UN Declaration on Human Rights); the extension of the private sphere to all aspects of life is seriously damaging. It undermines our ability to govern ourselves.

All we do nowadays is transfer our power to a bunch of people we decide can run the 'show' and we sit back and watch it on television and complain.

And people say Jamie Oliver is a substitute for cooking.

Sparks

There are various categories of things mentioned here. Only some of them are to do with the eroding of rights.

Actually, they all do. Can I save space and not give an itemised list of each act and the right or rights that it erodes or removes?

I think the meaning of the word democracy would be particularly important to someone in a state where it is being eroded.

Actually, I don't think it would be - "fixing" the situation would be of far more importance.

Fine. Do you agree that one person having total power over another is wrong?

Yes.
It's just that it's important to note that that's not accepted world-wide, and without having total power over other people, you can't make it be accepted world-wide...

Voting is an act of disenfranchisement. Voting is a transfer of power from the many to the few.

Except in the case of binding referendums. Of course we don't have those here ... :rolleyes:
But in general, yes. Hence my preference for direct democracy. And why I'd go live in Switzerland if I could speak swiss-german... and I didn't have to dodge bonkey all the time

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
There are various categories of things mentioned here. Only some of them are to do with the eroding of rights. Even so, they can not remove the fundamental rights of free political speech and the right to vote.

I defy you to find a single inmate of the Guantanamo Bay "facility", who still retrins the "fundamental" rights of free political speech and the right to vote.

You talk about the "illusion of freedom" under a dictator. No-one has seriously argued against that point. What I and others are arguing is that the freedoms enjoyed under democracy as it is implemented in the real world are equally as illusory.

No-one is questioning that a democracy is preferable to a dictatorship either. What is simply being said is that if a dictatorship is evil because of the real (as opposed to perceived) lack of freedom, then democratic nations are no freeer, and therefore must be as intrinsically evil by your standards.

I on the other hand are arguing that this is not the case : that because a democracy is not intrinsically evil, neither can a dictatorship be - at least not on the grounds of the reality of freedom.

Name a single freedom that you have that cannot be removed from you (as opposed to from society) by the government. Just one.

The most obvious example is the right to life. Of course, your government can hand you over to a foreign nation like the US through extradition, where you could easily be tried and executed....so even that isn't quite as sacrosanct as you might like to believe.

So honestly....just one inalienable freedom....

jc

potlatch

Take your "evil" talk over to the Christianity forum, Godboy.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by potlatch
Take your "evil" talk over to the Christianity forum, Godboy.

LOL. This forum is full of people expressing moral outrage. What is that about?

SkepticOne

I just want to summarise a line of argument briefly:

Me: Can we agree that one person having total authority over others is intrinsically evil?

Sparks: Doubt it. We could agree that it was inherently wrong to us, however.

Me: Fine. Do you agree that one person having total power over another is wrong?

Sparks:

Originally posted by Sparks
Yes.

In what sense is it wrong? I think from the context, we can agree that (among other things) it is morally wrong. We are morally offended by the idea of someone having total control over another. It is the same moral issue we have with slavery.

Yet this is inherent to the idea of dictatorship. At least democracy (even in its current forms) contains limits to the power of the government. For example the Irish system involves a written constitution that constrains government.

It's just that it's important to note that that's not accepted world-wide, and without having total power over other people, you can't make it be accepted world-wide...

Yes, the removal of dictators in other countries is a separate issue.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Name a single freedom that you have that cannot be removed from you (as opposed to from society) by the government. Just one.

The government cannot take away my right to vote unless I'm in prison. I'm not saying this is proper, but the government can't take away this right for arbitrary reasons.

The most obvious example is the right to life. Of course, your government can hand you over to a foreign nation like the US through extradition, where you could easily be tried and executed....so even that isn't quite as sacrosanct as you might like to believe.

I'm not sure of this. I seem to remember a case where extradition had been turned down on the basis that execution might occur. In any case, this would be the function of an independent judiciary, not the government.